Rethinking cloning etc.

[hawee99]

facile but off the point, I think.

Adjusting saturation, contrast, levels doesn't bother me. If the sensor or film was as discerning as my eye, I wouldn't need to. To my mind, I am merely adjusting what was already present in my mind, just incorrectyly captured by the sensor/film.

OTOH, if I had a picture that was marvelous except it was lacking a person in one corner and I could add in that person without being detected, I would feel guilty if I did. I would be violating the truth of what I saw and captured. So, in reverse, removing something significant from a picture would bother me in the same manner.

To me there are certain boundaries in photography and we need to play our game within them. You can set your own, just let me know what they are.

i pretty much agree with you here. It would be ideal for me to capture the exact contrast and saturation from the camera, but sometimes I have to adjust it to try and get what my original eye say. Super-imposing a person in the picture to help composition is not what my eye originally saw. I would feel guilty presenting the photo as if it was. I would have to includea little note with it or something. However I do love photoshop and super-imposing to play around with and make people laugh. And I have absolutely no problem removing dust spots from a photo.

 

[Alex_B]

Originally Posted by The_Traveler
...I am attempting to capture things as I saw them - preserving reality as I saw it..

Impossible objective. The camera neither captures reality nor preserves it. Your vision is much wider than 50mm and certainly not flat or two dimensional. With your eyes you can focus on one subject to the exclusion of the background or anything else in your field of vision. Your view discriminates and you use your brain in that process. There is a difference between what you see and what you are looking at.

Is reality, your whole field of vision(with your eyes) or just your field of focus and attention? Is cloning out objects just an artificial way in a photo of duplicating your field of (eye) focus rather than ignoring that reality?

Irregardless, you cannot capture the reality of the 3D field of vision of the human eye in looking at a scene by photographic means and you cannot capture the reality of the eye's field of focus in a photographic scene without using photographic techniques including cloning out what the eye would not see through the mental process of visual discrimination.

skieur

I really wonder why do you always define reality by what the human eye sees?
The human eye sees only a very small spot in focus, has an extremely shallow DOF and is optically quite a poor piece of gear. As said, its field of view of acceptable sharpness and colour vision is way narrower than a 50mm lens. It is only our human brain postprocessing which creates an acceptable image in our brain.
Because of this heavy processing and because the image created in our head is actually the result of a "series" of images taken continuosly, because of all that we are so easily deceived in our human vision and take things for reality which are in fact pure illusion. Showbiz "magicians" base most of their business on this.

If however, you take a piece of film or a sensor and a lens in front of it, then the image you create is a real and faithful physical 2D projection of the 3D geometry. The exact projection varies with varying lenses, but they are all optically possible 2D projections. I am not talking of exposure, colours, contrast, but I am purely talking about geometry here (coordinates that means).

If I clone something out however, then the resulting image is not a 2D projection of the 3D geometry anymore.

 

[Alex_B]

The simple act of pointing a camera at a subject with a creative/editorial eye is a manipulation.

It might be a manipulation of the thoughts created in peoples minds when looking at the image, but it is not a manipulation of the small piece of reality the image depicts. The image is still true and not manipulated.

It is the same any kind of information. True information, be it visual or spoken or written or whatever, used in the right place, can be used to manipulate people by the perspective given, by the bits of information left out or simply by the timing and the context.

 

[DSLR noob]

Ansel adams once said "There are no rules, just great photographs." I believe that. I don't care how edited it is, if it's good it's good.

 

[Alex_B]

Ansel adams once said "There are no rules, just great photographs." I believe that. I don't care how edited it is, if it's good it's good.

That is true for the image in itself, taken out of context.

but if you want to preserve memories of people, events, or even sceneries, then heavy manipulation is not what you want ...

 

[skieur]

I really wonder why do you always define reality by what the human eye sees? .

Because when it comes to scenes, what the eye sees in width and depth is closer to reality than film or sensors.

The human eye sees only a very small spot in focus, has an extremely shallow DOF and is optically quite a poor piece of gear. As said, its field of view of acceptable sharpness and colour vision is way narrower than a 50mm lens. It is only our human brain postprocessing which creates an acceptable image in our brain.
Because of this heavy processing and because the image created in our head is actually the result of a "series" of images taken continuosly, because of all that we are so easily deceived in our human vision and take things for reality which are in fact pure illusion. Showbiz "magicians" base most of their business on this..

You have switched from the perception of still scenes to motion in mid-stream. Nevertheless, if it is post processing that creates an acceptable image in our head as you say, then postprocessing is equally necessary in photography.

If however, you take a piece of film or a sensor and a lens in front of it, then the image you create is a real and faithful physical 2D projection of the 3D geometry. The exact projection varies with varying lenses, but they are all optically possible 2D projections. I am not talking of exposure, colours, contrast, but I am purely talking about geometry here (coordinates that means)...

If it is "a real and faithful physical 2D projection of the 3D geometry", then you have missed one heck of a lot of geometric distortion in architectural photography with regular and wide angle lenses. It is also rather humourous to equate by implication "optically possible 2D projections" with reality.

If I clone something out however, then the resulting image is not a 2D projection of the 3D geometry anymore.

The photo is supposed to be of the centre of interest: subject, area of viewer's attention etc. Anything else in the background is irrelevant, not necessary and can be cloned out, since visually your mind would ignore it in focusing and postprocessing the real scene anyway. That does not change reality.

skieur

 

[skieur]

This kind of hand-waving just makes me tired. I don't think that having arguements about the exact meaning of terms would make my first statement any clearer. Sorry.

