How much cloning is acceptable...?

[b.p.]

I just finished an art show today, displaying landscape and
wildlife images. I was asked 5 times in 2 days by potential
customers if I 'digitally fixed-up' or 'computer-enhanced' my
shots, once they heard that they were captured digitally. The
public is becoming rapidly more suspicious of photographic art, and
equates 'digital' to cheating, lack of 'reality', etc. Most of the
same effects were possible in the darkroom, but the public has no
experience with the darkroom, and most do have experience with a
computer, and with viewing the ever-growing world of
computer-generated art and characters in movies, TV, and
advertising. I have a couple of shots in my portfolio that are
composites or have elements that have been cloned in or out. I now
label those as composites or 'digital art', and may remove them
entirely from my portfolio, because of the negative impression that
they generate for digital photography. I told the customers that I
do on the computer the same things that I did with darkroom
photography, mainly adjusting color balance, contrast, and
brightness, either globally or focally in the image.
I notice that a number of larger or more prestegious art shows
still refuse to accept digital photographs, and require
hand-printed, film-based, numbered prints. Time will tell if
digitally captured fine art prints will have a 'tainted'
reputation, or will be eventually accepted (perhaps with an
attached proof of the RAW image, to see that the scene is 'real'
;-) )
As an aside, a few booths away from mine, was another photographer
who shoots similar scenes with med. format Velvia film. The colors
were so unnaturally 'jacked up' that it was totally unreal, but I
suspect that the same customers who questioned me accepted these
garish colors as 'real' once he had verified that he shot film.
-David

 

[Z (is real)]

I'm very much in the Galen Rowell school on this so, in my opinion,
none is acceptable aside from removing dust and such.

This is discussed in a number of essays in Galen Rowell's two collections of writings about outdoor photography. His discussion of the topic is well worth reading. Fundamentally, his opinion comes down to artistic vision. Photgraphers must do vast amounts of implicit and explicit manipulation just to produce an image, especially an image that reflects what you see when you are actually there. So making rules based on which techniques are allowed and which are not is somewhat pointless. Rather it is a matter of telling the truth and maintaining one's vision.

Which gets to the image at hand. My interpretation of Galen Rowell's writing is that he probably would not do this manipulation because if the truth is that it is difficult or impossible to take a picture there without cars in the frame, it is a lie to present viewers with a pristine unspoiled view of the location. It is about a position on the environment more so than a matter of concern about whether the customer will be upset or not.

(One of his essays also presents ten pairs images shot in a part of the alps. Each pair uses the same caption and one shows a beautiful landscape while the other shows man-made phenomena (e.g. a backhoe ecavating something) shot from a very close location. The point being that merely by choosing framing, the landscape photographer edits reality.)

The books I am refering to are "Galen Rowell's Vision"
http://mountainlight.com/books/grsvision.html
and "Galen Rowell’s Inner Game of Outdoor Photography "
http://mountainlight.com/books/innergame.html

(I believe the topic of image manipulation is covered more in the second book, but I could be wrong.)

Andreas Gursky does sometimes remove minor distracting elements from images. Which given the extreme extent of the frames in many of them, is almost required. Of course his work is almost surreal anyway. He does not represent himself as a portrayer of nature as it is in reality.

In any event, I doubt the people purchasing the print would be upset with this manipulation. And personally, it does not bother me much, though I would prefer photography remained about taking and printing great pictures rather than spending hours painting over them after the fact...

-Z-

 

[Forrest41926]

I see you got pretty good ethics. But in this case, I would'nt

Thanks!! Lest anyone think I'm a good person, though, I should point out that ethics aren't the same thing as morals...

While I'm selling some of these as "fine art" prints, I'm also selling them as photographs. I guess that's what my question is. I agree with the people who responded -- old Ansel did it, so why can't I? -- but I just wanted to get the opinion of some seasoned pros. Because even though I'm getting a lot of people to look at my stuff ( which has led to some photo work ), I'm not selling a great deal of them...

