Cloning

If I was the boss around here the OP of this thread would be long gone. Having a different opinion is fine, but, yes, you are nowt but a troll.
 
droj said:
I repeatedly see on these forums talk about cloning, including recommendations to 'clone something out'. My point here isn't about ethics but about discipline (pursuance of craft). If something isn't wanted in a photograph, why is it there in the first place? Surely an addiction to processing toys is no excuse for sloppy work?
Click to expand...

That reminds me of something my old school master would say while liberally applying the tawse to the palms of my hands. "There is no excuse for sloppy work" he would bellow, tearing to shreds my 5,000 word essay, carefully scribed in copperplate on sheets on pristine parchment - for what? The crime of crossing through a mis-spelled word halfway down the page.

It's a lesson I hold true to this day, and something I have brought with me to my photography. I simply will not follow through with that shutter press unless I have perfection in the view finder. Who are these people who snap away with wild abandon? They are the same people who've brought this once great country of our to it's knees. Lazy, sloppy, good for nothing layabouts - that's who.

My court appointed therapist mandated that I attend a session with these reprobates once. It was horrendous to see how low as a society we have sunk. One particularly obnoxious individual was showing me this contraption he used to produce essays. He would constantly review and amend text he'd already written, changing words at a whim. Has this child no discipline I thought? You should only commit a word to paper after careful consideration, yet there he is, removing and refining words at will as he goes along! Sloppy indeed.

As it happens, the same individual came to visit me last night. While I didn't particularly want to associate with him any further, it is nice when the nurses here remove the restraints, so I reluctantly agreed. Having been previously subjected to his 'art' in one of the earlier encounter, and not wanting to waste the opportunity to educate the little bugger, I took the opportunity to introduce him to this discussion. Not that I made much headway, but if you're ever down in the direction of Crowthorne, I'd love to meet up and see if we can convince him together, although you better leave any sharp objects at home, they tend not to like visitors bringing them in.
 
droj said:
Dear Matthew, with a regretful sigh, on the basis of having seen your poppies images, I don't think that you know what artistic means. i wouldn't've said this, but it was you who invoked the term.

If you want to engage in discussion, that's fine. But if you want to use terms, define them. That's a basic. Anything less voids the discussion.
Click to expand...

You really are a generous person aren't you, hell the laughs you've given me here are priceless, honestly I didn't think anyone was so dim as to need the concept of artistic licence explaining to them but just for you

Artistic Licence: Where the artist/creator/photographer recreates what they see but adapt it or change it to make it closer to how they would want to see the subject or to create a view from their own imagination

FYI that's my own definition of Artistic Licence...

P.S. just realised you might not realise what FYI means that's (For your information)

P.P.S. Oh and P.S stands for Post Script
 
This is priceless stuff. I think @droj should be given some sort of award for making the most people laugh. (I assume that was the intent.)
 
StewartR said:
This is priceless stuff. I think @droj should be given some sort of award for making the most people laugh. (I assume that was the intent.)
Click to expand...

After seeing some of his other posts/threads, it wouldnt surprise me in the slightest if this was in fact an entirely serious thread by him.
 
That's boring Yv. The man's a comedian. We need to feed him so he'll say something else. It's called audience participation.
 
I get the point the composition should be effective but there are tunes you just have to remove stuff.

A classic being a seagul that flew accross into the frame just as I set the self timer off. Yes I could use a cable release but self timer is fine for landscapes and a 2 sec clone is easier.
 
Yv said:
Ladies and Gents, you know what they say is the best course of action if you think someone is being a troll [or even just deliberately provocative]... don't feed them. ;)
Click to expand...

But sometimes it's just too much fun not to interact :D in fact it gives me a whole new idea for a thread :p
 
OP sounds like the camera club I visited once. What next digital is blasphemy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
It is possible to remove things like coke cans and other rubbish by hand, removing a tree or flagpoles is a tad harder, local councils frown upon us cutting them down. In an ideal world we wouldn't have to remove anything, sadly we don't live in that world. All too often there are things in the way that can't be removed, so we take then out (it's not always possible to recompose a shot)
If you want to work "au natural" so to speak thats fine, but it's also fine to remove stuff you don't like.
Remember the scene you shot still isn't as is, it's ones and zeros are being converted.
 
I find most of the responses in this thread truly shocking. Cloning is a very real issue for some people and it has nothing to do with processing. I will clone minor items from an image if - on another day - they might not have been there at all. Where cloning becomes excessive is if it's done to such a way as to alter the nature of the actual scene. Yes, I do mean removing telegraph poles from a landscape! And I have never been to a camera club in my life.

It's about integrity, honesty and documentary values and such like, which photography has - or used to have - at its very heart. Maybe I'm a bit naïve but there's still a part of me that believes that what I see in an image was actually there in reality. Fortunately I'm not the only one. Remember a couple of years ago when the winner of the Landscape Photographer of the Year competition was disqualified because it was shown that his images (ALL of them) had been more or less constructed from a number of other images? I'm with the guy(s) who did the detective work and finally made that decision.

