These questions are meaningfull for journalism/documentary photography. When you Creating an art - you creating an art, so its to you to decide what art you wanna bring.
Came here to say the same thing. Photography in an art form. Impressionist painters didn't paint true to life scenes, but they used colour, shapes, texture to depict emotions and feelings. They didn't include every detail, because unnecessary details detract from the artist's vision and message. Clone away, only humans have left such an ugly mark on the landscape.
Once I realized how manipulated everyone's photos are, I felt better about mine. I don't clone stuff out (mistakenly wrote crop at first). I like to capture what's actually there. Channels like this one taught me to not believe what I see, though can still appreciate the pretty pictures.
Journalism and documentary photography definitely need the higher standard, but I agree with a number of comments here about art. You are doing creative work so that someone can essentially enjoy a beautiful landscape. This type of work is not about fact checking, or protecting yourself or others against liability for documentary purposes. You should feel completely at ease about pushing boundaries and allowing yourself the freedom to do good work. That is what art is all about. Please take out the power lines. Thank you!
There are actually some good examples where "honest" documentary photography was later found out to be manipulated due to cropping or even cloning out people. To find higher standards we probably have to stop being human beings... 😉
Agreed, I think if it was human made, and your focus is nature, get the lorry out, or the wires if your subject is a mountain or island. I think we fall into art here. When we are documenting, I think it's VITAL to forgo almost all post-production apart from classic dark room methods, cropping and maybe a bit of rotating correction if the composition needs it.
Personally I don't add or remove anything from any of my photos because I hate post processing. It's a chore and I have always strived to get my shots in camera. I started photography in the early 1990s and started with film so yeah, cloning wasn't an easy thing to do. I might play with my crop (how I cut unwanted things out) or levels, but that's it.
You describe exactly how I approach photography. I also tend to do what James Popsys does and thats find a way to incorporate extra objects as part of the composition - not always achievable - but I find it helps.
Hi Tom, I'm so glad you have considered this. I do not clone anything out, I don't suggest that it shouldn't be done, it's just not for me, thanks and well done.
I used to be on the "it's art so it doesn't matter, clone it out" side of things, but in a world where it's becoming hard to tell what's real or not, due to generative AI popping up everywhere, I'm starting to change my mind on this. I think we're going to see a shift back towards authenticity being important in photography, and people appreciating honesty more than just trying to make it look as pretty as possible. Real life is messy, so maybe there's just as much art in presenting things as they are, than there is in presenting them in their best light? There's no right answer, but that is where my head is going at the moment.
Last year I went out with a wildlife photographer, His got disqualified because he edited out a stick, that he didn't like, and they were up front with him if he didn't do that his photo would of won.
@@alansach8437 can documentation not be art? Can art not be documentation? They could be two different things, but they could also be the same thing. I guess the point is, whatever you do, be intentional about it and be able to justify why you did it.
There’s a flexible line on what to clone. As an astrophotographer we are also challenged with constantly increasing satellites and light pollution, they usually get edited out (at least mostly) but I recently have been asked to leave it to increase awareness of the public. I’m planning on making 2 versions of my photos
Landscape photography can probably be used in the same way. One version can show the perfection and beauty from an artistic point of view according to the photographer's criteria, and another showing how civilization "dirties" and even destroys such beautiful natural landscapes.
editing has always been a part of photography, and modern tools just give us more freedom. As long as your edits align with your vision or the expectations of your audience, there’s no reason not to enhance your landscape photos.
I suggest framing the question thus: if you were a landscape painter painting a scene, would you feel obliged to paint in all the discordant, "inconvenient" details? Is your mission as photographer really that much different than the painter's?
Photography is creative, and to allow others to see the world through your perspective. It’s an expression of yourself, so only you get to decide what you want your photographs to look like.
This question has risen many times during my time in digital photography. I have learned from many great teachers (Tom, you are one of them) that creating art is a personal experience and passion. You cannot and should not attempt its creation for others. You create art for yourself. There are photographers all across the spectrum from documentary notions to full esoteric approaches. The bottom line: It's your art and your project. Do what makes you happy and creative. Some will salute and some will not. So what! Enjoy what you do and let the chips fall.
I think if it's something transitory, like footprints in snow, trash in the wildflowers, a distracting twig in the water, either physically remove or clone out in post. Something relatively fixed in place...move on, change framing, or possibly darken a bit in post.
Artistic creativity = cloning. Documentary photography = no cloning. BTW, couldn't using an ND filter to flatten water be a type of cloning? If you're going to add saturation to colors, use vignettes to direct the viewer's eye, etc, then cloning is just another tool for making the comp just the way we want it. The important thing is to enjoy yourself!
Personally I have issues with cloning, and I have issues with flattening the water if when you're on location, the mood isn't calm. Making the mood different from what it is on location at that moment feels wrong to me. If it's calm waters, and you use the ND filter to enhance that, great. It's it's choppy and windy, make the photo feel like that with a shorter exposure or it feels off, both to the photographer and the viewer. Same with waterfalls. If they're raging, don't use a 10 sec exposure, use a 0.5 sec exposure so you can see how powerful it is. If it's a more elegant waterfall, with multiple streams, and a calm flow, then yeah a very long exposure will reflect the mood of the place and the photo will feel right.
Selecting a certain focal length could also be considered cropping.. or a certain aperture to blur unwanted elements. The thing is, you never document the absolute truth.. it's all a matter of how much distortion is acceptable for what purpose?
@@Renzsu Of course, but at the end of the day, it also depends if you're trying to sell the photo or not. If it's just for you, clone the shit out of it, who cares. But if it's to sell it to us the viewers/clients, then as a client, I would be disappointed if a photo I liked had some cloning involved and I would not buy anything else from the photographer. Some people might find it crazy, but that's how I feel. If I'm gonna buy a photo, or a book from a photographer, I want to know that those photos are genuine. If the places I'm looking at are actually full of powerlines, extra buildings or people and they're cloned out, then it's disappointing coz it means that place isn't "real".
I believe a ND filter does not qualify as a “clone-tool”. It’s not altering the content of the image the same way. Exposure time, f-stop, filters, different film, developers, printing media, the list could go on and on, historically this is more of HOW you like it to look and feel. But everyone has to set their own boundaries or not at all for that matter.
What's up Thomas? I tried not to chime in on this, but this is simple. Either clone or just don't take the shot. I think authenticity is always best. As far as people is concerned, either ask them to kindly move or just wait till they leave. Nice video, peace!
Definitely in the no-clone camp. Photography for me is all about capturing the world as it is. Not how I or others want to see it. When I look back at a photo years later, and my original memory is not so clear, I appreciate that realness. The parts that I may have wanted to change or hide grow on me with time - those little details help to transport me back through time. I see lots of comments here saying it’s art so you can do whatever you want. And of course they aren’t wrong. But I think they are overlooking the fact that authenticity also adds artistic value. You might get fewer 5-star photos, but the ones you do get will mean more.
"But I think they are overlooking the fact that authenticity also adds artistic value." My portraits of people usually do not include the authentic pimples marring their face that particular day.
Personally you were there to photograph the landscape, not wires and Pylons. If you started moving trees and mountains then its time to back off, but a few cables? clone them out
@@davemelling9520 To me its always about the subject. The subject was the island and the mountains. Not the power grid to demonstrate that you can get an accommodation with electric power in this region. The wires werent there one hundred years ago and since we cant travel to the past why shouldnt we be able to capture the beauty of the nature.
I recently shot Kilchurn Castle in Scotland at sunrise and had the same dilemma with the power lines. I started to clone but then decided to embrace them as part of the scene. Ultimately it is all about the image you want to project.
You’re creating art and the final product really is what matters Keep removing any distractions, and show us the before and after so we can see your fantastic artwork. Love your content 👍🏼
I've been watching you for many years, and yes, your default always has been about photoshopping/cloning - so I was really surprised by the title. I'm really enjoying your new mindset about - caring more about the scene/light in front of you, and not letting small distractions get in your way of taking a photo. As to then whether you photoshop after that is your creative license - that should be a post processing decision. And like you mention at the end you are going to think about those decisions more, I'm glad to hear. You are living the dream.
Outside of lens corrections (dust, water spots, etc), I only clone things out that aren't permanent. Anything that will be there in the future is part of the scene and shouldn't be removed. I do remove temporary things that could distract from the photo such as twigs, debris or any kind or trash.
I completely agree with what you’re saying but “Permanent” also has a moving line. The car in the background will be gone in two hours. The construction cones would be gone in two weeks. That house will be gone in 75 years. The bridge in 150 years. Everything in nature is constantly changing, sometimes at a slow rate. so there are still moving lines to “permanence”. Trying to identify what you’ll take out has to be at the photographer’s discretion.
@@joshuablack3163 "Permanence" is not truly such a moving line. Obviously, nothing is truly "permanent", but you can't know for certain that the house might be gone in 75 years, though it might have change its state to something that is more or less photogenic. Either way, 75 years, if we go with that hypothetical, is unless I'm mistaken longer than the current life expectancy of man in the US, so I'd say that within the scope of the debate we're having a lifetime certainly counts as permanent. As for the other examples, I'd say that if you're so certain (which you can never really be) that the car will be gone in two hours, then come back in two hours and take the shot. The light might have changed, you say? Of course, and that's part of photography. You might not be able to come back in two hours (or in two weeks) until that car/cones are gone? That's life.
