Discussion in 'Weekly Poll' started by Liam Clifford, Jul 19, 2017.
Take part in this week's poll.
Not often because Lightroom is useless, despite what the article in AP says.
Depends on how you define 'objects'. I'm more than happy to clone out litter, stray birds in the sky that look more like dust bunnies than birds, small highlights, non-descript black blobs etc. When it comes to larger objects then I'm less inclined to do so as the results are all too often very apparent in the final image or sometimes I just figure life's too short for that much buggering about...
I took a few pictures by a pond in some trees on Monday evening in low, warm sunlight. Afterwards I cloned out around three and half million midges.
Did you use the 'Avon Skin-so-soft' plugin?
Midges don't bite me, and oddly enough they didn't touch the girl who was modelling for us either. One of the chaps I was with though ended up with both arms and most of his face completely covered in bites, some of which were openly bleeding. He wasn't happy.
Never. I enjoy adding things in more.
Untitled-3 by Geren posted Jul 19, 2017 at 12:56 PM
Since I saw those as skulls, Geren, I had to follow suit. Then I realised they were platypus (es)? Ha!
I'm like you - more often adding than subtracting.
I removed a rural overhead power cable and posts from this image with the clone tool in MicroGrafx Picture Publisher which I've been using for about 25 years starting with V2 which came with my first scanner, last update was V10 in 2002; now have to run it in an XP virtual, it does all I need.
Winterbourne Clenston church.
Every time I take an image I make a decision as whether to use a particular viewpoint and focal length and that decision includes / excludes some major parts of the potential image. Personally I try to keep other changes to a minimum but if I have to I have no problem with (say) loosing a lamppost.- provided of course that the picture is not tobe used in evidence.
After all nobody went and counted the number of waterlilies in Monet's garden
Platypuses? Platypuses?! Those are very rare golden haggis animals!!!!!!
But I like your Vanitas - very much!
Ha! Oh, those haggis animals! I think they only appear near Helensburgh.
Thank you for compliment!
22deg here - I'm dying! Also been bitten. I blame that thread!
Native to the western isles apparently. I seem to remember one year they could be spotted all over Scotland - they must have been on tour - webcams had been set up in several locations and those lucky enough to spot a Golden Haggis could win whisky or some such.
Warm but threatening to be wet and windy imminently here. No midges - too windy. Hope you have some antihistamine of some description?
Ah! Must be North Uist with talk of the machair!
Yes, I've applied the antihistamine cream. Calming down now.
Hot and humid here but breezy. Promised some rain overnight.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch.................................I take out dust, cat hairs and so on but very,very rarely anything else*. I've recently removed some power lines from a sunset pic. but the original, unretouched pic is still there. Personally, the power lines don't bother me at all, they're part of the scenery but there are always know-it-alls who find things that such objects 'detract' from the pic!
* I can probably count the occasions on the fingers of one hand.
I can't respond to the poll because none of the possibilities is correct. I'll happily remove dust specks and other marks but I try very hard to exclude the obvious from the original, or I'll crop to remove extraneous parts of passers-by. Some things just can't be removed without leaving artefacts, much better to accept the photograph as a true record and leave them in.
In all seriousness, I will in fact remove obvious blemishes from fruit and veg/plantlife if there's no other way of disguising them, and dirt/dust/bits of crud or stray fingerprints are all up for removal if necessary (although it's generally quicker to spot them and clean them before you press the shutter to be honest) but I rarely remove or add things to my photographs - I compose to get what I want in the shot from the outset.
I would say that I remove at least the equivalent of trodden in chewing gum, in almost every shot I take.
As a photographic student in the 50's I was taught how to retouch, both prints and negatives, using knives dyes stains bleaches and opaques.
The aim of course, was to change or remove elements that the client did not like. Be it wrinkles on a face, or litter on a factory floor, or defects in a product's finish. At the extreme, it involved airbrushing, to a state of total unreality.
Photoshop has changed nothing, except the ease with which we can do these things, and the extent that some people are prepared to go.
We now have the ability to shuffel pixels to our hearts desire.
What do I remove?
Almost nothing, ever. Skin blemishes sometimes: they're temporary, after all. Otherwise, in the one time in a hundred or a thousand that I do remove something, it almost invariably detracts from the picture anyway. See the "fifth point" here: https://streetphotography.com/street-photography-basics-choosing-kit/ -- you have to go back to the previous page ("Articles") to see the whole shot.
I sometimes remove stuff from commercial location shots - wires that I can't otherwise hide and the like, or something that grabs attention in the background that just couldn't be moved. The odd dodgy reflection. And yes, the odd blemish from skin in portraits - my aim is to make people look at their best, but normal - doesn't help anyone if their pic makes them look 20 but they look 60 in real life - 55 would be ok, though.
In my landscapes, very occasionally I'll remove something, but I prefer not to.
Separate names with a comma.