I've noticed laziness creeps into my own work sometimes. with film one needed to be meticulous at all times with one's compositions. Now its OK to think - ah, what the h** - I can always clone it/them out later. I don't think it's healthy at all.
 
Last edited:
jerry12953 said:
I find most of the responses in this thread truly shocking. Cloning is a very real issue for some people and it has nothing to do with processing. I will clone minor items from an image if - on another day - they might not have been there at all. Where cloning becomes excessive is if it's done to such a way as to alter the nature of the actual scene. Yes, I do mean removing telegraph poles from a landscape! And I have never been to a camera club in my life.

It's about integrity, honesty and documentary values and such like, which photography has - or used to have - at its very heart. Maybe I'm a bit naïve but there's still a part of me that believes that what I see in an image was actually there in reality. Fortunately I'm not the only one. Remember a couple of years ago when the winner of the Landscape Photographer of the Year competition was disqualified because it was shown that his images (ALL of them) had been more or less constructed from a number of other images? I'm with the guy(s) who did the detective work and finally made that decision.

I've noticed laziness creeps into my own work sometimes. with film one needed to be meticulous at all times with one's compositions. Now its OK to think - ah, what the h** - I can always clone it/them out later. I don't think it's healthy at all.
Click to expand...

If you are shooting for editorial/news items, that may well stand, but in almost all other areas of photography I am afraid it is a moral standard that few maintain, purely for artistic merit, today or on the past [in fact I can show you a faked image created by a news agency of my own inlaws from the early 60's if you want to know how much 'integrity' there was in the past - I happen to think it was created out of genuine need, but that is irrelevant in your argument, the point is that the photo never actually existed] As an example, if I am photographing a wedding and there are fire exit signs, huge ones, slap bang between the couples head in the background from the one view point the registrar will allow me, are you suggesting I should leave them there for some kind of documentary integrity? Perhaps a stunning portrait of them with a stunning view beyond, one they want on their wall printed huge, just leave that electricity pylon in the background because after all, it was there and is a permanent fixture. Or perhaps I should do the sensible thing and ask them if they would like it removing from the product they are paying several hundred pounds for and if they say yes, do it quite happily and without any kind of guilt that I am somehow 'telling lies' with that photo.

I do agree that trying to get it right in the first place is good practice and also that I wouldn't generally want say for example, news photos, doctored [recent one where a load of photographic gear had been cloned out of a picture from Afghanistan iirc] but when it comes down to photos that are purely for viewing/artistic pleasure, then its no hold barred as far as I am concerned. Competition entries should perhaps have a some sort of condition attached to say how the photo was created...
 
Call me old-fashioned, but maybe in some cases you could ask the people concerned to move?

In the case of the landscape, because that's where my concerns lie, a landscape photograph which has had pylons removed is not a true representation of that landscape and I think that matters.

I agree that even in the film days there were always a few mavericks who managed to create faked images but these days the tools are available to everyone (and just about all of them seem to be using them, if this sample is anything to go by!)
 
jerry12953 said:
In the case of the landscape, because that's where my concerns lie, a landscape photograph which has had pylons removed is not a true representation of that landscape and I think that matters.
Click to expand...

For me landscape photography is about creating art, not documenting the world in it's natural state.

Many landscape photographs I have seen are usually a lot more exciting than the real thing :)
 
Firstly, define art. There's another thread doing the rounds at the moment trying to do that....

With regard to your second point, that is the skill of the landscape photographer. But if it involves cloning parts of the image out - unless minor and temporary irritants only - or replacing one sky with another, for example, then it has gone beyond photography into the realms of fakery.
 
Why is it that some people just cant accept that photography/image making has moved on?

I applaud anyone that sticks to their long held photographic principles, and gets absolutely perfect shots in camera whilst using a large format fim camera in the most tricky lighting conditions, but for the rest of us mere mortals that choose to use the technology/tools available to us , please stop with the preaching.
 
jerry12953 said:
Firstly, define art. There's another thread doing the rounds at the moment trying to do that....

With regard to your second point, that is the skill of the landscape photographer. But if it involves cloning parts of the image out - unless minor and temporary irritants only - or replacing one sky with another, for example, then it has gone beyond photography into the realms of fakery.
Click to expand...

But then is taking a photograph to view later or for others to view not fakery in itself?

Pylons haven't always been there and won't always be there, this surely makes them a temporary inconvenience and can be cloned out.
 
jerry12953 said:
Firstly, define art. There's another thread doing the rounds at the moment trying to do that....
Click to expand...

In this context, I meant it to mean eye candy - something pleasurable to view.

jerry12953 said:
With regard to your second point, that is the skill of the landscape photographer. But if it involves cloning parts of the image out - unless minor and temporary irritants only - or replacing one sky with another, for example, then it has gone beyond photography into the realms of fakery.
Click to expand...

Journalism and property agents are examples of where I believe images should not be tampered with. Competitions may even have rules against extreme photoshop to level the playing field.

Otherwise what's the problem with fakery? if you don't think it's photography - why does it matter? people will still want to share their creativity no matter what tools they use. Are you talking in the context of this forum? do you think it should be for purists?