So your stance would be to keep cones and cars in the image? I think those are fair to remove as they could be moved relatively easily by human intervention. Houses and bridges? I think structures that will last decades would stay unless there was a really good reason to remove them and there is transparency from the photographer in the fact they were removed. Power lines? Power lines would probable the best example of the moral dilemma here; they’re permanent (as far as something can be), but rarely visually appealing in a natural composition. Someone who’s pro clone stamping would remove without a thought. And someone who wants the most realistic representation of the scene would never even consider removing them.
@@joshuablack3163 Cones and cars would have to be removed by *appropriate* human intervention (i.e. the owner of the car, municipal authorities), so unless you own the car you've actually got no way to remove it. Your argument about houses is bizarre and I don't quite understand it. As for power lines, obviously I've cloned out some sometimes and not other other times. As far as I'm concerned, if the power lines are front and center just like in some of the photos shown in the video, they're actually part of the subject and you should decide whether or not you want to actually photograph this subject.
I can’t tell if you’re trolling or not-You won’t clone out a car or traffic cones, but it’s obvious you’ve removed power lines? An example of the house part of my comment would be if someone wanted a print of a landscape as it was/should be, but now there’s a house built on the hillside in the middle of the landscape. Removing the house from the images is ethically questionable, but as long as the photographer is honest about the manipulation, I honestly don’t think it’s a big deal.
Another great update and a good talking point. I tend to only remove blemishes caused by dust etc (thanks to a dust storm last month, it was all in the air and covering the lenses/filters). Yes, removing some distractions may be okay but I prefer warts and all. I saw a display a few months back and a concrete bunker had been cloned out but it’s actually, to me, part of the charm rather than a distraction. Less cloning is to me, more. Look forward to next update 👍👏
I support your decision to not clone (permanent fixtures) for two reasons. 1. Honesty - as a species we are inevitably drifting further into an AI universe, and grounding our images in honesty feels more important than ever. If for no other reason than to differentiate ourselves from the inevitable AI generated art that we're going to be flooded by. 2. Embrace the imperfections - once you embrace the imperfections, you'll realise that these imperfections actually add to the image by grounding them. Everything is not perfectly placed and that's why it's good. It's real and grounded. Reality isn't perfect.
I think you started a healthy discussion here. Not because there is a right or wrong answer to the question, but because we need to talk about different perspectives. A lot of people are trying to find the right way, but there is no right way. You are making a choice between cloning or not cloning and it’s all up to you, as long as you don’t misguide anyone by lying. I myself nearly ever clone, but it’s my own choice, because it is part of my expression. Again, thank you for bringing it up. 😊
Personally I ignore the would be gatekeepers and do what makes me happy. The problem is if you are catering to the most likes group to gain more popularity and money from RUclips then the answer is leave the wires in if that's what you need to do. Just don't let them guide you in their direction whilst ignoring your own. Then again what do I know. Keep up the great work and I really like your videos, Thomas.
Even the lens one chooses, and the edges of the rectangle are choices which edit something in or out of a photograph. I think you are on the right track to just consider your choices for each shot, and the purpose behind it. Hell, no one takes my photographs seriously, just because I take all sorts of subjects, not sticking to "landscape" or "reportage", or even more fraught with dogma: "street"! Do what you feel Thomas. You're spot on!
Cloning is fine but it depends on the resulting images use. If you want to create an artwork, then go ahead, it is all,part of your creation. If you are documenting a subject then no, as it is no longer a record of the subject. If it is for a competition and cloning is allowed but must be explained all good. Honestly, it is all about context. I don’t want to see power lines on a calendar page.
I"m totally with you on this. I've been doing photography as a hobby for 13 or so years now since I was 13 years old myself. I've always felt that editing things out from photos makes them feel fake in a way, which has made me try and get the composition best as possible to begin with.
I'm in the no clone tool camp. For my images my line is generally dust motes. That said it's your work, you decide where the line is. I do think honesty/transparency are important.
I like the comments so far. I agree mostly that as the artist it’s your call. I generally have a rule of thumb that if it’s distractive and simple to remove, remove it. Otherwise, slip the shoot leave it in.
If you subscribe to the idea that you’re creating images vs taking images, cloning out unwanted objects is fine. If I shoot a beautiful mountain range, I don’t want viewers focussed on one random fence post in the foreground. You’re overthinking this.
I would 100% clone it out! You're there to photograph the amazing scenery.... can't see a composition in that shot where the power lines would bring any advantage to the composition.
Clone away. I started my photography journey as a strictly straight out of the camera, no edits person. Believing that was the best way to show others what i saw and expeienced. Over the years I've noticed that while what comes through the camera tmay be a good record of what was in front of my lens, it was a terrible reproduction of what I "saw". When standing at the base of a waterfall or beautiful vista i dont see the phone lines or random distractions. I just see.. beauty. As such I've transitioned into someone who edits every shot, I clone things out, tweak light and shadow and concern myself more with what I "saw" and how it made me feel. Rather than simply a record of what was there.
Been watching for years and this latest series has been particularly fun as I’ve had the good fortune to photograph in Ireland on several occasions, including some of these same spots. I had the same cloning dilemma with the wires on that island and the area around the mountains in Lutty. Ultimately left well enough alone, for whatever that’s worth. Cheers!
Supposing i'm not doing a documentary image, cloning is great. When i photograph, i want to communicate how a scene makes me feel, not how it literally appears. The very process of composing a shot, leaving out or keeping elements in, is a form of cloning out! I want to focus on the parts that spoke to me most deeply!
That’s fine so long as you transparent about disclosing major changes you make. If an audience expects the photo was made a particular way and it’s not disclosed that it was not made that way, then it’s deceptive to share it knowing it’ll be interpreted as a “regular” photograph. There is no issue with creating what ever art you want, the issue arises when sharing it dishonestly
@@tobiasyoder which raises another question I suppose, what's a major change? Generally I remove twigs or rubbish, I never touch entire trees or something major in the scene as I'd rather acknowledge the composition doesn't work. Perhaps I'd consider it if the angle i want really exists, but I can't get to it because it's on private property etc etc. Hard line to draw, but I agree that honesty is important, especially if it's a scene that others know about and are likely to visit.
@@JayFunningham What constitutes what a “major change” is depends on the audience you’re sharing it with :). There is no edit that is inherently too far, it just depends on if you are meeting the expectation of your audience
If you choose to clone out elements in your photo, you're making a conscious decision about your art. Using AI to tidy up your images without understanding the process doesn’t help you grow as a photographer. To me, photography is all about the journey and not just the final result. So if you’re enjoying every step of creating an image, even if it means removing or cloning out something, you’re definitely on the right track! 😉✌
Thomas, As humanity continues to damage the planet, I wonder if a truly perfect photo is even possible anymore. Your work so far stands out-it's clean, vibrant, and perfect. Are you going to spend the rest of your photography career creating images of an idealized environment that no longer exists, like many others do? By showcasing the reality of our world, including the trash we produce, you have a unique opportunity to stand out like some of the greats. Don’t let insecurity about your work hold you back; it has real merit. There’s a market for this perspective. Consider how few photographers are willing to depict litter in what would otherwise be a beautiful landscape. Thanks Stafford Fuhs
It’s a great talking point Thomas, and great video. Many have already stated it but it’s true. With the ability for “generative fill” and other “erasing” type tools, it does pose the question “Is this real? Did a Bear just happen to be drinking from a stream with all color trees around it?” lol. Now for me, I don’t make any money on my work, as I am just an aspiring enthusiast. I love landscape photography. The biggest part of my journey is actually being out and finding that composition. The other part is enjoy is post processing. It’s my photo, my art, so if I need to get rid of power lines because of the distraction I do not have a single problem with that. Again, it’s my photo, and if my composition is still intact, then something that struck me as beautiful will end up in my photo stack. I do agree that you should do your best to work the composition to remove as many distractions as you can. But there are some you just can’t. I gladly will take the shot, and remove anything unwanted, and be happy with it as long as I can say, “I covered all my angles”. Nice conversation though!
When I collect images for my catalog which I use for drawing landscapes, I don’t clone. When I draw, I edit everything. Most often, I am simplifying the scene. It’s what minimalists do.😎
It's like anything in life , too much of anything is bad! Trust me , you've got it perfect. The technology will still exist if you don't use it, and other people WILL continue to use it. And using it WELL, is a skill. I say carry on.
Welcome to the resistance. Love that you're pushing yourself here. I think one reason people have pivoted recently to film is because it forces a more authentic conveyance of the real moment the photo was made. Of course, a lot can still be done on a scan in post. But, I've always felt there's no reason not to apply that same approach to digital even though I'm not a film photographer. What makes the image special for me is the challenge of creating a snapshot of a moment in all its beauty. In that sense, if it's not in the RAW to begin with, it's outside the moment. Changing a ditch, removing a tree, or a powerline is the digital version of coming in with a digger and doing aggressive landscaping. At that point it's no longer an authentic representation of the moment the image was created in. It's something out of time that bridges an imagining of the past and future and stitches that into an idealized version of the now. For me this also applies down to a chips bag stuck in the leaves, or a giant cow turd. Otherwise, why not just fake a sky, add light in in post, or modify the rest of it like digital art? In some ways I suppose this reflects the conversation that has been had in glamor magazines for years. Just how much skin smoothing, and body morphing is OK? As you said - there's also a historical record dimension as photographers where we're recording a glimpse of a moment for posterity. And if that isn't accurate, and someone comes up and finds a building or powerlines or such and those were always there but digitally adjusted - its truly a moment that can in many cases betray a sense of trust between photographer/historian and viewer. At the end of the day there's what we want, and then what is. We can force what is to justify what we want. But, the most authentic is always the best. I think it also pushes us to be better advocates for things like respecting natural habitats, underground powerlines (seriously, what is it with !@#@!ing powerlines? And beautiful spots), earthen scars, and rubbish removal.
