 | Where to Draw the Line (or Clone it Out)? |
| Where to Draw the Line (or Clone it Out)? |
Where to Draw the Line (or Clone it Out)? | ||
| At what point in the editing process does a photo become "fictionalized," and should it matter to most people? | ||
| Christopher Kean (chriskean1) Post Count: Joined: | Msg: #1 Added: 2006-04-19 07:38:43 | |
| I'll take a wild guess and assume that this topic has been debated to death hundreds of times. But since this is my first time, what the heck. Basically I have been looking at other people's comments on the Workshop, made some of my own, and seen some comments on one or two of my pictures, and am starting to wonder about the limits of "editing" in the digital age, and to what degree the "reality" of a photo should matter any longer. 1. Taking the picture. Obviously one is making critical judgments whenever one takes a picture--what sorts of pictures to take in the first place, what to include in the frame, and of course lens selection (if applicable), what aperture, speed, exposure compensation to use, etc. Anyone looking at my pictures from various Africa trips, for example, could reasonably assume that almost everyone in Africa wears traditional dress; that everyone there is photogenic or at least interesting from a photographic point of view; that there are neither modern buildings nor infrastructure; that all public signs are in some way amusing; that wild animals wander up close and hold still for photographs all the time; that major tourist attractions are tourist-free at all times; that it is never rainy or cloudy (in an unpleasant way); and that the streets are generally free of litter, distracting bystanders and detritus. The reality is quite different, of course, so just by taking a picture one is already being selective with the truth. Are there any ultra-purist photographers out there who feel this is too selective for them? 2. Cropping and orientation. The next stage comes on the desktop--I crop most of my images at least slightly (usually to remove either foreground or sky from long shots, and distractions from close ones), and personally put a lot of value on good cropping. If I had a program that could do more than simple 90-degree or 180-degree adjustments to photo orientation, I would make use of that as well to align a horizon or other straight line with the frame of a photo. 3. Contrast, color, lightness, etc. I am colorblind, so I tend to limit my meddling to contrast and brightness adjustments, with the occasional saturation tweak, but I would not begrudge anyone properly sighted the use of color adjustments--generally this amounts to picking and choosing what existing information to bring to the foreground and what information to discount. I have never been satisfied with the results of my lassoing attempts, so I simply try not to make adjustments to portions of photos--perhaps I should practice instead. Does anyone have any qualms about this sort of adjustment? 4. Airbrushing. But then we get to power-lines, skin blemishes, bystanders, wayward birds, airplanes and con-trails, and so on. So far, I have tended to "erase" only things that are clearly the result of something on the camera lens--a raindrop, dust, etc.--but to leave "reality" alone. If I can't crop a problem out, I discard the photo and chalk it up to tough luck. Other people do this sort of adjustment all the time, and I am beginning to wonder whether, when I get ahold of a good editing program, I might not do the same. I guess this is the main stage at which I start having qualms--does anyone else ever wonder about making this sort of change or advising others to do it? I am not talking about journalistic photos here, which must be subject to various codes if media are to remain credible, or about "art" photos, in which case if the photographer wants to make the sky pink and the trees orange that is certainly not my business, but about the immense majority of photos that fall somewhere in between. 5. Additions. I suppose the next step would come if one wanted to add something into a picture that was not there before--a ray of sunlight; a person in an otherwise unpopulated shot of a monument to get a sense of its size; a glint in the eye. I would be interested in hearing from anyone who has crossed this Rubicon. Am I thinking about all this waytoo much? I have a suspicion that the answers (if any) will indicate that this is simply a matter of different strokes for different folks, but am interested in learning about the thought process people go through when editing photos, especially travel photos. Travel photos are generally taken to aid the photographer's memory, to show loved ones or the general public what they missed, and to help the photographer tell the story of the trip (other reasons?)--it seems to me that selective editing might run afoul of at least one of these purposes... Sorry about the length of this OP, but I wanted to try to get it all in the first time. CK | ||
| Bob Wallace (BobTrips) Post Count: Joined: | Msg: #2 Added: 2006-04-19 12:50:15 | |