But even if he does not retouch the photojournalist may alter
reality as well by choosing angle, or right moment to avoid an
unwanted part of reality: you can't get it really honest 100%
could you.....

I couldn't agree more with this ... but this type of alteration seems accepted.

 

[Forrest41926]

The cars-even though small, date the image.
This is otherwise a timeless image.

Glacier Nat'l Park is an amazing place! I shot this one on my first visit. Technicall, I would have liked to make the shot better -- I could have waited and waited for a clearing in the road, I could have had a body that allows for wider angles, I could have arranged it so I didn't need f/22 -- but I think it still shows the awe I felt, driving Going to the Sun Road.

 

[Ken Phillips]

I have an old 16 x 20 print of the Union Terminal in Cincinnati, with plenty of old cars in front ... with 1940 license plates. I have a much later color print, with no cars. When was it taken? 1960? 1980? I actually don't know. I do prefer the 'caught in time' version ... because of the angle, and the excellent black and white technique.
Ken

The cars-even though small, date the image.

This is otherwise a timeless image.

Frank

--

'Don't hope your pictures will 'turn out' ... make them good to begin with'. Oft said by my late father.
http://www.ahomls.com/gallery.htm

 

[Forrest41926]

I'm with you on this one, Mark. Cloning is cheating. If something
bothers you in a shot, then find a way to take another shot. But
don't take the easy way out and clone.

Generally, I take a similar approach to my photography, but out of laziness, instead of moral indignation. I've found it's FAR easier to get a good exposure in the camera, than to push the curves, color balance, and all that, in Photoshop. And it's easier to hold a branch out of the way before you trip the shutter, than it is to clone it out, after the fact.

Although in this particular shot, that just wansn't an option. I have the same frame, with more cars in different positions, a few times. I waited as long as I could contain myself in wonderland, when there was a lot more to explore.

It was an eight day, 4,200 mile journey that brought my through Glacier, and it's going to be a longer one that brings me back. Not something you can do every weekend ... so in this case, cloning was really my only option.

( The next time I was in Glacier, it was with a broken 16-35L. )

 

[Forrest41926]

Which gets to the image at hand. My interpretation of Galen
Rowell's writing is that he probably would not do this manipulation
because if the truth is that it is difficult or impossible to take
a picture there without cars in the frame, it is a lie to present
viewers with a pristine unspoiled view of the location. It is about
a position on the environment more so than a matter of concern
about whether the customer will be upset or not.

I think you're right, about how Old Galen would have handled this photograph. It's a fascinating book you mentioned, and I liked his example ( in the Alps, that you cited ) of how the camera does lie. He also mentioned that he wouldn't take an assignment, shooting the "pristine" Alps shots for a travel agency. I also enjoyed a collection of photos from the Himalya that he shot in the '70s, that would be impossible today, because of litter and environmental destruction.

The books I am refering to are "Galen Rowell's Vision"

So I take it you own this book? Is there a printed signature at the front...?

It's interesting to note that he tells a story of shooting a glorious slide, while climbing Half Dome, then shows the slide to his friends over lunch. The loupe they were using focused the sun's rays, and burned through part of the slide. He brought it to a production lab in San Francisco, that cloned the destroyed section back in ... I think he was still against this type of alteration afterwords, but it did get him to rethink his position on Photoshop and digital post-processing.

In any event, I doubt the people purchasing the print would be
upset with this manipulation. And personally, it does not bother me
much, though I would prefer photography remained about taking and
printing great pictures rather than spending hours painting over
them after the fact...

I also think Photography should be about taking and printing ( or emailling or posting on the web ) great photos ... but I don't think my camera can capture most of them perfectly. I've decided that since it can only control exposure in 1/3 stops, I usually ( but not always ) need to do some curves work. Since it uses a low-pass filter, I usually ( but not always ) need to apply some USM. And so on. If I'm doing all that, to make the best print I'm capable of, I decided to remove the cars.

And everyone around here is giving me the impression that 9/10 clients wouldn't mind, given the nature of my photography.