I think we are missing the point, the power lines should never have been there in the first place. Is it the artists duty to gloss over society's mistakes, or to make a statement?
Other comments have said this already but I'll put it in my own words. I think your camera is your canvas and the landscape is your brush. Paint what you want.
I think you answered your own question when remarking about removing the actual scene someone else will rack up to. You do a brilliant job of not only explaining your reasoning for taking a certain picture but also showing your pre/post edited images which give a realistic explanation of what’s on offer. If you take a picture where you have cloned out quite large objects, totally changing the perspective from what someone else would see then it might be worth either mentioning that in the voice over or a side caption when showing your finished pictures.
Of course every photo has a different purpose or multiple purposes and can have multiple versions out in the world, but one thing I feel whenever I see a landscape with telephone poles or other man-made elements left unedited, I always admire it for its honesty and truthfulness, as well as confidence in the image that I myself probably wouldn't have.
One of my favorite scenes to photograph has a big cellphone tower sticking up among the trees, like it's a giant middle finger. I regularly photograph that scene and (just as regularly) clone out the tower. A number of years ago I traveled cross country (USA) and photographed a beautiful mesa in Utah; there were high tension power lines and towers all across the photo. I kept them in the photo because (somehow) they were integral to the photo and added an austere beauty to the landscape.
I can be set up for what I think is a perfect shot, the light perfect, squeezing the button - and from no-where, a random hiker/tourist appears. WTH? Take the shot, remove the hiker/tourist before the light moves. I scout a location, get in my mind's eye what I want to express, and shoot it. I have no problems making tweaks in post. But I never add an object. I will remove something un-natural such as garbage or a hiker, or a freakin power line or distant windmill, etc., in a heartbeat. Another great video. Your passion is infectious.
Subjective of course. There is a good rule from portrait photography that basically says If it's there in a week it's a part of it. But things like a random hair flying around or a pimple or other temporary stuff, that all can go. I think it works for landscapes as well, at least if the goal is to depict reality.
I once went to a location of a photo I adored, to only be shocked at how much it really didn’t exist. I did feel a bit duped. I suppose declaring it would be considerate. Make a choice of which type of photographer you want to be, then it’s known, & no one will feel duped ✌️🏆
I can't imagine there is one correct answer for everyone in every circumstance. Like choosing a religion, to clone or not to clone is a very personal choice. If I were taking photos for "National Geographic", I would look for a comp where cloning was not needed. If I was taking it for my Mom/Mum, I'd take the beautiful tree-island comp and remove the power lines while cranking the HDR to 11. Somewhere between those two there is probably an answer ;-) The fact you struggle with the question is a sign of integrity, congratulations. Good luck with your decision, I'll be watching either way.
Hi Tom, The creation process does not stop at "taking the shot". This is just the beginning. Depending on your Photoshop skill level creation goes way beyond the capture of the image. Moving your tripod for instance, is the same as moving something in the scene, in Photoshop. The resulting final image is the end goal. Clone, manipulate, adjust all the variables...as long as it looks 100% natural and real. For me Photoshop is just as important as the camera. It's not how I get get from A-Z, as long as I do get to Z. There again I'm pretty adept in Photoshop with many years experience. You don't even require the latest mega £ camera...as long as you've got the software skill!👍
Hi Tom. Excellent video and a subject I grapple with as well. It really depends on my mood. If cloning out involves a lot of work/effort and fundamentally changes a scene, then I won't do it. If there is something tiny or insignificant in the scene and it is easily cloned out, then yes. I agree with you on keeping the wires in.
Well it is about time You start thinking about it. I used to fight against those things. But I gave up once I was in Iceland as there is not one scene without power line. So then the challange is if You cant fight it, include it. I must say it does add to the challenge and finally I do like to work it into the picture just as it is. Try it, it can be fun.
It so great yoy got to visit father Ted's house! I look forward to the rest of your irish adventure 👍 it was really great to catch up and hang out! Cheers
Hi Thomas: I loved this location when we were there in 2018. I have removed the power lines from this composition and I have no regrets or guilt for doing so. To me, subtracting small distractions like this do not materially impact the overall integrity of the image. Where I do have an issue with using PS is when the photographer does so much editing he/she has created an entirely different shot. I believe that Ansel Adams would have done this type of edit to his image without losing any sleep of it. Cheers, Keith (Barrie, Ontario)
Years ago I was watching photographer, Bryan Petersen photograph cityscapes, flowers, people etc. He kept saying "creative photography." It took awhile until it dawned on me what he meant by creative photography. I always thought it was just photography. I say that to echo other commentor's. It's your choice of creativity. Happy shooting!
You are creating art. It is your art! We all use polarizing filters, long exposures, and lots of other tools and techniques that alter the scene. We all Dodge and Burn, remove noise, and perform other steps to improve what our cameras see! I believe that cloning out a power line is no different and it’s OK! On the other hand, adding fake AI objects to the scene crosses the line! Thanks for taking me along!
Hey Tom, this is music to my ears! About 2 years ago I decided to practice a bit of "acceptance" with regards to manmade objects in the landscape. I now treat wind turbines, pylons and barbwire fences et al, as I would trees rocks or bushes. In fact I give a print talk called, The Unnatural Environment to Camera Clubs. I could go on about how man has been changing the landscape for about the past 10,000 years. Anyway, welcome to my side of the line. Wayne aka Rough Art Photography.
Clone but disclose, I don’t generally have a problem with cloning. I think that your position of influence is a factor in the question, but again I think that honest disclosure is the best bet there too. Keep up the great work.
For me photography, specifically the landscape and wildlife genres, are about capturing nature and, in essence, everything on Earth is natural or created by nature so everything you’re capturing through your lens is ‘life on Earth’, the perfections and the imperfections. Of course, it’s personal taste but I very hardly use the clone tool because I don’t like to produce something that I consider ‘fake’ and instead focus on composition (but it’s not always possible to avoid unwanted objects - like the tree island but it is what it is). Thank you for making this video as it’s a question that’s been on my mind since I’ve started photo editing (recently).
Nature is changing. The influence of man can now be seen everywhere. Condensation trails in the sky, rubbish in nature, power lines, etc.. When we look at old photos, we see the landscape as it was back then. And we should retain this feeling and this certainty when we look at them. So no ‘cloning’, but either include the disturbances in the composition or look for a different perspective.
Hi Tom Cloning stuff out is totally a personal preference, when it comes to your images and what you want to achieve. Or how you want other people to view your images. I chose not to clone stuff out of my images or do much editing to them, purely for the fact I feel that by doing so, it’s not the image I took or composition I was drawn to in the first place.
For me, I would use the clone removal tool. When the goal is for others to view and appreciate your work, you want to avoid or remove distractions from the experience. Just like we use other tools to lighten, darken, whether it is software or filters. Bringing your audience into a scene is hard enough. The travel, weather, sun, wind, etc. It takes a lot of effort to get an image and a row of hydro poles is just a distraction. That is what I would be looking at in the photo, not all the other beauty. Just my thoughts. Cheers and I love your work!
I think editing depends on the usage. If you're in journalism, no editing other than exposure, sharpening, and maybe color correction would be OK. Personally, I don't have any limits or "line to cross" in my work. I will remove things, add in new things, blend images, replace backgrounds. I enjoy the editing as much as the photography and my clients also expect me to deliver some pretty extreme editing. I think if you are trying to trick people, that may be the problem. I like to create impossible or dream like images and the editing is not to trick any one. It is another layer of creativity I get to apply after what I've captured in camera. To each their own though. Whatever makes you happy as long as you're honest about it and not trying to lie/hide anything.
Appreciate the video Thomas, thank you! I have a very simple rule when it comes to cloning. If it's a natural part of the landscape or scene I won't clone it.. If it's a man-made intrusion I will consider it. Powerlines are the exception to that rule. I've clom d them out before in a very unknown location. Given your situation I probably wouldn't remove them either. Cheers.
Thank you for asking this question. I think it is absolutely necessary to leave the image as it is. We must stop manipulating everything until it is no longer the original just because it is poossible. It is the same with photoshopping photo models to a weird sense of beauty. Processing an image should improve an image in that way as your eye and brain can understand how it looks like in reality and what a camera never can achieve to get the same (imaginative) result. But that's what it should be about. Not more. Otherwise we start living in an imaginare world. And as you said: people who would like to see the same would be disappointed and maybe regard the photographer as a betrayer. We should act more as a documentary photographer.
Some cloning out is a good thing and a photo saver. The odd telephone pole that you can't work around and such. Artistically, no artist would ever paint in the power lines, so the more you consider your photo work 'art' and less "documentary," the more incline you'd be to clone them out.
