Rethinking cloning etc.

[DSLR noob]

The eye can choose o see what it wants at times. Like have you ever framed up a hot with your eyes loved it to death, picked up the camera, took the picture cam home and saw that a small tree was protruding up across the horizon line. You didn't really notice it before, but now it is driving you crazy. I say if you clone it, you aren't displaying non-reality, but rather distorting reality to see it as you originally saw, which at the time was 100% reality. as Adam says in mythbusters "I refuse to accept your reality, and susbstitute it for my own." What is more real than seeing something through your eyes? People believe in what they see. I believe in what Alex said, it is still reality, just distorted reality, but still reality none-the-less.

 

[skieur]

The eye can choose o see what it wants at times. Like have you ever framed up a hot with your eyes loved it to death, picked up the camera, took the picture cam home and saw that a small tree was protruding up across the horizon line. You didn't really notice it before, but now it is driving you crazy. I say if you clone it, you aren't displaying non-reality, but rather distorting reality to see it as you originally saw, which at the time was 100% reality. as Adam says in mythbusters "I refuse to accept your reality, and susbstitute it for my own." What is more real than seeing something through your eyes? People believe in what they see. I believe in what Alex said, it is still reality, just distorted reality, but still reality none-the-less.

Well, if that is your point, then there is no difference whatsoever between Alex distorting reality in his way and another photographer distorting reality through cloning out irrelevant garbage. That is my point as well.
I agree. Alex distorts reality in the same way that someone using cloning out distorts reality.

skieur

 

[midnitejam]

I have always thought the only realm for purest photography was in the documentary-type fields like medicine photography, and Journalistic photography fields.

If you think Grandma's portrait with the scar on her face is going to be archived to document her geneology, then by all means keep the scar visible in the portrait. If Grandma's portrait is intended to be archived for her future generations to become aware of the gene pool from whence their personal lineage of beauty sprang from, then by all means, air-brush the scar.

Personally, the documentary photography, Crime Sene Photography, the medicine photography, and Journalistic photography fields do not appeal to me. For me, photography's lustre has it's strength in the other genre (Art).

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]I feel there is no middle line with art and photography. It either is or it isn't art regardless of whether it is a Pure un-retouched photo, a painting, a skyscraper, or a photoshopped jpg. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]The main concern for photography/art is only about beauty--or should be[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] regardless of however it was achieved. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]I think there are some who put limits on certain kinds of post processing but condone the use of the simple-elementary processes which they themselves are familiar with and can manage. Any rationalization of any amount of post processing while deploring more advanced and sofisticated techniques of post processing is rationalization by someone who only claims to be a purest. Talks the talk, but does he walk the walk?[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Once upon a time, I never liked dark-room manipulations. I thought of them as being faked until I learned to do some of it.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Would you think of Ansel Adams as being a purest? A perfectionist, maybe, but a purest by no means. He often printed 100 copies of each of his published prints in the dark room before he liked the result good enough to publish it.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]If a pic has been through a manipulation process for any reason (whether it was 1/2 step exposure correction, a slight crop, or ANYTHING that has changed since the moment of the shutter was snaped) THE PICTURE HAS BEEN MANIPULATED and wasn't produced by a purest. No Grey area here—either it is black or it is white (pure or manipulated).[/FONT]

Maybe we should add a forum for photo journalism for the purest to enjoy, huh?

 

[glaston]

This rant is not directed at the original post or it's author.
This is about this subject in general.

This is the only place that I've ever witnessed so much strife over this subject.

I think of it like this- If someone was doing a portrait of me, would I object to them cloning out details such as zits, bags under eyes, skin discolorations or dry patches?
Hell no!!
Photography represents a moment in time captured forever.
What is the problem with making that moment in time look the best it can possibly look? Nothing.

It's this photographic purism (or prudism) that aggrevates me here.

I think that it exists as stated to some extent.
However, I also think that people use it as a crutch so they don't have to spend more time learning tools and technique.
Many people are intimidated by the computer as a design or art medium.
This isn't a new thing. It has happened to every form of expression that has been adopted by a digital medium.
There are film purists in the movie industry, in the CAD/CAM industry, the photographic industry, the animation industry, the fine art scene etc...

It's a personal choice, no doubt about it.
But to say or even question if it somehow cheapens or contaminates the work or original vision is totally absurd!
The clone stamp is nothing more than a tool, just like a paintbrush is a tool, or a camera filter or lens is a tool.
Does it degrade the work to use an ND filter? Or to use RAW to give the image a lighting scheme that wasn't what was recorded by the camera at the time the shot was taken?
Where does this end?
Does it degrade the original vision to make ANY change at all in post? Should every shot be limited to exactly what was in the original frame?

