Posted by John Robinson on November 18, 2008 at 6:25 PM
There have been a couple of "inferences " of cloning on my recent House sparrow picture ,
I feel this is a bad advert for this forum and also a good way of getting potential members to go elsewhere.
I personnally as a nature photographer of 50 plus years feel insulted.
All said
JR
Posted by Vincent Jones on November 18, 2008 at 6:37 PM
I remember cloning was an issue others had with most images posted, it as died off a hell of a lot & for the better IMO. I would say cool down & don't get to eat up about it. Your images are awesome & a real pleasure to view & most important the subjects you capture look so relaxed, even the subjects that were hung on the washing line on an earlier post.
Keep um coming
I think the site & its members are having a bit of a down turn due to the dull weather conditions we are all encountering. Lots of polititical issues about
Posted by Major Gilbert on November 18, 2008 at 6:48 PM
John I am going to be different and say if you post images then you are open to all sorts of comments. I too get worked up about some and do find it difficult at times not to respond, but i could say if you dont like it dont post. I want to view images and post and get comments. Far to oftens we get into a nice run and suddenly we go on and on about other things and then the images in my opinion take second stage which is a great shame. I am not the best at explaining myself to well so please excuse if you dont get it.
Major.
Posted by Ian Mason on November 18, 2008 at 7:04 PM
John.
You shouldn’t feel insulted in the slightest. I recall the question was asked. I suppose that was a challenge and there’s nothing wrong with that. Your range of images is awesome and has always stimulated lots of comments/discussion. I’m feeling my way with digital and the opportunities it offers. I suppose cloning is just another tool in the armoury. I recall recently responding to a cropping suggestion by doing a bit of cloning to eliminate a bit of unwanted sky. I was (correctly I suppose) chastised for cheating. That part of the background didn’t exist in reality. But where do you draw the line? Is adding canvas allowed? I’ve discovered that using the clone tool with low opacity is a good way of softening offending intrusions (they aren’t removed from view). Maybe we should declare every time we clone, but that becomes tedious. With film prints, people used all sorts of techniques to make “corrections”.
I’ve followed several threads before about cloning on the main site. I think most people draw the line at deliberate intent to deceive. Of course, that is open to interpretation and could apply to any of the tools we use. I still have an open mind about it and look forward to the views of others.
If you post an image on a forum such as this, and ask for criticism, then you have to expect some critiques which you don’t like.
When a member suggests something, it is the prerogative of the author to take such comments on board or not.
The reference to cloning which you mentioned, was in my opinion justified, and on a personal note I thought it did improve the image, by the way you missed some of the branch behind the leaves.
To ignore such procedures, surely is far more likely to cost members than to not. This forum, and I would suggest the majority of others, is visited by a large number of people who have a genuine interest is leaning. If this is the case, then it’s surely upto the photographers who post here, to show via there images what is good practice and what isn’t.
Cloning is just another word for “burning”, which has been standard practice when printing for decades.
When you say that you have been photographing for 50 years, surely this is implying the same as saying, “I have been driving for fifty years and I am therefore an excellent driver”, it just doesn’t equate, time doing anything does not equal competency/proficiency.
John, if an image is commented on, the comment itself can be the result of a wealth of experience and competency, to try and diminish its content isn’t necessary, it will stand or fall on its own merit. You can’t tell just from the name of someone commenting, the competency and experience of the person behind it.
I would never presume, that anyone who comments on any of my images, doesn’t know what they are talking about. For a start, they are commenting on the presented image and as such are arguably at a disadvantage, as they weren’t there when the image was taken.
Finally, what’s that phrase about not being able to take the heat, Ah yes, don’t go into the kitchen.
Posted by John Robinson on November 19, 2008 at 1:19 AM
Thanks for your comments.
I enclose a blow up off the original.
I fail to see anything unusual, and certainly nothing that has "improved" the image in the slightest.
JR
If I was you John I would not worry. Many people being 'critical' on online forums have few images of their own up for view. I think what may be being noticed is some vegetation under the water surface.
FWIW I gave a talk one evening to a mixed group and after the presentation the very efficient lady in charge if it all thanked me profusely, and singled out one image she'd been particularly impressed by.