You asked how power lines got through planning well there is a scoring system that utilities go through for planning and one of the questions is "Rate the area's ecstatic appeal with 10 being very photogenic and 0 being garbage heap". For utilities to be built they need a minimum score. It is kind of like the same reasoning that park services use for placing informational boards.
For me you are working in an artistic form and therefore are expressing your interpretation of how the scene should look to ultimately please yourself. If it is something you are doing that you feel the image needs and you are not making out that you don't do that then tear away at it. Its only a problem if you are not up front about it. Let James be James and Tom be Tom, its just fine that way.
You were my line in the sand here. I've often made clone removals of small distractions based in your argument that as a photographer our job isn't to capture something exactly as it is, but how you see it. Power lines are distracting but not insurmountable when in the scene. When in a photo, which is cropped and finite, those same power lines became a feature of the inclusions. I usually try and find a composition sans the distractions as post prod is the worst part but I don't think power lines are really an issue. What I would never do is change the weather or colours beyond how I saw them. Shopping in a different sky is not photography but digital art. Even worse when it's someone else's sky photo
Was on vacation with my husband celebrating our 40th anniversary and we were at that very location on the 10th! I will be taking the power lines out. No different to me than any other adjustments made in LR or PS to make the image how I saw and experienced the light and the sense of place. I am not a photojournalist, so I don’t have a problem removing objects that aren’t a part of the story I want to tell.
Such a nice take on it! As others have mentioned, the main thing is to be aware of where you're aiming between photojournalism and art. Are you shooting for Reuters? No? Are you shooting to convey the immense beauty of the landscape? When I shoot portraits, I have a similar dilemma; a line so to speak: I don't want to change the person, but if they were unlucky with a spot that would've been gone had we waited a month, then that spot has no business being in a proper portrait of that person; that spot is not who they are. And just like the waves on the water can disappear in a longer exposure, those power lines are not part of the timeless portrait of that landscape, and with a lucky gust of wind could disappear as well! There's no sin in cloning them out, unless you're on assignment for Reuters.
Thanks for your presentation. As a 20-year hobbyist photographer, I love shooting and editing for my channel which is mostly travel-related. I don't shoot nearly at your level (or have the equipment) but I love the hobby and editing is my favorite part. Since the beginning, I've been obsessed with random distracting objects, or RDO's as I call them. As editing tech has advanced, with AI now getting involved, it is so much easier to remove these. I try and take the minimalistic approach removing only things I think necessary. Bottom line, with any art, photography included, it's all in the eye of the beholder. You're going to have everything from 'right out of the camera' to heavily edited, fake-looking AI images. now more prevalent than ever. To me, the AI aspect is now doing more harm to real photography than cell phones. And yet, I LOVE Luminar Neo, LOL! My 2 cents. Anyway, Happy shooting!!
I think you’ve answered your own question. Absolutely epic shot at 10:46 - but because you had a preconceived idea of what that shot should be, you’ve missed a once in a lifetime opportunity. I love shooting the Irish landscape - one of the reasons I moved back after living in London for 10 years. I appreciate why people might feel the need to clone out what they dislike, or use slow shutter speed to dramatise a scene, but it’s a technical approach that takes away from a landscape that I’m always inspired by as an artist, and in awe of from a human perspective.
When finished editing your image ask the simple question, “Does the scene exist?”. For me the answer has to be yes, for the same reasons you mention, that someone could stand in that same spot and have a similar experience. We want our landscape images to evoke a response, not for what we removed, but for what was there.
Do whatever pleases you. I like leaving things in - it is how it is in that moment and that's what makes it unique, but if cloning makes you happy, clone away.
Great as always. It’s interesting when I’m out taking street photos I now like to include power lines and street light that I use to avoid when I first got into photography
I agree as well with previous people who have said that journalism / documentary photography needs to be the real scene, but if the photo is an expression of your artistic vision, then it's entirely up to you. If you were painting the location, would you include the power lines...?
Thanks Thomas. Interesting and thought provoking as always. Better take the best shot from the best position, and then accept the need to take out the small ugly bits, in order to create a good image that will be full of other changes anyway: balancing exposure/contrast, colour levels, de-noise, etc.. You wouldn't think twice at sensor dust removal ! Other people arriving at your location is not your responsibility I don't think. It is a little more questionable when the software does the donkeywork for you. I think a FAR WORSE sin is adding into your composition: replacing sky, adding other things into the image (birds, a big moon....), moving parts of the image around.
Comes down to what the photographer values, and how they want to share that value in their work. Sure, unless you’re in a photojournalistic role you don’t NEED to be very purist in your processing. If as a photographer you still value something along the lines of ‘raw reality’ with scenes coming exactly as is, you probably wouldn’t clone, only colour corrections & no grading.. etc. If translating the internal vision/story/idea through heavier processing (cloning, colour grading, etc) is more important, then that’s equally great! End of the day I think it’s all about transparency in the process. How you like to do it is only ever your own choice
To me, a beautiful landscape it's not matter of powerlines, poles ecc. but what really count is how the landscape talks to my soul. A field full of solar panels may move my soul like the most uncontaminated nature, and as a photographer I'm interested in both subjects. I'm not looking for "perfection", I'm looking to write through photography what the world tells me. AD
The answer is like Black and White photography, or more correctly monochrome photography. If there weren't shades of grey most photos would be boring. Cloning would fall on a similar spectrum with "definitely no" on one side and "absolutely yes" on the other with multiple levels in between. Think of photos taken 70-100 years ago with hundreds of power lines showing and other landscape eyesores and these days thats a rare image to see. Today's eyesore is tomorrow's nostalgia.
I 100% agree! Either leave them in or don't take the shot. I leave everything in my photos... a random persons head hiding in the background or even a random piece of trash I didn't see while I was picking up the area before a shot. It's all a part of photography... which is capturing a moment in time as it is. Otherwise, once an image is heavily manipulated I think we have to ask ourselves, "Are we still just trying to accurately express a moment in time we captured in a photograph, or are we creating digital art?" Just my opinion. No right or wrong answer. It's up to the artist and how they want to express their work! Personally I love telling people about all those little "imperfections" that they might not have noticed right off rhe bat, even if at all. It adds to the charm of the story behind the photo! New day and age, new struggles to debate. It's the artists responsibility to depict their work however they see fit. That's what makes it ART!
I agree with the general consensus of the comments, do with the image what you will. Personally, I like an image that has had limited modifications. While you cant tell if an image has had items removed with modern masking features, there is an element of a landscape that should have an imperfection and without being able to identify it you can notice it sometimes. I think changing the lighting is all good and minor colour modifications as you move the scene into how you see / remember it.
As long as you’re open with what stays and and what doesn’t, its fine for me. What is photo landscape art, and what is landscape photography? I would say it’s a personal preference that requires more openness.
Wowsers Tom, what a question! Back when I started photography (on film and without Photoshop), it was never really a question. As Photoshop came into being, lots of questions were raised about ethics and it was generally accepted that if you cloned things out, or changed an image ‘significantly’, that you stated that. I suppose I still hold to those ideals. I’m no painter, musician or artist, so my landscape photography is my way of portraying my artistic view of the landscape. So I have no problem with cloning or manipulation, provided that I do my best to be open and honest about that. If I was taking photographs for conservation or environmental journalism reasons, I probably wouldn’t clone anything out and would leave that to an editor to decide. I think it’s a very personal choice.
Re cloning out, just be very selective. I recently edited some seascape photos and cloned out some annoying buoyes. I would not alter the natural and physical features of a landscape as a general rule. Great video as ever Thomas, thanks
At the end of the day, It’s your image! Do as you please. No right or wrong when it comes to art. And yes, to answer your question, you are over thinking it,and who cares what other people say. 😎
These questions are meaningfull for journalism/documentary photography.
When you Creating an art - you creating an art, so its to you to decide what art you wanna bring.
wanted to post this but you've already done so
Second
I concur, is your final image meant to record actual reality or your creative impression of that scene....that's the difference
Came here to say the same thing. Photography in an art form. Impressionist painters didn't paint true to life scenes, but they used colour, shapes, texture to depict emotions and feelings. They didn't include every detail, because unnecessary details detract from the artist's vision and message. Clone away, only humans have left such an ugly mark on the landscape.
Damn. I'm not going to answer this because I think @Fessoid just gave the best answer. Journalism? Leave it in. Art? Make it yours.
Once I realized how manipulated everyone's photos are, I felt better about mine. I don't clone stuff out (mistakenly wrote crop at first). I like to capture what's actually there. Channels like this one taught me to not believe what I see, though can still appreciate the pretty pictures.
Same.
Cropping in camera or during editing whats the difference ? Why does it matter?
@@nev.catalyst7478 i misspoke, cropping is not a big deal, I meant cloning things out.
cropping is different than cloning things out
Journalism and documentary photography definitely need the higher standard, but I agree with a number of comments here about art. You are doing creative work so that someone can essentially enjoy a beautiful landscape. This type of work is not about fact checking, or protecting yourself or others against liability for documentary purposes. You should feel completely at ease about pushing boundaries and allowing yourself the freedom to do good work. That is what art is all about. Please take out the power lines. Thank you!
There are actually some good examples where "honest" documentary photography was later found out to be manipulated due to cropping or even cloning out people. To find higher standards we probably have to stop being human beings... 😉
Yes, exactly. You are not making maps. Remove the clutter if that is what needs to be done.