But you're point about the environment is a very interesting one. As a landscape photographer, it bothers me that in places like this, you often can't take photos like this with no cars in them. And if you get too close to a lot of big cities, you can't shoot a photo with a perfect sky.

 

[Forrest41926]

to wander out there and pick up the trash, before you shoot?

I don't think this is cheating -- in fact, I think this is VERY admirable. Of course, that's assuming you don't dump the trash back in the meadow after you're done shooting your picture...!

 

[Forrest41926]

Take two to four images by tripod, spaced in time just far enough
apart that different cars don't ALWAYS overlap a specific spot.
Then just load them as layers and erase any cars on the front layer
and let the background show through. You should keep the same
exposure as you shoot or you'll have to adjust them to match.

Duh!! That's such a graceful solution ... why the hell didn't I think of it??? Thanks a lot for pointing this out!

 

[Will Perlis]

But instances of "no cars" do exist, even shooting across Hollywood Blvd, and if you had timed it right and were lucky, that shot would have no cars visible in it.

I think perhaps this is straining at moral gnats. The road is there. That implies the possiblity of cars, trucks, armoured cars, squads of infantry, or a scout troop, among others.

IMO, cloning out the road would be one thing and cloning out a transient would be another, unless we're talking about surveillance tapes or photo-journalism. If I see a road with no cars on it I don't assume no cars will ever be on it.

Trash on Everest isn't transient, nor is this shot supposed to be necessarily representive of the scene as it exists at all times. Would anyone feel it necessary to recall all the prints if wildfire changed the area the next day?

 

[BobTrips]

http://www.deviantart.com/view/255544/

Take two to four images by tripod, spaced in time just far enough
apart that different cars don't ALWAYS overlap a specific spot.
Then just load them as layers and erase any cars on the front layer
and let the background show through. You should keep the same
exposure as you shoot or you'll have to adjust them to match.

--
[ e d @ h a l l e y . c c ]

Much better than cloning? In what way?

It might be easier than cloning (although I think not in many cases).

The end result is the same. You are not presenting what the lens saw.

I have no problem with modifying images for non-journalistic images, just don't see your approach as better.

--
bob
Latest offering - 'Two Hours in Delhi'
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips
Shots from a bunch of places (esp. SEA and Nepal).
Pictures for friends, not necessarily my best.

http://www.trekearth.com/members/BobTrips/photos/
My better 'attempts'.

 

[chi]

how about taking the same pic with cars at
various areas of the scene. that way you can
cut and paste portions of one image to another.
granted that you have the same exposure and
framing, it would be less clone stamping and more
puzzle work.

 

[Doug Brown]

Forrest,

Would a painter leave those cars in their composition? Unlikely.

In fact it's likely that a painter would only complete the foreground details on the day of, and fill in the sky portion at their leisure later on. It's highly probable that many landscape paintings contain sky scenes that were chronologically acurate days after the main subject was painted, and possibly not geographically accurate at all.
Doesn't stop any of them from being considered art.

Regards,

Doug B
Torontowide.com

 

[Ed Halley]

Much better than cloning? In what way?
It might be easier than cloning (although I think not in many cases).
The end result is the same. You are not presenting what the lens saw.

With my method, you're presenting the temporarily obscured details as they really are, and not inventing them by copying different regions of the image. What if the area obscured has details that do not appear anywhere else? You'd have to blank it out or hand-paint the details lost.

With the method I presented, you're disturbing the image by selectively choosing time, not by selectively choosing different areas of image space. The results are not the same as cloning within a single image, but there are appropriate applications of either method.

Both are manipulations. Both are non-journalistic. Both are artistic.

--
[ e d @ h a l l e y . c c ]

 

[Manta Ray Arts]

and the same people who would object to one would object to the other as well.

It seems to me that unless you're doing photojournalism, you're free to do what makes the image look good. Ansel Adams didn't just snap the shutter release, develop the negative and make a standard print. He developed the Zone System. When Richard Avedon photographed Edward and Wallis Simpson, he acheived their tragic look (assumed by viewers to be the result of contemplating their future after Edward's abdication of the throne) by telling them their dog had been killed.

