DSLRUsers.com

Hi all,

I have had many conversations with pro-photographers, hobbyists and non-photographers about their thoughts on cloning photos using Photoshop. The response and feedback has been incredibly varied and there are definitely different schools of thought. After 8 years of taking nature pics, I have only recently started to clone out the odd branch or blade of grass that is in the way of a photo that otherwise works. I do, however, draw the line with adding or etching new objects onto one of my photos and feel this 'crosses the line' with my own work. I must stress that I have no problem whatsoever with people doing this if it is done correctly (to prove this point, I absolutely adore the current "Picture Of The Week" by Wendell). It is only my personal opinion and nothing more.

What are some of your thoughts?

Cheers

Michael

Have you seen the thread by Avkomp posted yesterday with his bird photo?

Personally I don't have any problem cloning out elements from my nature photography. For me it's about the final image... if it takes Photoshop to achieve the picture I am after then that's not a problem for me.

Having said that... if I post a shot that has had things removed then I usually will say so.

The same goes for adding elements into photos. I personally don't do this with my nature shots but don't have a problem with those that do.

So long as the picture taker isn't claiming that the shot is 'straight out of the camera' then to me it's all about what the final image looks like. It doesn't matter what's done to the photo, it just matters how it looks and what reactions it gets when other people look at it.

Just my opinion

Paul

I personally don't like PPing my images to remove or add things in the shot. For me, it's a combination of a few things:

1) I simply don't have the photoshop smarts to do this properly

2) I'd rather just get the photo right to begin with (obviously not always possible)

I don't mind it being done for minor things - ie: clone out a distracting element in the corner etc, but changing the whole framing/composition, moving elements around in the frame etc... Is too much for me.

Works for some, obviously, but IMO I like my photos presented pretty much as is, bar a little lens correction, sharpening, cropping and levels/colour adjustment

cloning is fine to finish off an image or to enhance it's impact by adding removing
the end result counts use any tools physical or computerized to attain the desired end result

it's kind of liek the argument that photoshoping an image to attain a better end result is cheating, the same manipulation that photoshop emulates has been done with photographers back in the old film days, like manipulating an image in a darkroom with chemicals that process is simply excahnged with thhe benefit of computerization

what's important is the end result, if it communicates something, freezes te moment triggers an emotional effect and other things that make a 'good' image than use any tools at hand(camera, computer) to get that end result

as for compsoiting things in scenes if there is a purpose or concept behind it no problem and of course if it improves an image, it's not a big deal, i would call this more photo montage(image making) rather than photography, i think it's safe to draw the ine there

Hi Nikonuser,

Yes, I did see Avkomp's post and that's what prompted me to send this post. Great 3 minute clone job on his honeyeater, by the way!

Cheers

Michael

I'm a cloner.

I'm a cloner too if it's to fix things, but not to insert things - moves from photo to art for me with insertion. So far as being pure - before we could clone I bet there were darkroom tricks too. And that aside is say cloning out a twig in a view any different to breaking it off before taking the shot (or is that a taboo too).

If the cloning enhances an image then so be it. After this is done it is no longer a photo and becomes an image.

I PP all of my images that i show to the public and will not think twice about cloning out something that detracts from the theme, such as a power pole or a rubbish bin or suchlike. I will even clone out people if it makes and image better.

Whatever makes the image better is good to go for me.

back in the darkroom days,
the cloning that was required to fix the honey eater would have taken considerably longer that the 3 mins to remove the branch from the honey eaters chest or the 10 minst to move a couple of other twigs also.
I have sometimes moved the odd little bit from an image but never to the extent as was done in the other thread:
http://www.dslrusers.net/viewtopic.php?t=13855&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
I liked the pose when I shot it but was only some PS trickery that made it a usable shot. I guess I would do it again having seen the result, but from a professional standpoint, I would have preferred to produce the clear image in the first place.
Having said that, in this case, I would not have got the shot.

Steve

I have just posted a couple of bird pics which could have used some cloning on twigs etc, but I simply couldn't be bothered. If the pics had been exceptional I would definately have cloned.

I often add to images to qualify what a client wants from the photo. Whether I change the date on a bottle of wine or change the colour of a product, the end result is an image.

I enjoy the process of PP to "enhance" or to "adjust" the final image to better match what it is you either saw or are attempting to portray by the image...