It's a different standard. Not higher.
@@bubbajones5905 and even maps take out all of the clutter, esp. all of the beauty out of the world. Good thinking about maps!
Agreed, I think if it was human made, and your focus is nature, get the lorry out, or the wires if your subject is a mountain or island. I think we fall into art here. When we are documenting, I think it's VITAL to forgo almost all post-production apart from classic dark room methods, cropping and maybe a bit of rotating correction if the composition needs it.
THERES NEVER ANYWHERE TO STOP!!! the truest thing you've said in all the years I've been watching you !!!! jeez, so right !
I don't think the answer is 100% in either direction. All that matters is how you want it to look. Cheers.
Very true.
And what you intend to do with the final image.
Personally I don't add or remove anything from any of my photos because I hate post processing. It's a chore and I have always strived to get my shots in camera. I started photography in the early 1990s and started with film so yeah, cloning wasn't an easy thing to do.
I might play with my crop (how I cut unwanted things out) or levels, but that's it.
You describe exactly how I approach photography. I also tend to do what James Popsys does and thats find a way to incorporate extra objects as part of the composition - not always achievable - but I find it helps.
Hi Tom, I'm so glad you have considered this. I do not clone anything out, I don't suggest that it shouldn't be done, it's just not for me, thanks and well done.
I used to be on the "it's art so it doesn't matter, clone it out" side of things, but in a world where it's becoming hard to tell what's real or not, due to generative AI popping up everywhere, I'm starting to change my mind on this. I think we're going to see a shift back towards authenticity being important in photography, and people appreciating honesty more than just trying to make it look as pretty as possible. Real life is messy, so maybe there's just as much art in presenting things as they are, than there is in presenting them in their best light? There's no right answer, but that is where my head is going at the moment.
Is it documentation, or is it art for your wall? Two different things.
@@alansach8437couldn’t have asked a better question. That right there is all the information necessary
Last year I went out with a wildlife photographer,
His got disqualified because he edited out a stick, that he didn't like, and they were up front with him if he didn't do that his photo would of won.
@@alansach8437 can documentation not be art? Can art not be documentation? They could be two different things, but they could also be the same thing. I guess the point is, whatever you do, be intentional about it and be able to justify why you did it.
I am 100% with you on this. my photoshop is under cobwebs at this point cause im tired of faking stuff. and still have won awards with my real pics.
There’s a flexible line on what to clone. As an astrophotographer we are also challenged with constantly increasing satellites and light pollution, they usually get edited out (at least mostly) but I recently have been asked to leave it to increase awareness of the public. I’m planning on making 2 versions of my photos
Landscape photography can probably be used in the same way. One version can show the perfection and beauty from an artistic point of view according to the photographer's criteria, and another showing how civilization "dirties" and even destroys such beautiful natural landscapes.
editing has always been a part of photography, and modern tools just give us more freedom. As long as your edits align with your vision or the expectations of your audience, there’s no reason not to enhance your landscape photos.
I suggest framing the question thus: if you were a landscape painter painting a scene, would you feel obliged to paint in all the discordant, "inconvenient" details? Is your mission as photographer really that much different than the painter's?
I was going to say exactly the same.
A photograph is not a painting. Otherwise why not just paint?
@@gavinlagrange6322 Well it is painting with light.
@@mdhazeldine do you think paintings aren't just as reliant on using light?
@@TF-mc6yj Hmm....well I guess you could paint in a dark room with your eyes closed....what's your point?
I always look at your images as "Art" and not "Documentary" so as an artist, you go in the direction you want your image to display to the world.
Photography is creative, and to allow others to see the world through your perspective. It’s an expression of yourself, so only you get to decide what you want your photographs to look like.
This question has risen many times during my time in digital photography. I have learned from many great teachers (Tom, you are one of them) that creating art is a personal experience and passion. You cannot and should not attempt its creation for others. You create art for yourself. There are photographers all across the spectrum from documentary notions to full esoteric approaches. The bottom line: It's your art and your project. Do what makes you happy and creative. Some will salute and some will not. So what! Enjoy what you do and let the chips fall.
I think if it's something transitory, like footprints in snow, trash in the wildflowers, a distracting twig in the water, either physically remove or clone out in post. Something relatively fixed in place...move on, change framing, or possibly darken a bit in post.
Artistic creativity = cloning. Documentary photography = no cloning. BTW, couldn't using an ND filter to flatten water be a type of cloning? If you're going to add saturation to colors, use vignettes to direct the viewer's eye, etc, then cloning is just another tool for making the comp just the way we want it. The important thing is to enjoy yourself!
and the music recording industry? Bohemian rhapsody would not exist without compositing.
Personally I have issues with cloning, and I have issues with flattening the water if when you're on location, the mood isn't calm. Making the mood different from what it is on location at that moment feels wrong to me. If it's calm waters, and you use the ND filter to enhance that, great. It's it's choppy and windy, make the photo feel like that with a shorter exposure or it feels off, both to the photographer and the viewer. Same with waterfalls. If they're raging, don't use a 10 sec exposure, use a 0.5 sec exposure so you can see how powerful it is. If it's a more elegant waterfall, with multiple streams, and a calm flow, then yeah a very long exposure will reflect the mood of the place and the photo will feel right.
Selecting a certain focal length could also be considered cropping.. or a certain aperture to blur unwanted elements. The thing is, you never document the absolute truth.. it's all a matter of how much distortion is acceptable for what purpose?
@@Renzsu Of course, but at the end of the day, it also depends if you're trying to sell the photo or not. If it's just for you, clone the shit out of it, who cares. But if it's to sell it to us the viewers/clients, then as a client, I would be disappointed if a photo I liked had some cloning involved and I would not buy anything else from the photographer. Some people might find it crazy, but that's how I feel. If I'm gonna buy a photo, or a book from a photographer, I want to know that those photos are genuine. If the places I'm looking at are actually full of powerlines, extra buildings or people and they're cloned out, then it's disappointing coz it means that place isn't "real".
I believe a ND filter does not qualify as a “clone-tool”. It’s not altering the content of the image the same way. Exposure time, f-stop, filters, different film, developers, printing media, the list could go on and on, historically this is more of HOW you like it to look and feel. But everyone has to set their own boundaries or not at all for that matter.
What's up Thomas? I tried not to chime in on this, but this is simple. Either clone or just don't take the shot. I think authenticity is always best. As far as people is concerned, either ask them to kindly move or just wait till they leave. Nice video, peace!
Definitely in the no-clone camp. Photography for me is all about capturing the world as it is. Not how I or others want to see it. When I look back at a photo years later, and my original memory is not so clear, I appreciate that realness. The parts that I may have wanted to change or hide grow on me with time - those little details help to transport me back through time.
I see lots of comments here saying it’s art so you can do whatever you want. And of course they aren’t wrong. But I think they are overlooking the fact that authenticity also adds artistic value. You might get fewer 5-star photos, but the ones you do get will mean more.
This. Wholeheartedly agree. Being genuinely honest with photography is a must for me.
"But I think they are overlooking the fact that authenticity also adds artistic value."
My portraits of people usually do not include the authentic pimples marring their face that particular day.
Personally you were there to photograph the landscape, not wires and Pylons. If you started moving trees and mountains then its time to back off, but a few cables? clone them out
the landscape includes the wires and pylons.
It's a tough one 😊 I thought it would make some good old debate 👍@@davemelling9520
It is like @mkbhd says “what is a photograph “
@@davemelling9520 To me its always about the subject. The subject was the island and the mountains. Not the power grid to demonstrate that you can get an accommodation with electric power in this region. The wires werent there one hundred years ago and since we cant travel to the past why shouldnt we be able to capture the beauty of the nature.
@@davemelling9520😂 man made.
I recently shot Kilchurn Castle in Scotland at sunrise and had the same dilemma with the power lines. I started to clone but then decided to embrace them as part of the scene. Ultimately it is all about the image you want to project.
You’re creating art and the final product really is what matters
Keep removing any distractions, and show us the before and after so we can see your fantastic artwork. Love your content 👍🏼
The final product is not what matters. The whole process matters.
I've been watching you for many years, and yes, your default always has been about photoshopping/cloning - so I was really surprised by the title. I'm really enjoying your new mindset about - caring more about the scene/light in front of you, and not letting small distractions get in your way of taking a photo. As to then whether you photoshop after that is your creative license - that should be a post processing decision. And like you mention at the end you are going to think about those decisions more, I'm glad to hear. You are living the dream.
Outside of lens corrections (dust, water spots, etc), I only clone things out that aren't permanent. Anything that will be there in the future is part of the scene and shouldn't be removed. I do remove temporary things that could distract from the photo such as twigs, debris or any kind or trash.
I completely agree with what you’re saying but “Permanent” also has a moving line. The car in the background will be gone in two hours. The construction cones would be gone in two weeks. That house will be gone in 75 years. The bridge in 150 years. Everything in nature is constantly changing, sometimes at a slow rate. so there are still moving lines to “permanence”. Trying to identify what you’ll take out has to be at the photographer’s discretion.
@@joshuablack3163 "Permanence" is not truly such a moving line. Obviously, nothing is truly "permanent", but you can't know for certain that the house might be gone in 75 years, though it might have change its state to something that is more or less photogenic. Either way, 75 years, if we go with that hypothetical, is unless I'm mistaken longer than the current life expectancy of man in the US, so I'd say that within the scope of the debate we're having a lifetime certainly counts as permanent.