| I don't think you're thinking about it too much at all. And good analysis. Let me see what I can add. 1. Taking the picture. You sort of imply where the photographer stands when the 'snap' occurs. Just wanted to make it more obvious. And don't forget the all important 'when' to snap. We make decisions about what to leave in and leave out from the moment we have the "Should I make a picture out of that?" thought. 2. Orientation is largely (for me) part of the snapping process. And pre-digital the process stopped there (except for a few years when I had a B&W darkroom). I'm not sure that I ever shot a roll of print film in my life except for my last 'film' year when I was shooting with the intention of scanning. But crop I do now. I no longer pass on what could be a nice shot except for a nasty telephone pole, whatever. I now crop my frames to whatever shape best serves my purposes to make what I consider a pleasing picture. 3. Contrast, color, brightness, sharpening. Absolutely no problems here for me. It's exactly what we did with B&W film if we printed in a darkroom. Or with color if we had a color darkroom. Some of this was done at most places that did your prints. (Ever see someone sitting at the printing machine? They were adjusting your shots.) And if you used a custom lab or had something printed in a book/magazine all of those things were done to your film image and done with great skill. Difference is that now we can do it ourselves and do it quite readily. What one can do to make a picture 'different' surprises some people. I suspect they were 'drop and print' photographers and didn't have darkroom/custom lab experience. 4. Airbrushing/cloning/removing stuff from pictures. I think of pictures falling on a 'use' continuum. At one end there are photographs intended for photojournalism, evidence, scientific data, etc. At the other end is something that we could call 'pure art'. The acceptability of cloning (the word I'm used to using) depends on the intended use of the image. Obviously one can't do much 'distorting' of reality when shooting for the 'evidence' end of the continuum. There might be times in which something could be removed but only for the purpose of making it easier to make a judgement about the critical part of the photo and only will full disclosure of what has happened. The art end? Anything goes. So, depends on what I'm shooting/going to do with the particular photo. If it's a 'travel shot' then I have a loosely applied rule. If I am showing an identified place, say "Here's what the Taj looks like from this angle." I most likely won't remove anything that someone would see if they stood in the same place. I would likely remove a bird flying in the distance that just looks like a dirt spot. If I'm showing someone in traditional dress and there is someone in modern/western dress in the background I might well clone away that person in the background. It's a judgement call with each picture. My recent post of a guy checking his net (Nothing Yet?) had a couple of cruddy looking plastic foam net floats in the water around the boat. I cloned them out. The picture was about the traditional method of fishing and about the morning light. I was making 'travel art' rather than 'travel realism'. Had I more time I might have waited for him to move away from the net floats. Had I a 'staff' I could have had one of my assistants remove the floats and pose the fisherman. Would either of those changed the content? I don't think so. 5. Additions. I've never added anything to a picture except something like a bit of color to a gray sky. Probably because I'm not good enough to do it. ;o) Again, back to the evidence/art continuum. Depends on the purpose. Again, I wouldn't add something to my "here's the Taj" shot (except perhaps sky). I wouldn't have any problem adding a lime green camel to a polar bear shot if I was making a humorous picture for a birthday card. (Don't know if I've got 'art' in me.) I'm not sure that addition photos would be appropriate for the Pig. (Again maybe the sky is fair game to some extent. Still debating that one with myself.) Sure there might be exceptions but I think they would require full disclosure. When setting up the Pig I didn't make any hard/fast rules in terms of image content. I did word the text to skew the pictures toward reality/travel shots as I get bored looking at pictures of Sadie and Mildred standing in the front of every shot. (Sadie and Mildred were mother/daughter friends of my photo taking aunt. They took trips together every year for decades. I've seen hundreds of shots of them, in front of Niagara Falls, the White House, the Grand Canyon. When I first visited those places I sort of expected to see Sadie and Mildred standing there.) I suppose there's room for art shots here. As long as they are travel related. I think that should be a group decision. I view this as a club and as a club we need to give each other some latitude and be congenial. We don't' have to like every shot (shouldn't expect to). And we each have the option of not bothering to click on a thumbnail or make a comment on a particular photo if we don't wish to. But since it is a travel club I think we should practice full disclosure if we post something that someone else wouldn't see if they were to visit the same place. OK, enough! Haven't had my coffee yet. Who's next? | ||
| (Eduard) Post Count: Joined: | Msg: #3 Added: 2006-04-19 13:57:32 | |
| Ok - this will be fun! I generally try to ensure that I capture the image the way I want by walking around, adjusting focal length, etc. BUT sometimes things are unavoidable and detract from an image. Case in point: http://jeber.com/Clubs/Blind-Pig/Workshop/406-1.html. The light pole in the original image detracted from the picture. I removed it. Was I wrong to do this? If the image was being used for historical documentation or photojournalism, I would say "yes". Artistically, "no". What do you think? | ||
| Bob Wallace (BobTrips) Post Count: Joined: | Msg: #4 Added: 2006-04-19 15:08:47 | |
| Picutre Do you see the Jeber Code to the right when you post? (I'm asking because as a site administrator I see some things that you 'mere mortals' don't.) If so, it's not too hard to make your link active. Just look right under the bold Links. Add a [ url= (without the space) before your link, etc. OK, I'm going to see if my link worked and then look at your image. | ||
