I sometimes remove items from a scene, stray bits of litter, an annoying twig that creeps in from a corner and the occasional unwanted lamppost, etc. Basically, the things that distract you and stop you from enjoying the image. It's a far cry from AI editing and sky replacement, but I can see why some may still call it cheating. It depends on what you want to convey. James Popsys, who I think Thomas referred too enjoys encorporating man made elements into his landscape photography. I often look at some of his work, and as much as I like his photography, I think if I took that photo, people would ask why I left those elements in the composition. A good demonstration of the techniques involved Robert.
Yeah, of course, if you choose to purposfully keep those things in, then it's an equally valid artistic. choice. I guess that's the beauty of photography, and art in general, it can mean something completely different from one person to the next. Cheers for watching. 🙂
Enjoyed your video very informative and I think that with out doubt I agree with you if it is required then clone but do not over clone a good capture. 🐕👍👌👏
An interesting debate Robert. Having also watched that smaller channel ;) I believe there is no right or wrong answer. Creativity and artistic intent are down to the photographer and the edit style assist in the final production of what one wants to convey in the final piece of art. AI on the other hand is a different world altogether. Personally I will continue to remove dust spots, unwanted clutter , people sometimes and to use the power of LR and PS to create the final photograph that represents what I saw / imagined / intended. I won't be misleading in my images with AI. Amen
Yeah, generally agree with you there Andrew. When I occassionally do use gernative AI, I make sure to add a note under the image. And I'm happy to call it a hybrid photo/digital image at that stage. Thanks for watching. 🙂
If your photography is to showcase a beautiful scene, whether it’s a natural setting or scenery, a portrait of someone (with a shitty background), a building or street with litter, garbage, scaling paint, etc…cropping to improve upon it…..is Kool in my humble opinion!
Yeah, I guess some people wouldn't mind - that's the great thing about art being subjective. For me, it just felt like an obstruction. I feel like I want to walk into the scene, but always end up mentally tripping over the branches! 😂
I love your channel, Robert. What you're doing here may be art, but it doesn't satisfy the definition of photography that I live by: a moment in time from the real world. It's digital (or computational) image manipulation. Photoshop's editing tools are artificial constructs. When you use layers, cloning, etc., you exit the realm of photography. I strongly object to photographers who, for example, use sky replacement and then pass off what they've done as landscape photography. I have to compete with such people at Getty Images and it's unfair that I don't falsely manipulate my images, yet they do without disclosing it. It's like shooting in a zoo and passing off your photos as if you went on African safari. Zoo photographs are fine if you say your animals are captive. So are all the things you're doing to this image. Just don't claim it's a landscape photo.
Thanks Rob. I think this touches on what I was talking about at the end of the video. I am happy to label an image differently. I would say it's a landscape image that has primarily been created photographically but also manipulated digitally. Thanks for watching. 🙂
I sometimes remove items from a scene, stray bits of litter, an annoying twig that creeps in from a corner and the occasional unwanted lamppost, etc. Basically, the things that distract you and stop you from enjoying the image. It's a far cry from AI editing and sky replacement, but I can see why some may still call it cheating.
It depends on what you want to convey. James Popsys, who I think Thomas referred too enjoys encorporating man made elements into his landscape photography.
I often look at some of his work, and as much as I like his photography, I think if I took that photo, people would ask why I left those elements in the composition.
A good demonstration of the techniques involved Robert.
Yeah, of course, if you choose to purposfully keep those things in, then it's an equally valid artistic. choice. I guess that's the beauty of photography, and art in general, it can mean something completely different from one person to the next. Cheers for watching. 🙂
Enjoyed your video very informative and I think that with out doubt I agree with you if it is required then clone but do not over clone a good capture. 🐕👍👌👏
Musch appreciated John. No, I think ideally, no cloning is best, but sometimes you've got to do what you've got to do! Cheers for watching. 🙂
Hi Robert, like 32 here for you from Newfoundland, Canada!
An interesting debate Robert. Having also watched that smaller channel ;) I believe there is no right or wrong answer. Creativity and artistic intent are down to the photographer and the edit style assist in the final production of what one wants to convey in the final piece of art. AI on the other hand is a different world altogether. Personally I will continue to remove dust spots, unwanted clutter , people sometimes and to use the power of LR and PS to create the final photograph that represents what I saw / imagined / intended. I won't be misleading in my images with AI. Amen
Yeah, generally agree with you there Andrew. When I occassionally do use gernative AI, I make sure to add a note under the image. And I'm happy to call it a hybrid photo/digital image at that stage. Thanks for watching. 🙂
If your photography is to showcase a beautiful scene, whether it’s a natural setting or scenery, a portrait of someone (with a shitty background), a building or street with litter, garbage, scaling paint, etc…cropping to improve upon it…..is Kool in my humble opinion!
Much appreciated. How do you feel about generative AI and adding things to the image that would not have otherwise been there?
I actually don't mind the "distraction " bro to be honest. I think it adds to a great haunted/mystical wood look
Yeah, I guess some people wouldn't mind - that's the great thing about art being subjective. For me, it just felt like an obstruction. I feel like I want to walk into the scene, but always end up mentally tripping over the branches! 😂
I love your channel, Robert. What you're doing here may be art, but it doesn't satisfy the definition of photography that I live by: a moment in time from the real world. It's digital (or computational) image manipulation. Photoshop's editing tools are artificial constructs. When you use layers, cloning, etc., you exit the realm of photography. I strongly object to photographers who, for example, use sky replacement and then pass off what they've done as landscape photography. I have to compete with such people at Getty Images and it's unfair that I don't falsely manipulate my images, yet they do without disclosing it. It's like shooting in a zoo and passing off your photos as if you went on African safari. Zoo photographs are fine if you say your animals are captive. So are all the things you're doing to this image. Just don't claim it's a landscape photo.
Thanks Rob. I think this touches on what I was talking about at the end of the video. I am happy to label an image differently. I would say it's a landscape image that has primarily been created photographically but also manipulated digitally. Thanks for watching. 🙂