As for the other examples, I'd say that if you're so certain (which you can never really be) that the car will be gone in two hours, then come back in two hours and take the shot. The light might have changed, you say? Of course, and that's part of photography. You might not be able to come back in two hours (or in two weeks) until that car/cones are gone? That's life.
So your stance would be to keep cones and cars in the image?
I think those are fair to remove as they could be moved relatively easily by human intervention.
Houses and bridges?
I think structures that will last decades would stay unless there was a really good reason to remove them and there is transparency from the photographer in the fact they were removed.
Power lines?
Power lines would probable the best example of the moral dilemma here; they’re permanent (as far as something can be), but rarely visually appealing in a natural composition. Someone who’s pro clone stamping would remove without a thought. And someone who wants the most realistic representation of the scene would never even consider removing them.
@@joshuablack3163 Cones and cars would have to be removed by *appropriate* human intervention (i.e. the owner of the car, municipal authorities), so unless you own the car you've actually got no way to remove it.
Your argument about houses is bizarre and I don't quite understand it.
As for power lines, obviously I've cloned out some sometimes and not other other times. As far as I'm concerned, if the power lines are front and center just like in some of the photos shown in the video, they're actually part of the subject and you should decide whether or not you want to actually photograph this subject.
I can’t tell if you’re trolling or not-You won’t clone out a car or traffic cones, but it’s obvious you’ve removed power lines?
An example of the house part of my comment would be if someone wanted a print of a landscape as it was/should be, but now there’s a house built on the hillside in the middle of the landscape. Removing the house from the images is ethically questionable, but as long as the photographer is honest about the manipulation, I honestly don’t think it’s a big deal.
Another great update and a good talking point. I tend to only remove blemishes caused by dust etc (thanks to a dust storm last month, it was all in the air and covering the lenses/filters). Yes, removing some distractions may be okay but I prefer warts and all. I saw a display a few months back and a concrete bunker had been cloned out but it’s actually, to me, part of the charm rather than a distraction. Less cloning is to me, more. Look forward to next update 👍👏
I support your decision to not clone (permanent fixtures) for two reasons.
1. Honesty - as a species we are inevitably drifting further into an AI universe, and grounding our images in honesty feels more important than ever. If for no other reason than to differentiate ourselves from the inevitable AI generated art that we're going to be flooded by.
2. Embrace the imperfections - once you embrace the imperfections, you'll realise that these imperfections actually add to the image by grounding them. Everything is not perfectly placed and that's why it's good. It's real and grounded. Reality isn't perfect.
This is a very eloquent argument and well put 👍👍
Nicely put
I agree it’s more important than ever right now
Absolutely - being open and honest is a really key point.
This is such a great viewpoint well put 👌
I think you started a healthy discussion here. Not because there is a right or wrong answer to the question, but because we need to talk about different perspectives. A lot of people are trying to find the right way, but there is no right way. You are making a choice between cloning or not cloning and it’s all up to you, as long as you don’t misguide anyone by lying.
I myself nearly ever clone, but it’s my own choice, because it is part of my expression.
Again, thank you for bringing it up. 😊
Personally I ignore the would be gatekeepers and do what makes me happy. The problem is if you are catering to the most likes group to gain more popularity and money from RUclips then the answer is leave the wires in if that's what you need to do. Just don't let them guide you in their direction whilst ignoring your own. Then again what do I know. Keep up the great work and I really like your videos, Thomas.
Even the lens one chooses, and the edges of the rectangle are choices which edit something in or out of a photograph. I think you are on the right track to just consider your choices for each shot, and the purpose behind it. Hell, no one takes my photographs seriously, just because I take all sorts of subjects, not sticking to "landscape" or "reportage", or even more fraught with dogma: "street"! Do what you feel Thomas. You're spot on!
Cloning is fine but it depends on the resulting images use. If you want to create an artwork, then go ahead, it is all,part of your creation. If you are documenting a subject then no, as it is no longer a record of the subject. If it is for a competition and cloning is allowed but must be explained all good. Honestly, it is all about context. I don’t want to see power lines on a calendar page.
I"m totally with you on this. I've been doing photography as a hobby for 13 or so years now since I was 13 years old myself. I've always felt that editing things out from photos makes them feel fake in a way, which has made me try and get the composition best as possible to begin with.
I'm in the no clone tool camp. For my images my line is generally dust motes. That said it's your work, you decide where the line is. I do think honesty/transparency are important.
I like the comments so far. I agree mostly that as the artist it’s your call. I generally have a rule of thumb that if it’s distractive and simple to remove, remove it. Otherwise, slip the shoot leave it in.
If you subscribe to the idea that you’re creating images vs taking images, cloning out unwanted objects is fine. If I shoot a beautiful mountain range, I don’t want viewers focussed on one random fence post in the foreground. You’re overthinking this.
I would 100% clone it out! You're there to photograph the amazing scenery.... can't see a composition in that shot where the power lines would bring any advantage to the composition.
Clone away.
I started my photography journey as a strictly straight out of the camera, no edits person. Believing that was the best way to show others what i saw and expeienced.
Over the years I've noticed that while what comes through the camera tmay be a good record of what was in front of my lens, it was a terrible reproduction of what I "saw". When standing at the base of a waterfall or beautiful vista i dont see the phone lines or random distractions. I just see.. beauty.
As such I've transitioned into someone who edits every shot, I clone things out, tweak light and shadow and concern myself more with what I "saw" and how it made me feel. Rather than simply a record of what was there.
Same here. Photos intended to be "evidentiary" in a court of law don't get edited. Everything else is likely to be post-processed in some way.
Been watching for years and this latest series has been particularly fun as I’ve had the good fortune to photograph in Ireland on several occasions, including some of these same spots. I had the same cloning dilemma with the wires on that island and the area around the mountains in Lutty. Ultimately left well enough alone, for whatever that’s worth. Cheers!
Supposing i'm not doing a documentary image, cloning is great.
When i photograph, i want to communicate how a scene makes me feel, not how it literally appears. The very process of composing a shot, leaving out or keeping elements in, is a form of cloning out! I want to focus on the parts that spoke to me most deeply!
That’s fine so long as you transparent about disclosing major changes you make. If an audience expects the photo was made a particular way and it’s not disclosed that it was not made that way, then it’s deceptive to share it knowing it’ll be interpreted as a “regular” photograph.
There is no issue with creating what ever art you want, the issue arises when sharing it dishonestly
love this. i said something different, but for the same reason
@@tobiasyoder which raises another question I suppose, what's a major change? Generally I remove twigs or rubbish, I never touch entire trees or something major in the scene as I'd rather acknowledge the composition doesn't work. Perhaps I'd consider it if the angle i want really exists, but I can't get to it because it's on private property etc etc. Hard line to draw, but I agree that honesty is important, especially if it's a scene that others know about and are likely to visit.
@@JayFunningham What constitutes what a “major change” is depends on the audience you’re sharing it with :). There is no edit that is inherently too far, it just depends on if you are meeting the expectation of your audience
If you choose to clone out elements in your photo, you're making a conscious decision about your art. Using AI to tidy up your images without understanding the process doesn’t help you grow as a photographer. To me, photography is all about the journey and not just the final result. So if you’re enjoying every step of creating an image, even if it means removing or cloning out something, you’re definitely on the right track! 😉✌
Thomas,
As humanity continues to damage the planet, I wonder if a truly perfect photo is even possible anymore. Your work so far stands out-it's clean, vibrant, and perfect. Are you going to spend the rest of your photography career creating images of an idealized environment that no longer exists, like many others do?
By showcasing the reality of our world, including the trash we produce, you have a unique opportunity to stand out like some of the greats. Don’t let insecurity about your work hold you back; it has real merit. There’s a market for this perspective. Consider how few photographers are willing to depict litter in what would otherwise be a beautiful landscape. Thanks Stafford Fuhs
"I wonder if a truly perfect photo is even possible anymore."
It exists in the definition. I have many perfect photos. Your judgment may vary.
It’s a great talking point Thomas, and great video. Many have already stated it but it’s true. With the ability for “generative fill” and other “erasing” type tools, it does pose the question “Is this real? Did a Bear just happen to be drinking from a stream with all color trees around it?” lol. Now for me, I don’t make any money on my work, as I am just an aspiring enthusiast. I love landscape photography. The biggest part of my journey is actually being out and finding that composition. The other part is enjoy is post processing. It’s my photo, my art, so if I need to get rid of power lines because of the distraction I do not have a single problem with that. Again, it’s my photo, and if my composition is still intact, then something that struck me as beautiful will end up in my photo stack. I do agree that you should do your best to work the composition to remove as many distractions as you can. But there are some you just can’t. I gladly will take the shot, and remove anything unwanted, and be happy with it as long as I can say, “I covered all my angles”. Nice conversation though!
If it's art: you're free to manipulate anything.
If it's documentation, than you're not.
then
When I collect images for my catalog which I use for drawing landscapes, I don’t clone. When I draw, I edit everything. Most often, I am simplifying the scene. It’s what minimalists do.😎
It's like anything in life , too much of anything is bad! Trust me , you've got it perfect. The technology will still exist if you don't use it, and other people WILL continue to use it. And using it WELL, is a skill. I say carry on.
