Santa Maddalena with a view on Geisler/Odle mountain peaks - Dolomites, Italy - late September 2016.
When I came to the location the first thing I saw was the mess (construction work) around the church and immediately I was disappointed.
(I did not know about the traditional festival - some village celebration in early October).
On second (lower) image I cloned all the indications of construction work as part of the preparation for the festival.
On the first photo (upper) I left everything as it was as documentary evidence of time and I put a bigger scale on sky.
How fair and ethically correct it was to clone elements of a photo that spoil my aesthetic sensitivity as distracting elements?
What do you think about this and which photo is more pleasant to you?
Removing distracting elements or not?
first of all a beautiful shot!!
I would say it like this:
you were not documenting a certain scene / event. If you would have taken the same image 2 weeks earlier or later all the TEMPORARY "mess" would have been gone. In my opinion you can use the second version IF there are (many) times in the year when it is viewable like this (which I assume). I find it kind of unethical to clone a lot out which would usually ALWAYS be visible. Then at the same time I might clone out a power pole which is there always but just so annoying ;-)
I prefer the composition / framing of shot 1 - the lower shot is kind of missing these awesome clouds
Many thanks Edgar for your opinion!
Me personally, I think taking things out and altering a scene in a material way is wrong. Just my own opinion.
I actually much prefer the second image, but simply because it's much more nicely processed - the clouds in number one particularly are just a bit too intense and overcooked.
It's a gorgeous scene either way. Number two would not be spoiled or affected in any way if you'd left that stuff in, again in my opinion. It actually took me several double takes to see what you were talking about so maybe you're overestimating the impact on the composition.
I appreciate your thoughts David! Thanks a lot!
PS Just.... wow!
Radisa, I love this idyllic scene. Amazing lines and all of the elements work well together. "Fair and ethically correct"? Absolutely. You're creating art - presenting a finished image. I think you have carte blanche. Ansel Adams cropped, dodged and burned, and in at least one case that I'm aware of "painted out" some writing on rock that would have been a distraction. While I like the church area more in the second one, I am in agreement with Edgar on preferring the framing and clouds in the first. I don't think I would have seen the temporary structures as a distraction. Of course, they've been made a topic, so I'm always looking at them now. I consider something a distraction in an image when my eyes keep ending up on it thinking: "What's up with that?" I don't think that would have been the case here as they don't stand out to me as an anomaly.
Well elaborated and useful comment Dune! Thanks!
delete delete delete ....if there is an annoying item or distraction get rid of it, if your going to go through all of the trouble of post processing your image i.e. color, tone, hue.....etc. then why not fix everything the way you want it. not every shot is meant for a major magazine editorial reflecting on the precise moment something happens. this is landscape and i believe we are trying to get the scene to be as beautiful as we can make it.
BTW nice image
Thanks so much Joseph for your input on this topic!
Yes, Joseph, but you're a painter! You don't care about reality. Just kidding. ;-)
lmao!!!! you got me lol
This is obviously a subjective matter. For me, I'm almost never against cloning things out if they distract the viewer. I'm more against adding things to photos and saying they are real and it was all done in camera. (looking at you Peter Lik). I've seen a few photos of Mount Fuji where people alter the actual shape of the mountain, and I think it looks horrible, so I'm not a big fan of actually altering the shape of the landscape, either.
However, in the end, the final product is whatever the artist wants it to be. As long as it's for artistic purposes, do whatever works for you.
I've removed things in a lot of my photos because they took away from the composition (people, poles, branches, pipes, etc). I don't feel my photo and hard work should be punished because some city planner decided to put a big black pipe in the middle of a waterfall or big street lights in the sakura trees. I mean, how is this any different from altering the scene by dodging and burning or adding contrast to an image.
I do prefer the second photo, also.
Thanks a lot for the comprehensive thought Jordan!
Cloning out a building that's here all year long is distorting reality, but removing contruction work, that is by definition temporary, is fine as long as doing so strengthen the feeling you had when watching this scene. I've seen people distorting mountains to make them pointy and more ominous. That's not ok, unless you're just a retoucher doing composite work. If you're a true landscape photographer, you'll set your own limits naturally. Plus if you publish your work in magazines and stuff, chances are they'll ask for the raw files anyway.
Thanks for commenting on this dilemma.
Yes, NGM were taken from me an intact raw file, but I heard that some photographers allowed "small" changes, at their request.
Amazing shot. I don't think you have to think about the ethics of manipulating a photo unless its journalistic in nature. If it makes the shot look prettier, do it.
Obviously, I'm worrying too much about it, which is probably due to my journalistic background. Thank you so much!
Congratulations. Very beautiful pictures. Imagine you are a landscape painter in the 19th hundreds. Would you have painted the mess as well? Guess not. You want to show a beautiful picture and no documentation of the scene. So in my point of view, nothing wrong with clean up the mess.
Thanks a lot! It seems that most people think so! And I now prefer lower variant.
Great work as ever, Radisa. For me, both have their strengths. The cleaned-up image is more harmonious and overtly beautiful for reducing the clutter, but I agree that the sky in the first is more appealing, if perhaps a little too ominous? I agree with David's comments about the processing.
Thanks for your opinion Chris!
It's a little too dark sky on the first image, I agree. Also, in the first photo in terms of composition, there is an emphasis on particular cloud formation and where the sense of scale is more pronounced, what was my aspiration.
My decision to not move the tripod and to constantly shoot turned out to be correct, because it proves that can make two photos look much the same at the same time are quite different.
I love doing just that at a vantage point, as clouds move and nature's spectacle unfolds. Sometimes stay in one spot for hours like that, mesmerised.