To me, this is all part of larger debates that plagues photography: Is the "worth" of an image to be determined by how difficult it was to achieve or by how pleasing it is to the eye? Is photography an interpretive medium or simply the capture of reality (see Ayn Rand)? Does it matter that I can now do in 5 minutes in PS (without inhaling toxic chemicals)what would have taken me 45 minutes in the darkroom? Does it matter that someone "got lucky" and happened upon a perfect scene or shoudl we value the image more if a shooter saw that in two hours the light would change in an interesting way and then sat there and waited? Does it matter that you used a filter to make sky appear differently than the eye perceived it because it would make the image better? Does it matter that the lens really wasn't that sharp but USM made it pop? It's a slippery slope, and I've already slid.

If someone asks, I'll always tell the truth about how an image was acheived, but the question to a viewer/customer/patron should always be "do you like it?" rather than "want to know how it was done?"

And I doubt film die-hards would say "I shot it on XYZ film, did some dodging and burning, developed under the Zone System, then did a film scan so I could get it printed in this beautiful 20x30" print".

Much better than cloning? In what way?
It might be easier than cloning (although I think not in many cases).
The end result is the same. You are not presenting what the lens saw.

With my method, you're presenting the temporarily obscured details
as they really are, and not inventing them by copying different
regions of the image. What if the area obscured has details that
do not appear anywhere else? You'd have to blank it out or
hand-paint the details lost.

With the method I presented, you're disturbing the image by
selectively choosing time, not by selectively choosing different
areas of image space. The results are not the same as cloning
within a single image, but there are appropriate applications of
either method.

Both are manipulations. Both are non-journalistic. Both are
artistic.

--
[ e d @ h a l l e y . c c ]

--
http://www.mantarayarts.com

 

[Hans Kilian]

Ken, it's my opinion. I'm entitled to it and it's not WRONG!! with two exclamation marks after it.

One interesting but not widely known fact is how much of what you
call 'cheating' was done even for U. S. Civil War photography. The
camera DOES lie! (You'll have to do your own research on this ...
but if you watch the Antiques Road Show in Cleveland episode you
will get some great hints!)

Yeah, well, I live in Denmark so the chances of me getting to watch the antiques road show in Cleveland are very slim.

We are talking about ARTWORK. Is a painting no longer a painting
because I used my thumb instead of a brush?

My opinion is that photography is an artform based on reality. If your shots are intended to reflect that reality then you have a responibility towards the viewer and if you clone, you trick the viewer into believing something happened/existed which doesn't.

The shot we are discussing is clearly a representation of reality. And cloning in an empty road is - again in my opinion - somehow dishonest.

The camera - film or digital - is but one tool in the process of
producing a print. We adjust the color ... or remove it. We adjust
contrast - or levels. We sharpen it. We soften it. We MAKE IT OUR
OWN. Adding or subtracting a tree, a wart, whatever.
That's ART.

I think there's a very large jump from doing overall adjustments to an image - like colour adjustments, contrast, sharpening and so on - to doing selective adjustments like removing a wart. A very large jump.

Note that it's not photojournalism ... but we aren't discussing
that here.
And ... Galen Rowell used a flash for fill ... isn't that cheating?

The rules I use for my photography are very much based on tradition. I'm used to seeing images that have been burned and dodged so I know how to filter that out when I see images that have had that done to them. As for flash - well for an instant the scene actually looked exactly like what was captured by the camera.

The trouble with cloning stuff in or out in an image is that the title of the picture will probably be 'Yellowstone Panorama' or something, which implies that the picture is an accurate representation of a valley in Yellowstone (or wherever the picture was taken). It won't be called 'Imaginary valley panorama'. The same goes for portraits. They aren't labeled 'imaginary person'. They're labeled 'Aunt Maude' even though it isn't an accurate depiction of aunt Maude.