Welcome to the resistance. Love that you're pushing yourself here. I think one reason people have pivoted recently to film is because it forces a more authentic conveyance of the real moment the photo was made. Of course, a lot can still be done on a scan in post. But, I've always felt there's no reason not to apply that same approach to digital even though I'm not a film photographer. What makes the image special for me is the challenge of creating a snapshot of a moment in all its beauty. In that sense, if it's not in the RAW to begin with, it's outside the moment. Changing a ditch, removing a tree, or a powerline is the digital version of coming in with a digger and doing aggressive landscaping. At that point it's no longer an authentic representation of the moment the image was created in. It's something out of time that bridges an imagining of the past and future and stitches that into an idealized version of the now. For me this also applies down to a chips bag stuck in the leaves, or a giant cow turd. Otherwise, why not just fake a sky, add light in in post, or modify the rest of it like digital art? In some ways I suppose this reflects the conversation that has been had in glamor magazines for years. Just how much skin smoothing, and body morphing is OK? As you said - there's also a historical record dimension as photographers where we're recording a glimpse of a moment for posterity. And if that isn't accurate, and someone comes up and finds a building or powerlines or such and those were always there but digitally adjusted - its truly a moment that can in many cases betray a sense of trust between photographer/historian and viewer. At the end of the day there's what we want, and then what is. We can force what is to justify what we want. But, the most authentic is always the best. I think it also pushes us to be better advocates for things like respecting natural habitats, underground powerlines (seriously, what is it with !@#@!ing powerlines? And beautiful spots), earthen scars, and rubbish removal.
Don't be daft. Clone those lines if they bother you.
Love the Father Ted shout out. Absolute classic show.
I think we are missing the point, the power lines should never have been there in the first place. Is it the artists duty to gloss over society's mistakes, or to make a statement?
Other comments have said this already but I'll put it in my own words. I think your camera is your canvas and the landscape is your brush. Paint what you want.
If you truly view your photography as art, I think it’s 100% ok to remove what you don’t want from the final piece.
Yes yes yes you do whatever you want with YOUR art, love the video! that shot was amazing!
I think you answered your own question when remarking about removing the actual scene someone else will rack up to.
You do a brilliant job of not only explaining your reasoning for taking a certain picture but also showing your pre/post edited images which give a realistic explanation of what’s on offer.
If you take a picture where you have cloned out quite large objects, totally changing the perspective from what someone else would see then it might be worth either mentioning that in the voice over or a side caption when showing your finished pictures.
Of course every photo has a different purpose or multiple purposes and can have multiple versions out in the world, but one thing I feel whenever I see a landscape with telephone poles or other man-made elements left unedited, I always admire it for its honesty and truthfulness, as well as confidence in the image that I myself probably wouldn't have.
One of my favorite scenes to photograph has a big cellphone tower sticking up among the trees, like it's a giant middle finger. I regularly photograph that scene and (just as regularly) clone out the tower. A number of years ago I traveled cross country (USA) and photographed a beautiful mesa in Utah; there were high tension power lines and towers all across the photo. I kept them in the photo because (somehow) they were integral to the photo and added an austere beauty to the landscape.
I can be set up for what I think is a perfect shot, the light perfect, squeezing the button - and from no-where, a random hiker/tourist appears. WTH? Take the shot, remove the hiker/tourist before the light moves. I scout a location, get in my mind's eye what I want to express, and shoot it. I have no problems making tweaks in post. But I never add an object. I will remove something un-natural such as garbage or a hiker, or a freakin power line or distant windmill, etc., in a heartbeat. Another great video. Your passion is infectious.
Subjective of course. There is a good rule from portrait photography that basically says If it's there in a week it's a part of it. But things like a random hair flying around or a pimple or other temporary stuff, that all can go. I think it works for landscapes as well, at least if the goal is to depict reality.
I once went to a location of a photo I adored, to only be shocked at how much it really didn’t exist. I did feel a bit duped. I suppose declaring it would be considerate. Make a choice of which type of photographer you want to be, then it’s known, & no one will feel duped ✌️🏆
I can't imagine there is one correct answer for everyone in every circumstance. Like choosing a religion, to clone or not to clone is a very personal choice. If I were taking photos for "National Geographic", I would look for a comp where cloning was not needed. If I was taking it for my Mom/Mum, I'd take the beautiful tree-island comp and remove the power lines while cranking the HDR to 11. Somewhere between those two there is probably an answer ;-) The fact you struggle with the question is a sign of integrity, congratulations. Good luck with your decision, I'll be watching either way.
Hi Tom,
The creation process does not stop at "taking the shot". This is just the beginning. Depending on your Photoshop skill level creation goes way beyond the capture of the image. Moving your tripod for instance, is the same as moving something in the scene, in Photoshop. The resulting final image is the end goal. Clone, manipulate, adjust all the variables...as long as it looks 100% natural and real. For me Photoshop is just as important as the camera. It's not how I get get from A-Z, as long as I do get to Z. There again I'm pretty adept in Photoshop with many years experience. You don't even require the latest mega £ camera...as long as you've got the software skill!👍
Hi Tom. Excellent video and a subject I grapple with as well. It really depends on my mood. If cloning out involves a lot of work/effort and fundamentally changes a scene, then I won't do it. If there is something tiny or insignificant in the scene and it is easily cloned out, then yes. I agree with you on keeping the wires in.
You're the artist and the end result is your vision and no-one else's... I think as the artist, you should do whatever you want 👍
Well it is about time You start thinking about it. I used to fight against those things. But I gave up once I was in Iceland as there is not one scene without power line. So then the challange is if You cant fight it, include it. I must say it does add to the challenge and finally I do like to work it into the picture just as it is. Try it, it can be fun.
It so great yoy got to visit father Ted's house! I look forward to the rest of your irish adventure 👍 it was really great to catch up and hang out!
Cheers
Hi Thomas: I loved this location when we were there in 2018. I have removed the power lines from this composition and I have no regrets or guilt for doing so. To me, subtracting small distractions like this do not materially impact the overall integrity of the image. Where I do have an issue with using PS is when the photographer does so much editing he/she has created an entirely different shot. I believe that Ansel Adams would have done this type of edit to his image without losing any sleep of it. Cheers, Keith (Barrie, Ontario)
Choose your path wherever you will be comfortable because that is your world bro 😍 wishes from India 🇮🇳
Years ago I was watching photographer, Bryan Petersen photograph cityscapes, flowers, people etc. He kept saying "creative photography." It took awhile until it dawned on me what he meant by creative photography. I always thought it was just photography. I say that to echo other commentor's. It's your choice of creativity. Happy shooting!
You are creating art. It is your art! We all use polarizing filters, long exposures, and lots of other tools and techniques that alter the scene. We all Dodge and Burn, remove noise, and perform other steps to improve what our cameras see! I believe that cloning out a power line is no different and it’s OK! On the other hand, adding fake AI objects to the scene crosses the line! Thanks for taking me along!
Hey Tom, this is music to my ears! About 2 years ago I decided to practice a bit of "acceptance" with regards to manmade objects in the landscape. I now treat wind turbines, pylons and barbwire fences et al, as I would trees rocks or bushes. In fact I give a print talk called, The Unnatural Environment to Camera Clubs. I could go on about how man has been changing the landscape for about the past 10,000 years. Anyway, welcome to my side of the line. Wayne aka Rough Art Photography.
Clone but disclose, I don’t generally have a problem with cloning.
I think that your position of influence is a factor in the question, but again I think that honest disclosure is the best bet there too.
Keep up the great work.
For me photography, specifically the landscape and wildlife genres, are about capturing nature and, in essence, everything on Earth is natural or created by nature so everything you’re capturing through your lens is ‘life on Earth’, the perfections and the imperfections.
Of course, it’s personal taste but I very hardly use the clone tool because I don’t like to produce something that I consider ‘fake’ and instead focus on composition (but it’s not always possible to avoid unwanted objects - like the tree island but it is what it is).
Thank you for making this video as it’s a question that’s been on my mind since I’ve started photo editing (recently).
Nature is changing. The influence of man can now be seen everywhere. Condensation trails in the sky, rubbish in nature, power lines, etc.. When we look at old photos, we see the landscape as it was back then. And we should retain this feeling and this certainty when we look at them. So no ‘cloning’, but either include the disturbances in the composition or look for a different perspective.
Hi Tom
Cloning stuff out is totally a personal preference, when it comes to your images and what you want to achieve. Or how you want other people to view your images. I chose not to clone stuff out of my images or do much editing to them, purely for the fact I feel that by doing so, it’s not the image I took or composition I was drawn to in the first place.
For me, I would use the clone removal tool. When the goal is for others to view and appreciate your work, you want to avoid or remove distractions from the experience. Just like we use other tools to lighten, darken, whether it is software or filters. Bringing your audience into a scene is hard enough. The travel, weather, sun, wind, etc. It takes a lot of effort to get an image and a row of hydro poles is just a distraction. That is what I would be looking at in the photo, not all the other beauty. Just my thoughts. Cheers and I love your work!