Sorry, but I don't see that cloning out irrelevant background clutter in any way falsifies or makes any image less real than the technical process of taking the photo in camera and processing it by sensor or film processing.

skieur

 

[Garbz]

If your intentions are pure in that you feel that reality should not be changed then by all means be against cloning. I've heard the school of thought that Photography is an Art, and the school of Photography is documenting a moment in time. Depending on which way you feel should form the basis for an answer to the question.

Just don't say I don't clone because people never used to. That's just plain false. I have a book here written in 1974 about how to achieve a cloning like effect in the darkroom.

 

[DSLR noob]

That is true for the image in itself, taken out of context.

but if you want to preserve memories of people, events, or even sceneries, then heavy manipulation is not what you want ...

good point. Maybe you don't want to remember you friend as a green zombie or something.

 

[Alex_B]

Because when it comes to scenes, what the eye sees in width and depth is closer to reality than film or sensors.

It sees more, but it does not see it very real(isitc)

You have switched from the perception of still scenes to motion in mid-stream.

No, I did not. When looking at a still scene, only the scene is still. The eye is in constant motion to allow whole image to be created in your brain.

If it is "a real and faithful physical 2D projection of the 3D geometry", then you have missed one heck of a lot of geometric distortion in architectural
photography with regular and wide angle lenses.

No, i do not miss it, since I do a lot of architectural photography and have my battles with distortion every day. So please do not teach me about it.

But a distorted projection is still a true projection. you could use even totally different distortion, still it would be (a distorted) image of reality.

It is also rather humourous to equate by implication "optically possible 2D projections" with reality.

I do not say the image is reality, but I say it is a projection of reality. So please read what I post and not what you think that I meant ... maybe then you find less homour.

That does not change reality.

What if, some day, the things you cloned out become important? If someone says, well, I think I remember from the pier at the lake you could actually see that power station in the distance. Hmm, strange, maybe it is a different spot? or a different lake? If you saw the pier and the islands on the lake, and you brain cloned out the power station and so you did on your image later, then that does not mean that others do not remember it.

To summarize my point of view in simple words:

- If Aunt Emma had a scar on her left cheek on her 50 th birthday, then there was a scar on her cheek at that time. If you clone it out from the image, then your image has no relation to reality in that respect. Everyone remembers the scar, but it is cloned out. so people will say that image was not taken at her 50th.

- If you take an image of Trafalgar square on June 15 2007 at 5pm and there was a protester dressed in red dancing there and you clone him out, then your image is not depicting reality on June 15 2007 at 5pm at Trafalgar square anymore. full stop.


I am not at all speaking against cloning, done it myself on rare occasions.

 

[skieur]

To summarize my point of view in simple words:

- If Aunt Emma had a scar on her left cheek on her 50 th birthday, then there was a scar on her cheek at that time. If you clone it out from the image, then your image has no relation to reality in that respect. Everyone remembers the scar, but it is cloned out. so people will say that image was not taken at her 50th..

Different situation. Many women would use make-up to de-emphasize the scar and tell the photographer not to shoot them from the left side. (I have been told that.) Most top photographers would use lighting and light shadows to partially hide or de-emphasize the scar. (done that too) As a last resort in postprocessing most portrait photographers would use the cloning tool with an opacity of perhaps 80%, so that the scar may still be there, but it is much less noticeable and does not draw the viewer's attention away for Aunt Emma's eyes and expression etc. For anyone who does a lot of portraiture, these are very basic techniques. For the researcher, these techniques can also be found in numerous magazines, books and tutorials on portraiture.

- If you take an image of Trafalgar square on June 15 2007 at 5pm and there was a protester dressed in red dancing there and you clone him out, then your image is not depicting reality on June 15 2007 at 5pm at Trafalgar square anymore. full stop./quote]

As I tried to indicate, it depends what your centre of interest is. If it is a portrait of your girl friend by a fountain, then the protester is irrelevant. If you are really "smitten", you might not have even noticed the protester at all with your eyes. By framing a shot you are selecting elements and eliminating others. Cloning out does exactly the same thing with the result that NEITHER depict reality.

skieur

 

[skieur]

But a distorted projection is still a true projection. you could use even totally different distortion, still it would be (a distorted) image of reality.
(quoted from Alex B)

You can depict reality or distort it and when you distort it, it is no longer reality.

skieur

 

[skieur]

Originally Posted by skieur
Because when it comes to scenes, what the eye sees in width and depth is closer to reality than film or sensors.
It sees more, but it does not see it very real(isitc)

Sure it does. More realistic than film or sensors, since the eye sees depth and more dimensions.

skieur

 

[The_Traveler]

Originally Posted by skieur
Sure it does. More realistic than film or sensors, since the eye sees depth and more dimensions.
skieur

Then why does each individual think their own child is cute?

What we are trying to show is reality only as we perceive it - the light of the visible spectrum, through imperfect sensors and manipulated by our mind, experiences and desires.

 

[sabbath999]

I come from a newspaper photography background, so my own "gut reaction" on this is to do the best that you can with a photo to make it an accurate representation of the historical moment of time it was taken...

Having said that, I think my "gut reaction" is often wrong. I think it is perfectly OK to use any post processing you want to create portraits of people for your patron's enjoyment. I am studying art right now... at the moment taking a at-home video course on the Dutch Masters and the Age of Rembrandt (clicky), and it is interesting to see how they manipulated their portraits (as can be seen by the paint under the paintings... the many repaints that were often done). If editing and manipulation is good enough for Vermeer, Hals, Steen and Rembrandt, then it is good enough for me... unless, of course, I am shooting for a newspaper or a magazine.