My main reason for not retouching portraits is that it implies that I don't think that the person in the portrait looks fine as it is. Do you think that 'slimming' an overweight person in a portrait adds to or subtracts from that persons self esteem? I think it detracts. "Hey, I'm so fat that I needed to have my portrait retouched". If someone has a problem with apperance then work around it with posing and lighting. Sure - that's the same thing done another way. But I still feel that it's a much better way to do it.

If you want artistic freedom to alter reality, then take up painting. Or make your shots look like paintings. Then people will know that you're not trying to depict reality and then you can remove all the warts you want.

All this is of course my opinion. You may disagree but it's not WRONG!!

Cheers,
Hans

 

[BobTrips]

Ken, it's my opinion. I'm entitled to it and it's not WRONG!! with
two exclamation marks after it.

Hans, you're coming off as being a bit dogmatic. You seem to have staked out a role for yourself as a 'realistic' photographer. Nothing wrong with that if that's what you want to do.

Doing realistic photography does not allow you to make changes to what the lens saw by cloning (does that hold for a dead pixel?). To change the photograph would be WRONG!! (as you put it) for you.

Others are doing other types of photography. Everything from doing what it takes to make a beautiful picture to creating something never seen in this universe.

What would be wrong is for one of these 'more creative' images to be passed off as totally 'real'. That's the line that photojournalists have understandably imposed upon them and one that you have voluntarily adopted.

In photography there is a range of work, just like literature which ranges from pure history to science fiction.

--
bob
Latest offering - 'Two Hours in Delhi'
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips
Shots from a bunch of places (esp. SEA and Nepal).
Pictures for friends, not necessarily my best.

http://www.trekearth.com/members/BobTrips/photos/
My better 'attempts'.

 

[Ken Phillips]

... as to what constitutes art. (But what an artist makes of his image - by whatever means - is not art? Even if you cannot tell, or never know?)

It appears to me that you are defining photojournalism - which does have rules, not art, which doesn't; and art is what that pretty picture on the wall truly is.

(I am certain that early photographers from Denmark did things that would appall you based on your criteria. The American photographers did things such as pose dead bodies, call the same bodies in a scene Union from one angle and Confederate from another, etc.)

Art can be based on reality ... as opposed to an exact representation of such ... and that's what I do. I remove the electric wires from nature shots. I remove dust specs ... flare ... increase contrast to beyond what it really was that day. Smooth skin, unblink eyes, remove warts. I add a sky to my blown-out shots ... sharpen them ... or soften them. I use wide angle to expand an image, I remove color or saturate color, I use long lenses for compression, lay on the ground, stand on a ladder ... all of those things and more. Many if not most of these things are done every day ... even by film users.
I MAKE the picture, as opposed to simply taking it.

In my opinion whatever I do ... at whatever stage ... in creating my art is perfectly acceptable. I would venture that most people would agree with me. So do the three dictionaries that I checked. I believe that what I do falls under one or both of these definitions:

1: "Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature."

2: "The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium."
(Those are from dictionary.com ... and so should be available to you.)

I would allow the painter to use his fingers for a brush, or blood for his colors; the photographer to do likewise.
Ken
Former art student.

One interesting but not widely known fact is how much of what you
call 'cheating' was done even for U. S. Civil War photography. The
camera DOES lie! (You'll have to do your own research on this ...
but if you watch the Antiques Road Show in Cleveland episode you
will get some great hints!)

Yeah, well, I live in Denmark so the chances of me getting to watch
the antiques road show in Cleveland are very slim.

We are talking about ARTWORK. Is a painting no longer a painting
because I used my thumb instead of a brush?

My opinion is that photography is an artform based on reality. If
your shots are intended to reflect that reality then you have a
responibility towards the viewer and if you clone, you trick the
viewer into believing something happened/existed which doesn't.

The shot we are discussing is clearly a representation of reality.
And cloning in an empty road is - again in my opinion - somehow
dishonest.

The camera - film or digital - is but one tool in the process of
producing a print. We adjust the color ... or remove it. We adjust
contrast - or levels. We sharpen it. We soften it. We MAKE IT OUR
OWN. Adding or subtracting a tree, a wart, whatever.
That's ART.

