Clone out the fence if it makes the photo better. Doesn't bother me in
the least. The objective is to make as nice a picture as possible.
Sometimes you can move the camera to get rid of the fence. Sometimes
you have to move the cursor. Doesn't matter. Why is the mere recording
of what happens to be in front of one sacred? What should be sacred is
keeping one's eye on the final objective: a great photograph. From here
on out Photography is going to involve a digital workflow that will
open the door to more creativity. The work is ultimately judged on the
basis of where you end up, not how you got there. The image is the
thing. The method is unimportant.
Paul
On Jun 17, 2005, at 6:22 PM, Cotty wrote:
On 17/6/05, Tom Reese, discombobulated, unleashed:
This reminds me of a conversation I had at the 2004 Nature Photography
Weekend. I was standing there hoping to get a good shot of a couger
and I remarked that the chain link fence in the background would spoil
the picture unless the cougar moved. The guy standing next to me said
"I'll just clone that out." Is that acceptable? Not in my mind.
Nor in mine. It appears we all have standards, but at what point does
the
cloning tool stop being a minor aide, and start being a major
contribution to the photo, no the collage, not the photo, no the
collage
AAAAAARGH
Photographs aren't fake.
Actually Tom, I know what you mean, but I would say that it's the
photographers who are the fakes. As the Klingons would say, it is a
matter of honour, now pass the Gargh.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com
_____________________________