It's because of this extreme purism that makes me believe that the premise of it is in many cases based on intimidation.
There are many people that were excellent photographers in the pre-digital world, and they were proud to be that as they should be. Then comes digital, and people with much less experience and lower end equipment can achieve the same if not better quality images with alot less work than the traditional gurus.
This makes the traditionalist cringe! Because to compete with that, he has to learn new things, and re-learn old things, and update his knowledge of the craft he has excelled in for years.
That scares the traditionalist.
They can't embrace the new tools or techniques because they perceive the computer as a magic box that requires a PHd to understand.

It all comes back to a primal human flaw-fear of the unknown.

If you can't get with the program, then at least get out of the way.

What's worse is that traditionalists see their ideology and skill to be far superior to those who are all digital.
To the extreme that some will even denounce the digital workflow and claim that it requires no artistic qualities or skill.
Spewing the tired old adage that the 'computer does all the work'.
In the same spirit that traditional fine art folks back in the day claimed that the camera does all the work.

It never ends.
It's elitism at it's worst!

I think it starts with an idea, then you use whatever means you have to achieve it while remaining true to the original vision.

It's about the ART, NOT the tools or the workflow!

 

[RacePhoto]

I'll try to make this very easy to understand. There are different types of photography, just like other types of art.

If it's news or something that's purpose is to document, then there should be no cloning, or content alterations. You can improve the quality of the image, but not the reality and contents. You can neither add nor take away elements of the photo. That's the way it is.

If it's a portrait, then we move towards art. If you are documenting faces or features, then of course, don't fix anything. In fact, use only natural Sunlight, or room lights, no flash, no fill, no floods.

If you are trying to capture the essence of a subject, in a photograph, then it's art and you need to alter reality. Special lighting, lenses that are not exact fields of view, that replicate the human eye. In fact, if you place someone in a pose or in a setting, isn't that altering reality? Otherwise, you might as well get a disposable camera and take snapshots.

If your goal is art, they, that's where there are no rules. You can do anything you want or not do anything you want. But if you want an image to be pleasing, you are going to need to modify reality to succeed.

The point is, that documentation must be accurate and unaltered. Everything else, the doors are open, you need to get outside and stretch your creative legs, for a long walk, not confine yourself in some little box, of trying to make things, exactly what they are. Because they still are not!

Photography is expression. What film you use, will change the way something looks. How you develop and print the picture and on what medium, will alter the picture.

Electronic photography and subsequent editing manipulation is nothing more than an extension of the capabilities of capturing and editing film. It's making ones ability to capture and express and create art, more versatile.

Ever since cave men discovered fire, started farming and herding, instead of gathering, and the troglodytes left the caves... humans have been advancing and progressing with technology.

Digital is nothing more than a better way to take photos. Digital editing is nothing more than a better way to enhance and edit photos. Modern printing methods are a better way, than previous mediums for displaying photos.

Nothing has changed! It's just gotten much, much better.

Try to embrace photographic inventions, improvements and progress. :hug::

 

[Iron Flatline]

I don't really know how to clone, only in a crude way that would not withstand being blown up to a larger print. So I've learned to shoot in a way to avoid having to clone later.

I've learned to heal so I can remove sensor dust that shows up in the sky or other plain bright areas of an image, if I haven't cleaned my sensor in a while.

 

[LokiZ]

I am sorry but this thread is getting way to serious....
My wife would kill me if I cloned.

All joking aside though. I respect those who clone no more or no less then those who don't. They are the artist They present me with an image of there creation and I either like what they did or didn't how they got to the ending point only interests me if I plan to try my hand at something similar. Even then there may be more then one way to arrive at that end point.

I clone very rarely unless I am doing surreal stuff my self. It's not a matter of pride, I am no pro, just use it for fun more often then not... That's not to say that I am not good with it.

Sorry if this post is out of line.

 

[midnitejam]

This rant is not directed at the original post or it's author.
This is about this subject in general.

This is the only place that I've ever witnessed so much strife over this subject.

I think of it like this- If someone was doing a portrait of me, would I object to them cloning out details such as zits, bags under eyes, skin discolorations or dry patches?
Hell no!!
Photography represents a moment in time captured forever.
What is the problem with making that moment in time look the best it can possibly look? Nothing.