It was a slow shutter speed image of a running red deer hind - she was really taken by it and said
"and I just loved that deer picture near the end, it was stunning, so good, really really lovely, it looked so good...it looked like......er.....looked so good it looked like....er"
(and then with a sudden rush of brain activity)
"....it looked so good it looked like you've copied it from a book!"
I thanked her graciously for her 'compliment' .
Posted by Matt Cole on November 19, 2008 at 3:45 AM
Morning John,
I think many people on UKNP and other forums think a small amount of cloning is perfectly acceptable, you only have to look at the number of comments on images along the lines of 'you may want to clone that leaf/twig/light patch' etc. So in a culture when cloning is common place it's unfortunately inevitable that people think they see it when in fact they don't. But you shouldn't take it as an insult or an inference of 'cheating'.
Keep posting John, I always enjoy seeing your images.
Matt
Posted by Andy Astbury on November 19, 2008 at 3:50 AM
Ray - cloning is NOT just another word for burning at all.
Burning makes all pixels affected go DARKER - Cloning REPLACES on lot of pixels for another.
John - I think I was the among the first to comment on your Spadger image. Yes I did see the area in question, and yes it does look a bit 'odd' but I chose not to mention it.
If it were my images AND I hadn't done any cloning then I WOULD DO SOME!
There is too much linear order and repetition in the detail of the area in question so it's bound to illicit clone tool assumptions.
I take it from your wounded feelings that you didn't put those pixels there - if that is the case that means that nature did - and you'll have a devil of a job asking some folk to believe that
Posted by Vincent Jones on November 19, 2008 at 4:10 AM
Here is an image taken of a Hogbrush (c) in Autumn leaves, this is a shot that was staged & where fun was the objective to post on here to make some of you smile.
With this thread, is this such a big deal There are worst things going on around us than this.
Why don't we all just cheer up & enjoy the skills we practice. On reading other threads, there seems to be a lot of moody photographers about nowadays, very professional indeed!
Have a beer
SMILE
Be joyful
Say hello
Educate & show respect & stop
Posted by David Sewell on November 19, 2008 at 4:23 AM
John,
I think that one thing I have learned very rapidly on this site is that you are no fan of cloning. That does not mean that others of us feel the same way. Personally I do not mind a little bit in my own pictures, but draw the line at something too intrusive - possibly because I have insufficient skill or experience to do it well. As far as I am concerned cloning is not cheating, any more than when a wildlfe artist slaps a bit of paint over a part of the canvas he or she no longer likes.
I have not been on this site long, but already have a number of comments on my pictures that I disagree with, more that I do agree with, and those precious few that make me a better photographer. That is part of what happens when you put pictures up for comment, and I would far rather have a comment I disagree with, but which makes me think, than a dozen of the "great capture" type.
Don't be insulted - on another day I might have suggested the cloning if I hadn't been so taken with the bird. You are one of the better photographers on this site, and I for one would really miss your images if you stopped posting.
David
Posted by Dawn Monrose on November 19, 2008 at 4:31 AM
Sorry John, I didn't mean to upset you. I just saw something in the water and thought it looked a bit weird. I certainly wasn't accusing you of cheating. This is a forum for critique and I try to critique as honestly as possible. I have found this place a great place to learn, both for the critique-r and critique-e.
If that was how nature made it, then I accept that 100%
Please don't stop posting your great photos!!!
All the best,
Dawn.
Posted by Paul Thomas on November 19, 2008 at 5:12 AM
I think it would be helpful if some people learned to recognise JPEG compression artefacts when they see them.
Paul
Posted by John Robinson on November 19, 2008 at 5:19 AM
Thanks for the comments - all of you. I probably have over re-acted a bit and I appologise.
To me it was just a shot of a sparrow in a puddle ! I always get confused when people see things that I don't. It makes me question my senility ??!
If I was going to make a hash of a clone job, then I certainly don't think I would do it on this forum !!
Please don't get me wrong- I don't mind criticism at all- there are many times when I have altered pics on the suggestions of members. It is just that when some comments are untrue I am the kind of person that has to respond. Its always been a fault of mine.