I think editing depends on the usage. If you're in journalism, no editing other than exposure, sharpening, and maybe color correction would be OK. Personally, I don't have any limits or "line to cross" in my work. I will remove things, add in new things, blend images, replace backgrounds. I enjoy the editing as much as the photography and my clients also expect me to deliver some pretty extreme editing. I think if you are trying to trick people, that may be the problem. I like to create impossible or dream like images and the editing is not to trick any one. It is another layer of creativity I get to apply after what I've captured in camera. To each their own though. Whatever makes you happy as long as you're honest about it and not trying to lie/hide anything.
Appreciate the video Thomas, thank you! I have a very simple rule when it comes to cloning. If it's a natural part of the landscape or scene I won't clone it.. If it's a man-made intrusion I will consider it. Powerlines are the exception to that rule. I've clom d them out before in a very unknown location. Given your situation I probably wouldn't remove them either. Cheers.
Thank you for asking this question. I think it is absolutely necessary to leave the image as it is. We must stop manipulating everything until it is no longer the original just because it is poossible. It is the same with photoshopping photo models to a weird sense of beauty.
Processing an image should improve an image in that way as your eye and brain can understand how it looks like in reality and what a camera never can achieve to get the same (imaginative) result. But that's what it should be about. Not more. Otherwise we start living in an imaginare world. And as you said: people who would like to see the same would be disappointed and maybe regard the photographer as a betrayer.
We should act more as a documentary photographer.
Some cloning out is a good thing and a photo saver. The odd telephone pole that you can't work around and such. Artistically, no artist would ever paint in the power lines, so the more you consider your photo work 'art' and less "documentary," the more incline you'd be to clone them out.
You asked how power lines got through planning well there is a scoring system that utilities go through for planning and one of the questions is "Rate the area's ecstatic appeal with 10 being very photogenic and 0 being garbage heap". For utilities to be built they need a minimum score. It is kind of like the same reasoning that park services use for placing informational boards.
For me you are working in an artistic form and therefore are expressing your interpretation of how the scene should look to ultimately please yourself. If it is something you are doing that you feel the image needs and you are not making out that you don't do that then tear away at it. Its only a problem if you are not up front about it. Let James be James and Tom be Tom, its just fine that way.
You were my line in the sand here. I've often made clone removals of small distractions based in your argument that as a photographer our job isn't to capture something exactly as it is, but how you see it.
Power lines are distracting but not insurmountable when in the scene. When in a photo, which is cropped and finite, those same power lines became a feature of the inclusions. I usually try and find a composition sans the distractions as post prod is the worst part but I don't think power lines are really an issue.
What I would never do is change the weather or colours beyond how I saw them. Shopping in a different sky is not photography but digital art. Even worse when it's someone else's sky photo
Was on vacation with my husband celebrating our 40th anniversary and we were at that very location on the 10th! I will be taking the power lines out. No different to me than any other adjustments made in LR or PS to make the image how I saw and experienced the light and the sense of place. I am not a photojournalist, so I don’t have a problem removing objects that aren’t a part of the story I want to tell.
Such a nice take on it!
As others have mentioned, the main thing is to be aware of where you're aiming between photojournalism and art. Are you shooting for Reuters? No? Are you shooting to convey the immense beauty of the landscape?
When I shoot portraits, I have a similar dilemma; a line so to speak: I don't want to change the person, but if they were unlucky with a spot that would've been gone had we waited a month, then that spot has no business being in a proper portrait of that person; that spot is not who they are. And just like the waves on the water can disappear in a longer exposure, those power lines are not part of the timeless portrait of that landscape, and with a lucky gust of wind could disappear as well! There's no sin in cloning them out, unless you're on assignment for Reuters.
Thanks for your presentation. As a 20-year hobbyist photographer, I love shooting and editing for my channel which is mostly travel-related. I don't shoot nearly at your level (or have the equipment) but I love the hobby and editing is my favorite part. Since the beginning, I've been obsessed with random distracting objects, or RDO's as I call them. As editing tech has advanced, with AI now getting involved, it is so much easier to remove these. I try and take the minimalistic approach removing only things I think necessary. Bottom line, with any art, photography included, it's all in the eye of the beholder. You're going to have everything from 'right out of the camera' to heavily edited, fake-looking AI images. now more prevalent than ever. To me, the AI aspect is now doing more harm to real photography than cell phones. And yet, I LOVE Luminar Neo, LOL! My 2 cents. Anyway, Happy shooting!!
I think Balance is the keyword! Don't foul us, but still be an artist, during and after the capture moment.
I think you’ve answered your own question. Absolutely epic shot at 10:46 - but because you had a preconceived idea of what that shot should be, you’ve missed a once in a lifetime opportunity.
I love shooting the Irish landscape - one of the reasons I moved back after living in London for 10 years. I appreciate why people might feel the need to clone out what they dislike, or use slow shutter speed to dramatise a scene, but it’s a technical approach that takes away from a landscape that I’m always inspired by as an artist, and in awe of from a human perspective.
When finished editing your image ask the simple question, “Does the scene exist?”. For me the answer has to be yes, for the same reasons you mention, that someone could stand in that same spot and have a similar experience. We want our landscape images to evoke a response, not for what we removed, but for what was there.
Do whatever pleases you. I like leaving things in - it is how it is in that moment and that's what makes it unique, but if cloning makes you happy, clone away.
Great as always. It’s interesting when I’m out taking street photos I now like to include power lines and street light that I use to avoid when I first got into photography
I agree as well with previous people who have said that journalism / documentary photography needs to be the real scene, but if the photo is an expression of your artistic vision, then it's entirely up to you. If you were painting the location, would you include the power lines...?
Thanks Thomas. Interesting and thought provoking as always. Better take the best shot from the best position, and then accept the need to take out the small ugly bits, in order to create a good image that will be full of other changes anyway: balancing exposure/contrast, colour levels, de-noise, etc.. You wouldn't think twice at sensor dust removal ! Other people arriving at your location is not your responsibility I don't think. It is a little more questionable when the software does the donkeywork for you. I think a FAR WORSE sin is adding into your composition: replacing sky, adding other things into the image (birds, a big moon....), moving parts of the image around.
Comes down to what the photographer values, and how they want to share that value in their work. Sure, unless you’re in a photojournalistic role you don’t NEED to be very purist in your processing.
If as a photographer you still value something along the lines of ‘raw reality’ with scenes coming exactly as is, you probably wouldn’t clone, only colour corrections & no grading.. etc.
If translating the internal vision/story/idea through heavier processing (cloning, colour grading, etc) is more important, then that’s equally great! End of the day I think it’s all about transparency in the process. How you like to do it is only ever your own choice
To me, a beautiful landscape it's not matter of powerlines, poles ecc. but what really count is how the landscape talks to my soul. A field full of solar panels may move my soul like the most uncontaminated nature, and as a photographer I'm interested in both subjects. I'm not looking for "perfection", I'm looking to write through photography what the world tells me. AD
The answer is like Black and White photography, or more correctly monochrome photography. If there weren't shades of grey most photos would be boring. Cloning would fall on a similar spectrum with "definitely no" on one side and "absolutely yes" on the other with multiple levels in between. Think of photos taken 70-100 years ago with hundreds of power lines showing and other landscape eyesores and these days thats a rare image to see. Today's eyesore is tomorrow's nostalgia.
I 100% agree! Either leave them in or don't take the shot. I leave everything in my photos... a random persons head hiding in the background or even a random piece of trash I didn't see while I was picking up the area before a shot. It's all a part of photography... which is capturing a moment in time as it is. Otherwise, once an image is heavily manipulated I think we have to ask ourselves, "Are we still just trying to accurately express a moment in time we captured in a photograph, or are we creating digital art?"
Just my opinion. No right or wrong answer. It's up to the artist and how they want to express their work! Personally I love telling people about all those little "imperfections" that they might not have noticed right off rhe bat, even if at all. It adds to the charm of the story behind the photo!
New day and age, new struggles to debate. It's the artists responsibility to depict their work however they see fit. That's what makes it ART!
I think we'll do what we want, Thomas.
I agree with the general consensus of the comments, do with the image what you will. Personally, I like an image that has had limited modifications. While you cant tell if an image has had items removed with modern masking features, there is an element of a landscape that should have an imperfection and without being able to identify it you can notice it sometimes. I think changing the lighting is all good and minor colour modifications as you move the scene into how you see / remember it.
As long as you’re open with what stays and and what doesn’t, its fine for me.
What is photo landscape art, and what is landscape photography?
I would say it’s a personal preference that requires more openness.
Wowsers Tom, what a question!
Back when I started photography (on film and without Photoshop), it was never really a question. As Photoshop came into being, lots of questions were raised about ethics and it was generally accepted that if you cloned things out, or changed an image ‘significantly’, that you stated that.
I suppose I still hold to those ideals. I’m no painter, musician or artist, so my landscape photography is my way of portraying my artistic view of the landscape. So I have no problem with cloning or manipulation, provided that I do my best to be open and honest about that. If I was taking photographs for conservation or environmental journalism reasons, I probably wouldn’t clone anything out and would leave that to an editor to decide. I think it’s a very personal choice.
Re cloning out, just be very selective. I recently edited some seascape photos and cloned out some annoying buoyes. I would not alter the natural and physical features of a landscape as a general rule. Great video as ever Thomas, thanks
Great Video Thomas, No further comment! thanks for sharing
At the end of the day, It’s your image! Do as you please. No right or wrong when it comes to art. And yes, to answer your question, you are over thinking it,and who cares what other people say. 😎