It's this photographic purism (or prudism) that aggrevates me here.

I think that it exists as stated to some extent.
However, I also think that people use it as a crutch so they don't have to spend more time learning tools and technique.
Many people are intimidated by the computer as a design or art medium.
This isn't a new thing. It has happened to every form of expression that has been adopted by a digital medium.
There are film purists in the movie industry, in the CAD/CAM industry, the photographic industry, the animation industry, the fine art scene etc...

It's a personal choice, no doubt about it.
But to say or even question if it somehow cheapens or contaminates the work or original vision is totally absurd!
The clone stamp is nothing more than a tool, just like a paintbrush is a tool, or a camera filter or lens is a tool.
Does it degrade the work to use an ND filter? Or to use RAW to give the image a lighting scheme that wasn't what was recorded by the camera at the time the shot was taken?
Where does this end?
Does it degrade the original vision to make ANY change at all in post? Should every shot be limited to exactly what was in the original frame?

It's because of this extreme purism that makes me believe that the premise of it is in many cases based on intimidation.
There are many people that were excellent photographers in the pre-digital world, and they were proud to be that as they should be. Then comes digital, and people with much less experience and lower end equipment can achieve the same if not better quality images with alot less work than the traditional gurus.
This makes the traditionalist cringe! Because to compete with that, he has to learn new things, and re-learn old things, and update his knowledge of the craft he has excelled in for years.
That scares the traditionalist.
They can't embrace the new tools or techniques because they perceive the computer as a magic box that requires a PHd to understand.

It all comes back to a primal human flaw-fear of the unknown.

If you can't get with the program, then at least get out of the way.

What's worse is that traditionalists see their ideology and skill to be far superior to those who are all digital.
To the extreme that some will even denounce the digital workflow and claim that it requires no artistic qualities or skill.
Spewing the tired old adage that the 'computer does all the work'.
In the same spirit that traditional fine art folks back in the day claimed that the camera does all the work.

It never ends.
It's elitism at it's worst!

I think it starts with an idea, then you use whatever means you have to achieve it while remaining true to the original vision.

It's about the ART, NOT the tools or the workflow!

glaston, You've expressed my take on this subject more accurately and eloquently than I ever could have. You and I are in absolute agreement.

RacePhoto, you and I are also in total agreement.

This battle with the traditional purists rises from the ashes like the Phoenix from time-to-time on every existing forum (I frequent at least 5 different forums on a regular basis and I've seen this discussion several times).

Search the archives from just about any existing forum and you may find a heated discussion on the topic of Post Processing. Search deeper on an individual purist's submissions and you may find inferior photography more often than not.

Some of them when confronted with a technically pleasing photo will divert their critique from beauty or technical excellence to the subject matter and content regardless of how well exposed or focused the content may be. Personally, I rate the quality before I admonish content/theme.

I've seen purists submit abstracts for criticism where the submission was so horribly distorted I couldn't relate it to anything I had ever seen--absolutely no subject or theme, just globs of color. Then it might be possible to view a comment by them a month before or a month later that complained that a sunset was too perfect and didn't look real. I'm suggesting that some of the purists are only rationalizing for their own lack of post-processing skills.

Like the quote from above....."Either get with the progress or get out of its way"

 

[The_Traveler]

It seems to me that a lot of the discussion stems from individuals believing that their own way is 'the' way and their desire to convince other people to convert.

A lot of the rancor come when individuals characterizations others' position as bizarre, absurd, reactionary, elitist, etc. or respond to that.

I absolutely don't care what other people do to their own pictures, much like I don't care what their own beliefs are in religion, gender preference or politics.

I do care when individuals characterize my beliefs, even indirectly, as something negative in relation to their own. It makes me irritable and less likely to listen.

I started this thread not to convince anyone of anything but just to express what I think so that people can consider what incents me as they do their own decision-making. What I think about cloning and post-processing works for me, and if or when it stops working, I'll change and no amount of semantic push-pulling will affect my beliefs. Let others do what they want.

 

[RacePhoto]

It seems to me that a lot of the discussion stems from individuals believing that their own way is 'the' way and their desire to convince other people to convert.

A lot of the rancor come when individuals characterizations others' position as bizarre, absurd, reactionary, elitist, etc. or respond to that.

I absolutely don't care what other people do to their own pictures, much like I don't care what their own beliefs are in religion, gender preference or politics.

I do care when individuals characterize my beliefs, even indirectly, as something negative in relation to their own. It makes me irritable and less likely to listen.

