nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Cloning

sdevine89

Sherlock Behind Bars by StephenDevine, on Flickr

dnme wrote: »

sdevine89

This is a beautiful photo. Love that dog, great sparkle in the eye contrasted with vibrant blue in the gate. There's also a great story in the photo. Would you consider cloning out the gob around his eyes ? My dog does exactly the same and it is shall we say, less than visually appealing on her It distracts when viewing the photo. Hope you don't take any offense, its a fantastic photo. Wish I'd taken it.

I decided to start a new thread instead of posting in the random thread, I also think there might be some other posters who might have a view on this. Firstly, thanks for your kind words about the photo I really appreciate it. With regards to the dirt around his eye, I did toy with the idea of photoshopping it out but only briefly, however since I've read your comment I took a long hard think about it. I like my photos to reflect what I have seen be that people animals or landscapes. I don't whiten people's teeth or get rid of blemishes if i shoot candid portraits so I see no reason to change for the dog. I fully understand that it is distracting and takes away from the intended focal point which was the eye but that's the way I found him and that's the way it came out in the camera.

If I was shooting this for a client (If I had clients!) I probably would get rid of it if that's the type of shot they wanted, but for myself I want more documentary than beauty pageant. If I did touch up the photo it would no doubt garner more likes etc but if that was my aim I'd spend my days photographing kittens

I didn't take any offense from the suggestion and more importantly takes for taking the time to make it. I hope this somewhat clears up my thought process.

I'd be interested if anyone else has views on this.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Zillah

I'd take it out. It's something that just happened to be there at that instant, he spends 99% of his time without snot smeared across his fur.

One would hope.

CabanSail

This is always a choice for the photographer and seems to have always been an issue since Photography began.

We use Photography to express ourselves and how we treat, process and present our images is a personal choice. The light we record and the way we perceive the world can vary dramatically. As humans we tend to believe that what we see is reality but if you investigate the issue you soon find out that it is often not the case. Then the equipment and recording medium also vary the outcome. So when we attempt to record and present an image as reality there will always be different versions of that offering.

Generally what I try to do with my images is to show how I perceived what I saw at the time. This allows things to be altered to represent how I perceived the subject and the emotional impact it had at the time, or later as a memory. It is why I often like to process in monochrome, even though I saw it in colour. It also allows for items to be moved, altered or deleted if required. End of the day it's personal choice.

tl/dr If it were my image I may well have removed the distraction, unless I wanted it there to make a point, but it's not my choice.

magicbastarder

i'm in the 'leave it in' camp. it's a dog, not a fashion shoot.

sdevine89

Silva360 wrote: »

Yes, of course, I was speaking hypothetically. If you could freeze time and space and would have removed it by hand then I see no issue with doing so later.

I hope I didn't offend, I thought you wanted to open the issue up for discussion. The key is to do what makes you happy with your photographs, of course.

No offense whatsoever. In a perfect world if I could have stopped motion I would have, but to do it after would in my opinion have changed how the photo was shot. The dog lives on a farm so the rust and dirt reflect that in my opinion.

Silva360

sdevine89 wrote: »

Yeah I did see it but the subject isn't a human who I can ask to stand and wait while I take it away and then get back in the same pose. As for correcting flaws to rust on the gate etc that's way to far for me.

Yes, of course, I was speaking hypothetically. If you could freeze time and space and would have removed it by hand then I see no issue with doing so later.

I hope I didn't offend, I thought you wanted to open the issue up for discussion. The key is to do what makes you happy with your photographs, of course.

sdevine89

Silva360 wrote: »

Did you actually see it though? If the same opportunity arose again and you noticed it would you clean it away? Personally I would remove it, along with the crud that crosses the left ear, the crud on the lower left of the blue gate, and the bit of rust on the lower right. I would have no ethical dilemma with this unless it meant lying about it if asked.

I have taken many photos where I have not noticed something when pressing the shutter. The camera saw something I did not see. If I clone it out I can still argue that the photo reflects what I saw

Yeah I did see it but the subject isn't a human who I can ask to stand and wait while I take it away and then get back in the same pose. As for correcting flaws to rust on the gate etc that's way to far for me.

Silva360

I like my photos to reflect what I have seen be that people animals or landscapes.

Did you actually see it though? If the same opportunity arose again and you noticed it would you clean it away? Personally I would remove it, along with the crud that crosses the left ear, the crud on the lower left of the blue gate, and the bit of rust on the lower right. I would have no ethical dilemma with this unless it meant lying about it if asked.

I have taken many photos where I have not noticed something when pressing the shutter. The camera saw something I did not see. If I clone it out I can still argue that the photo reflects what I saw

Splinters

I never understood that argument about wanting the shot to accurately represent what you seen. Its usually used in regards to post production or altering the image after the fact.

Yet nobody seems to apply that same thinking to shooting shallow dept of field, wide angle lenses or all manner of other in camera settings/techniques that far remove the image taken from what the human eyes can see.

Its a nice shot as it, and of course entirely your decision what adjustments to make. However if you've shot the image with a wide aperture lens you've already enhanced the shot beyond what you could have seen with your own eyes, so why stop there?

Tiriel

I would have removed it too - but like you said, it's personal preference. It's a minor tweak - not substantially altering the subject etc. but it does distract from the photo content and that's why I would remove it

A great shot though, lovely dog!

b318isp

It's your photo - your choice. Personally, I'd remove it as it distracts.