| Bob Wallace (BobTrips) Post Count: Joined: | Msg: #5 Added: 2006-04-19 15:15:11 | |
| Link worked. But my spelling.... Personally I would have cropped so that the pole didn't show as my first approach. It's getting close to that "Here's how a real place looks" category to me. But I might have cloned it out if I couldn't crop. Maybe you should print both versions and send them to the people in charge of the grounds. It wouldn't take a lot to reduce visual clutter in the real world if people would just think a bit. | ||
| Adrian Warren (AdrianW) Post Count: Joined: | Msg: #6 Added: 2006-04-19 20:24:52 | |
| 1) That's the art of photography IMO :) 2) Cropping and rotation are things I'll try and get right in camera wherever possible. Sometimes I'll admit there are subjects that just won't fit the frame though... I try for full frame and straight horizons wherever possible. 3) Are fair enough IMO, but they're best done subtly. Your choice of film will determine colour rendition, contrast etc. Since I no longer have a film, that means it's my choice in Photoshop - if you don't like my choices, feel free to skip my shots :) 4) If I spot a piece of litter in the foreground of a shot only after I've taken it, I may clone it out, but in general I try and leave everything where it was - poles/masts and power lines included. If I spot the piece of litter beforehand, I'll remove it by hand if necessary... 5) I don't think I've ever added anything to a photograph of mine after the fact. To be honest I prefer things exactly as they were. | ||
| Kristina Johnson (wired2theworld) Post Count: Joined: | Msg: #7 Added: 2006-04-23 16:55:14 | |
| Interesting discussion. 1. No, not too selective. You could easily take only photos of the "dark" side of Africa; bushmeat, extreme poverty, street kids, famine. I think the only problem is when people only see one side and then expect it to be just like the photos when they arrive. For example, you could be expecting "quaint" villages when visiting Spain and then be horrified when you see the high-rise slums outside Madrid. 2. Cropping-no problems here. I crop almost 100% of my photos. Straighten too if needed. 3. No problems with adjusting color. Sometimes the photo does not come out as I see it and adjustment brings it back to "reality", like making the sky a bit more blue. 4. Airbrushing-I am the Queen of taking out things I don't like in photos, especially blemishes on my own face. :-) Seriously though, I'll take out things like small people in a distance shot or "modern" things in a photo I want to look more "timeless". I try to be selective however. 5. Hmmm. I've only done this once, oddly, with my very first digital camera in 1999. We went to the Great Wall of China. Had 2 photos, one of us on the Wall, and one of the Wall solo. The Wall solo photo was better, so I cropped us out of the other photo and put us into the better one. Bad? I don't know, but it worked for me. Haven't felt the need to do it since. | ||
| Christopher Kean (chriskean1) Post Count: Joined: | Msg: #8 Added: 2006-04-24 10:16:53 | |
| Thanks to all for the thoughtful comments; I look forward to hearing more. So far most people seem to define the upper limit of their comfort ranges for standard travel shots anywhere between a "high-3" and a "minimal-5" range, which is about what I would've expected, but it's great to read how and why people have arrived at their self-imposed limits. Bob, I agree with the full-disclosure policy you mention (I've always been a fan of the honor system). And I have a new respect for your ability to provide insightful commentary without benefit of coffee. I agree with your and AdrianW's comparisons to B/W and color darkrooms. My sole experience with B/W developing was a semester-long course in 1979, when I was 14, and I remember playing around in a rudimentary way back then--I had completely forgotten about having taken the course until I saw your posts. Eduard, thanks for providing a concrete example. I usually end up cropping that sort of thing out if I can't take care of it in step 1 per your and Bob's comments, but I am interested in learning the techniques so that I can make a real choice whether or not to clone rather than make a choice based as much on what I am able to do as on what I feel comfortable doing. AdrianW, I found myself removing litter from a Sri Lankan moonstone this March. It was oddly more fulfilling than removing the substantially larger accumulation of litter from my own desk... w2w, I like the Great Wall example. I tend to think of shots along the lines of "here I am at famous site X" as being pretty wide-open to play with, just as such a shot would be if you'd taken it at home. I have a photo of my mother and brothers (5 of us) together, in which I am grinning horribly like something out of a Stephen King novel, and another taken at the same time in which my eldest brother appears to have developed narcolepsy. One day when I can do PS adequately I will certainly spend some time producing a synthesized image in which we all look good (and I would probably do the same if the shot had been taken at the Great Wall). Of course, no doubt time will have the last laugh as usual because when we look at my lovingly spliced image thirty years from now the younger generation will all laugh at our dumb hairstyles and clothing choices; but then I suppose I could change those too... Thanks again to all. Keep 'em coming. CK | ||
| Number Users: 5 Number of Posts: 8 | To Reply Join Jeber Photo Clubs | |