I started this thread not to convince anyone of anything but just to express what I think so that people can consider what incents me as they do their own decision-making. What I think about cloning and post-processing works for me, and if or when it stops working, I'll change and no amount of semantic push-pulling will affect my beliefs. Let others do what they want.

Ya, you did write "I" not "other people should..."

I agree with you. I don't care what other people do, and I don't need some outside validation for my choices. In fact, I'm happy to keep learning and changing, adjusting and improving.

By the same token, I think people read your message and saw the same preaching that we have seen before from others, and assumed that's where you were headed. Even if that wasn't your intention or motivation.

What I was getting at, is that it appeared on the surface to be, the same old debate of electronic alterations, vs leaving things alone, or maybe one of the "film is pure, digital is not photography." Keep in mind that with film there is dodging, burning, filters and processing variations. Heck, people used to use a pencil or spotting chemicals to fix errors.

Using the same logic that some others attribute to film vs digital, only oil paintings are real art paintings. Acyclic is a modern medium, so it's not the way of the old Masters. If you don't paint with oil, you aren't a painter. :lmao:

Editing is part of art, writing, music, and part of photography. It's necessary to make your work more refined.

If you choose to keep your photos, as is, that's fine.

I don't clone, but I do use the healing brush, stamp, cut and paste, and anything else that I can to remove errors, unwanted spots, "dust bunnies", and sometimes elements of a picture that detract from the overall intent. I don't normally add things that where not there, and don't intend to.

If I need a large full moon over a cityscape, I'll change my tune.

 

[glaston]

I started this thread not to convince anyone of anything but just to express what I think so that people can consider what incents me as they do their own decision-making. What I think about cloning and post-processing works for me, and if or when it stops working, I'll change and no amount of semantic push-pulling will affect my beliefs. Let others do what they want.

That's about the only way to look at it without judging others beliefs on it.
Like I said my rant wasn't directed at you, but more a reaction to the subject in general.
I can appreciate work on any medium. I know very well what it's like to have someone not respect your hard work for a very simple reason that actually has no base in the work itself, but rather a personal judgement that's more of an emotional reaction to your work VS their own.

Personally I don't clone alot either. But that's because I don't like the results in most cases. The function is rather crude IMO.
I do however like to make composite images from several source images.
That's mainly because I'm not content with what's physically there most of the time.
In my mind I see an image that can only be achieved through manipulation.
I can appreciate a good photo, but if I were the one creating it I wouldn't leave it as is in most cases.

glaston, You've expressed my take on this subject more accurately and eloquently than I ever could have. You and I are in absolute agreement.

Thanks. I'm glad there are others in agreement.
I've made this argument so many times on various boards and conferences that I should just save it to copy and paste every-time it comes up.

 

[midnitejam]

I've made this argument so many times on various boards and conferences that I should just save it to copy and paste every-time it comes up.

Me too. And think about this.....These discussions usually arise when a purists critizes a submitter because he used post processing. Can you find (even one instance) where a purist's been critized for not using post processing?I think it's ok to be a purist. And if you can produce 'pure' photography that is techincally asthetic without PP, I will respect and admire your skills. But when I ask for critique of one of my submissions, I will regard the critique with any amount of creditability if it is biased on the subject of Post Processing vs Pure. Critique should be relative to the 'art' of photography.
It just seems to me that it's the 'so-called' purests who harp on the post processors rather than the post processors harping on the purest. The majority of discussions concerning this subject stems from the Photo Editors defending the legality of using post processing. Critique is not the same thing as critisim

 

[The_Traveler]

I know very well what it's like to have someone not respect your hard work for a very simple reason that actually has no base in the work itself, but rather a personal judgement that's more of an emotional reaction to your work VS their own.

I think this is a very good point. Much of the so-called critique in the forums here is not well done and is more self-referenced advice than critique of the image as presented.

This cheats both the poster and the responder in that neither of their horizons are questioned or extended.

 

[danalec99]

Check out Veronique Vial's Women before 10 a.m. > (Not Safe For Work)
See how many of them wants the nip-tucked look.
(and no, I'm neither a "traditionalist" nor a "purist")

Whatever floats your boat folks!

 

[Jeff Canes]

Check out Veronique Vial's Women before 10 a.m. > (Not Safe For Work)
See how many of them wants the nip-tucked look.
(and no, I'm neither a "traditionalist" nor a "purist")

Whatever floats your boat folks!

Daniel you always find the best sites