We are in a talk post processing and image editing section of the forum - perhaps this is not the place for you to be :D
 
Last edited:
what's wrong with doing the following?

try to get a close up of a pig in any other way and your lens, (or you!), will be it's next meal

clone_1.jpg


clone_2.jpg
 
Last edited:
jerry12953 said:
Hello Bill, you get everywhere.......!

Possibly nothing is wrong as such but you could imagine a scenario where removing a fence would be wrong.

But why would those pigs want to fence you in anyway?
Click to expand...

Cheers Jeremy

they were quite wild "young" pigs and I have been know to like the odd bacon sandwich …. I'd just pocked up some bacon from a farm shop ……..French bacon just does not exist

I find all these don't do that, why are you doing this, it's art, not art, why are macros bugs, don't take images of birds etc., etc., interesting

PS - it also reminded me of the old farmer who fell into a pig pen and (presumably knocked himself out) - all they found the next day was a leg bone, one of his shoes and his false teeth
 
Last edited:
jerry12953 said:
Hello Bill, you get everywhere.......!

Possibly nothing is wrong as such but you could imagine a scenario where removing a fence would be wrong.

But why would those pigs want to fence you in anyway?
Click to expand...

I don't think there are many who would disagree with you that in some circumstances (journalism being prime example) cloning/tampering should never happen. However when an image is taken for pleasure then I really don't see how anyone could object to it.
 
for most of us photography is about enjoyment - if you are a professional maybe you have to follow certain rules depending on the assignment and circumstance ……… but for me who not, I'm not trying to fool anyone …….. in fact I posted that image a few years ago when the "content aware" tool was first introduce just to show what it could do in less than 2 minutes ……. PS provide it ……. why not use it …. if you find it helps your enjoyment

plus I also find posting (my) images, good or bad, and I am not afraid to do so, illustrates (a) the point in the way that I use and see it
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
Cheers Jeremy

they were quite wild "young" pigs and I have been know to like the odd bacon sandwich …. I'd just pocked up some bacon from a farm shop ……..French bacon just does not exist

I find all these don't do that, why are you doing this, it's art, not art, why are macros bugs, don't take images of birds etc., etc., interesting

PS - it also reminded me of the old farmer who fell into a pig pen and (presumably knocked himself out) - all they found the next day was a leg bone, one of his shoes and his false teeth
Click to expand...


A pig ate my tripod once. Possibly.
 
Barrysprout said:
I don't think there are many who would disagree with you that in some circumstances (journalism being prime example) cloning/tampering should never happen. However when an image is taken for pleasure then I really don't see how anyone could object to it.
Click to expand...

Let's just say that you took a photograph of an animal at the zoo. You then clone the fence out and pass it off as a wild animal. The image wins a prize in a competition or EVEN at the camera club. See?
 
jerry12953 said:
Let's just say that you took a photograph of an animal at the zoo. You then clone the fence out and pass it off as a wild animal. The image wins a prize in a competition or EVEN at the camera club. See?
Click to expand...

never happen with me - I'm a "wild and free" person …. anyway zoo animals just do not look the same

never going to happen with me - I'll never win a prize, so I'm save

BUT I said the following in #71 "if you are a professional maybe you have to follow certain rules depending on the assignment and circumstance" …….. and that applies to following the rules of any competition and most I have seen do mention PP ing including any cloning

but I cannot get serious about this subject - it's there most of us use PP and that's that ……….. as in film days, in the dark room, only it was far more difficult then

filters, different film emulsions ……….. is anything "true"
 
Last edited:
I'm sure it would be possible to think of other examples where cloning out a fence might have more significant or even sinister connotations. The appearance or not of a fence in a landscape image might make quite a difference. It could denote whether it was a wild landscape or a farmed landscape. It could suggest common land or private land.

If the photographer's intention is nothing more than to produce a image with attractive surface features, then maybe cloning doesn't matter. But if an image is to have depth as well, then in my opinion it also needs documentary content and cloning significant elements out is a no-no. The image needs to be believable.
 
jerry12953 said:
Let's just say that you took a photograph of an animal at the zoo. You then clone the fence out and pass it off as a wild animal. The image wins a prize in a competition or EVEN at the camera club. See?
Click to expand...

I said when taking a photograph for pleasure not for a comp.

Another point with that would be that cloning is not the problem in that circumstance, the person being dishonest is the problem. If cloning didn't exist they could easily steal an image and enter that instead.
 
I reckon that I clone "bits" out of 40% of my bird shots ……. usually in the background

and we, (some on the bird forum), even suggest that it is done in comments made
 
Last edited:
Barrysprout said:
I said when taking a photograph for pleasure not for a comp.

Another point with that would be that cloning is not the problem in that circumstance, the person being dishonest is the problem. If cloning didn't exist they could easily steal an image and enter that instead.
Click to expand...

Point taken....just example off the top of my head.
mossienet said:
I think I'll just keep quiet. Not sure about joining the local camera clubs now. They'd eat me!
Click to expand...


What is it with camera clubs? I've never been near one in my life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top