I have no qualms about cloning out something that's distracting, I think it comes down to whether the intent is to deceive the viewer or not...

I s'pose the more "manipulated" the image is or further from reality, the more it becomes art than photography maybe?

I just laugh when people tell me "they never altered photo's in the old days"...

I too will clone when the need arises. I don't see the difference between this and adjusting the WB during PP, if you have shot in RAW format. They are both altering the image "after the fact". I guess this could be said for most things done in PP.

We only have to look at the magazine stands to see all the Photoshop trickery available to us. All the mens magazines have scantilly clad women gracing the cover, and almost all of them (if not all of them) are heavilly PP'd. Sometimes I wonder what the models think when they see themselves on the cover.

I guess they don't try to tell you that this is the "real photograph", but it certainly puts the thought into the minds of society that attractive women look like this....

Gotta love marketing

Clone away baby!
I think that it is a great tool. Just the other day I took a picture of the kids with their friends. They had given the cubby house a going over with chalk. It looked like one of those Melbourne beach huts!
Anyhow one of the friends had written her phone number on the wall, (six year olds!) this was rather distracting in the final photo, so out with the cloning tool. End result great picture that will not have the parents concerned about their phone number up on the web.

Mal wrote:Clone away baby!
I think that it is a great tool. Just the other day I took a picture of the kids with their friends. They had given the cubby house a going over with chalk. It looked like one of those Melbourne beach huts!
Anyhow one of the friends had written her phone number on the wall, (six year olds!) this was rather distracting in the final photo, so out with the cloning tool. End result great picture that will not have the parents concerned about their phone number up on the web.

Great example Mal, I had a good chuckle at the idea of a little girl writing her phone number in random places, could get a little embrassing.

like I said before, I have cloned minor bits and pieces from images before,
but if you look at the before and after of the honey eater, you will see that cloning transforms the image into something that it wasnt previously.
Having said that, I am actually glad I did, because I did like the pose on this bird.

Steve

Its great to see lots of opinions on the subject of cloning. No opinion is right or wrong but how the individual photographer wants to express his or her work. I used to be very anti-cloning of any sort and it was recently that a few different photographer friends who 'converted' me to think otherwise. Yes, I agree with the comment that most commercial magazines, for example, have Photoshoping of some sort. In this day and age, its a matter of going with the technology and techniques available and going with it.

Should we always let the viewer of our images know we have cloned something (as some have suggested) or is it kosher to just present the image as is?

Thanks for the comments so far

Cheers

Michael

Me again.

I have an example for you of why I clone. The first shot is the final version of my favourite Lunar New Year fireworks shots. It has all the right elements and is damn sharp considering it was handheld. If you look at the un PP'd image below it, you'll see what ruined the shot for me (hint it wasn't because the horizon wasn't straight). This was something I had zero control over.

Great example of the benefits of Photoshoping, Stubbsy. Thanks for posting before and after shots.

Cheers

Michael

Great PP work there stubbsy, excellent work on removing the bloke!

My philosophy is that while I don't wish to clone in/out things, there are the odd occassion where things go wrong. Which in my case results in tips of wings being cut off when taking closeup flight shots or the odd distracting background that needs some harshness of vertical/horizontal/diagonal lines removed. I try my best to reduce dof to smooth backgrounds, but sometimes it doesn't always pan out the way you see things in the viewfinder. I do try my best now to make sure things aren't between me and my subject, however the odd item does get through. So yes, I don't mind cloning out minor things.

Compositing images into a vision you have is totally different cloning and could possibly a thread in itself. I've seen some really wonderful composites that aren't physically possible due to there not being enough DOF with lenses. For instance a bird of prey composited over the moon (which is also as sharp as the bird).

I personally don't mind twigs and leaves in bird shots, as long as they don't obscure anything important (like an eye). After all, it is an image of a bird in its natural habitat.

Avcomp's bird shot for example I liked better with the twig left in. The cloned image somehow looks flat, and the birds seems to blend into the background. The original has more depth and bite, IMHO.

Stubsy's example of the cloned out photographer (don't you just hate them? ) is a good one in favour of cloning, though.

Cheers
Steffen.

My cloning skills still aren't that good yet but the serious distracting aspects of a photo should be cloned out, nothing major like putting things in, just getting rid of things in a photo that should be composed and well thought of in the first place.