EDIpic From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2582 times:
With respect to another thread started today by Ben, I suggested that the Clone Tool could be used to remove unsightly foreground objects. I was amazed to hear it's not allowed (not allowed?)
Well, I know that if it isn't used they'd be less high quality shots on this database.
Dirt, dust,scratches are unavoidable.
I'm not for one minute suggesting the promotion of composite photographs. I do know the difference. I hope that those who respond know too.
So, are you a purist or a pragmatist?
Other than "cleaning" up dirt:
Would you wipe out that annoying crow flying by causing a black blur? The foreground can of coke on the grass right in front of the subject? The front of a telephoto lens or a stray pointing hand that has crept into the right or left hand side of the frame by the person next to you at a busy airshow?
Fredrik Hjort From Sweden, joined Apr 2001, 114 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2507 times:
I remove dust and scratches with the clone tool. However I don't remove objects who was captured on the photo... even though I think that in some cases (the crow flying by is a hard one) small objects can be removed.
Bodobodo From Canada, joined May 2000, 553 posts, RR: 12 Reply 2, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2504 times:
There are only two things that I allow myself to do with the clone tool. One is to remove scratches (courtesy of the photo lab!) or dust spots. The other is to remove scanner artifacts. My scanner, on occasion, has a problem with adding a thin blue horizontal line across the scan. If it is in a convenient spot (eg. in the sky) I will clone it out.
In essence my goal is to bring the final scan as close to the original scene as possible. I don't remove anything that was in the original scene.
Fredrik Hjort From Sweden, joined Apr 2001, 114 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2483 times:
Edwin, I think that the crow (or whatever bird) visible only add to the feeling. You see the big mountains, a church and so on and get a feeling of calm life. Something often missing in aircraft images.
EDIpic From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (12 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2353 times:
I'm not surprised by the response this thread has created.
It's what I expected.
Those indignant that the clone tool could be used to "enhance" a photograph will state their claim, whilst those photographers I know who do use it for "enhancement" in their own restrained way feel they will be shot down in flames.
It doesn't state in the FAQ what not to do with the clone tool.
What you do with your photographs after scanning is up to you.
NB: Before anyone bursts a vein, read my first post again at the top.
AndyEastMids From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 998 posts, RR: 2 Reply 9, posted (12 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2346 times:
Whilst not necessarily supporting the wide use of the clone tool, I fail to see much difference between cloning out a distracting object from a photograph, and cropping a photograph to remove extraneous items or reduce the amount of "unused" space at the top, bottom or sides.
So to all those who insist they use the clone tool only for removing dust and scratches, and are disparaging towards those who might be tempted to remove an arm, a coke can or whatever else Gerry mentioned, can you honestly say that all of your pics are full frame?
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (12 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2341 times:
Very few pics here are full frame - I almost always cut out a little of the sides to get things centered. Sometimes I go much further. This picture below is actually maybe 10% or less of the original slide area. The original slide was taken at very long range, capturing the whole wingspan of the aircraft, which only covered about 50% of the width of the frame. At 4000 dpi, the section scanned only came to about 1100 pixels across.
I don't mind using the cloning tool for dust and scratches, but find that if you try to do more (like eliminating a poorly placed lamp-post) it quickly becomes visible. So I keep it for dust and scratches only.