I think there's a very large jump from doing overall adjustments to
an image - like colour adjustments, contrast, sharpening and so on

• to doing selective adjustments like removing a wart. A very large

jump.

Note that it's not photojournalism ... but we aren't discussing
that here.
And ... Galen Rowell used a flash for fill ... isn't that cheating?

The rules I use for my photography are very much based on
tradition. I'm used to seeing images that have been burned and
dodged so I know how to filter that out when I see images that have
had that done to them. As for flash - well for an instant the scene
actually looked exactly like what was captured by the camera.

The trouble with cloning stuff in or out in an image is that the
title of the picture will probably be 'Yellowstone Panorama' or
something, which implies that the picture is an accurate
representation of a valley in Yellowstone (or wherever the picture
was taken). It won't be called 'Imaginary valley panorama'. The
same goes for portraits. They aren't labeled 'imaginary person'.
They're labeled 'Aunt Maude' even though it isn't an accurate
depiction of aunt Maude.

My main reason for not retouching portraits is that it implies that
I don't think that the person in the portrait looks fine as it is.
Do you think that 'slimming' an overweight person in a portrait
adds to or subtracts from that persons self esteem? I think it
detracts. "Hey, I'm so fat that I needed to have my portrait
retouched". If someone has a problem with apperance then work
around it with posing and lighting. Sure - that's the same thing
done another way. But I still feel that it's a much better way to
do it.

If you want artistic freedom to alter reality, then take up
painting. Or make your shots look like paintings. Then people will
know that you're not trying to depict reality and then you can
remove all the warts you want.

All this is of course my opinion. You may disagree but it's not
WRONG!!

Cheers,
Hans

--

'Don't hope your pictures will 'turn out' ... make them good to begin with'. Oft said by my late father.
http://www.ahomls.com/gallery.htm

 

[Forrest41926]

Ken, it's my opinion. I'm entitled to it and it's not WRONG!! with
two exclamation marks after it.

You are very entitled to your opinion, and I asked it. But I wanted to make a few points about what it seems you based this opinion on, in part:

My opinion is that photography is an artform based on reality. If
your shots are intended to reflect that reality then you have a
responibility towards the viewer and if you clone, you trick the
viewer into believing something happened/existed which doesn't.

I think you're getting at a "slippery slope" notion; in this particular photograph, the valley and mountains I shot certainly existed; it's just the 3% or so of the image with cars. The background behind them existed, but the background I've presented where the cars were, is something I created with the clone-stamp tool.

The shot we are discussing is clearly a representation of reality.
And cloning in an empty road is - again in my opinion - somehow
dishonest.

I agree that my photo is a representation of reality -- no purple skies here. But I don't see it as "dishonest," because I've never claimed cars don't regularly drive this road.

Probably this has something to do with the intelligence of the viewer and all, but if I'd presented the shot in black and white, or in sepia, would that be dishonest? "They don't have color in Montana!!"

The trouble with cloning stuff in or out in an image is that the
title of the picture will probably be 'Yellowstone Panorama' or
something, which implies that the picture is an accurate
representation of a valley in Yellowstone (or wherever the picture
was taken). It won't be called 'Imaginary valley panorama'. The

This valley certainly isn't imaginary.

And as nice as Yellowstone is, nowhere in that park looks like this!! ( But being from Denmark, I wouldn't expect you to know that... )

My main reason for not retouching portraits is that it implies that
I don't think that the person in the portrait looks fine as it is.

But Glacier Nat'l Park doesn't have self-esteem problems...!

 

[A. M. Hughes]

-- It is my impression that many artzy-fartzy folks have yet to come to accept photography in general as a legitimate art form; so getting them to see digitally produced images as fine art may be somewhat of a leap.

--It was suggest to me that the repeatability factor: as in the making of multiple prints from the same negative or digital file, somehow diminishes the value of the print as compared to say an oil painting.

--This is ironic, in that I’m also aware of landscape artists who capture their images via photography and then with brush on canvas, create their works.

A.M.H.