Thanks JohnR
Get some measure of proportionality folks... ask yourself, would you spend time cloning something down there between two leaves, and on an image of a humble spuggy, with a busy background?... it simple isn't worth the trouble! Also, as John tends to 'set-up' his hides/pools, he'd be more than likely to clean up any clutter beforehand - it'd be easier. If he didn't, then I'd certainly be suggesting he did so!
BTW, nice hogbrush Vince - but as a set-up you should really have removed that leaf sticking up in the middle. Now if it where to go for publication, you might like to try and clone it out . Course you could always do something more worthwhile like grabbing a coffee and getting that caste of buzzards ready for flying instead
To my mind burning and cloning are very similar, one just uses an enlarger and the other a computer, in order to achieve a certain effect in the finished image.
If a photographer wanted to manipulate, and yes that is the right word, a print when in the dark room, he would have a series of masks which he would place between the light source and the paper being exposed, thus altering the final print. That was/is “burning” in one area relative to another. In other words changing the emphasis of one areas detail within an image, relative to another.
But all that aside, the real point I was making was that since the first photographic exposure was made, photographers have been manipulating their images, its just that today it is a lot easier.
Surely as photographers, we should at least be aware of these processes and explore them.
Nature photography is unique, in so far as we proclaim that our work is true to nature, other types of photography have no such inhibitions, and use the right tool for the job, to achieve the final image they want.
So are we wrong to make suggestions as to how in our opinion, an image can be improved, or should we ignore such thoughts/suggestions and bury our collective heads in the sand.
Nick would you remove that branch between the leaves, YES, you would, if it was the difference between having a sale and not. You either do it right or you don’t.
I might be wrong here, but I don’t believe John does “prepare” his “kill zones”, before each shoot, he lets nature do its thing. But that isn’t what most people do.
I must admit, I believe I can be guilty of being over critical sometimes, I know the other day I said about removing branches on one of your images. I would of course post more images for critique but am not a full member, I try to when I can.
I guess for me in a way while studying for my commercial photography degree we were taught to be so self critical and to an extent be more so towards other's work - in an attempt to push peoples creative stance on their work. I think in that way teaching photography seems to have lost it's way a bit. I was always very stubborn though and us much as I listened to crits I would always try to prove my image was the best I thought was appropriate for the circumstances.
Cloning can be useful, but only in the right circumstances - it seems really to be designed for the highly commercial market and not for nature based work. I have always tried to get the image right in camera leaving little work for PP. Depending on the situation I have sometimes missed something and it is quite useful, I do try to minimize it though. I'm not saying I'm great at using the tool but I guess a lot of it depends on how you use it in conjunction with other tools - and of course not using it to a detrimental effect. I guess really, don't take all crit to seriously, we are all photographers, and only us ourselves know what we want from our images.
Drew
Posted by Dawn Monrose on November 19, 2008 at 6:41 AM
Thank you very much Paul: "I think it would be helpful if some people learned to recognise JPEG compression artefacts when they see them."
I guess it's my turn to be insulted is it? As far as I was aware jpeg compression artefacts are square, seen as pixels are square, and they appear randomly over an image and affect edge clarity. They do not cause a repeating pattern of circles in a single area.
I am more than happy to accept that the pattern was natural, caused by a reflection, something in the water, or ripples from the sparrow having his bath. I apologised to John for causing upset as it was not my intention, and I was in fact horrified to learn that I had upset him. I have great respect for him and think his photos are fantastic.
I had no idea that asking a mere question would cause so much fuss. In the future I will keep my mouth shut.
Nick would you remove that branch between the leaves, YES, you would, if it was the difference between having a sale and not. You either do it right or you don’t.
Wrong Ray, for me personally such an image would have been consigned to the rejects, and most certainly wouldn't have made it to the selects for including on a customers lightbox for a sale. I'd have learnt the lesson and gone back and reshot with the improvements. But I realise that's my outlook on things, and not necessarily one that everyone will take. Personally I want to build a business based on image quality and integrity, not necessarily cloning ability. There are those such as Laurie Campbell that can do that - so it's not unattainable.
Nature photography is unique, in so far as we proclaim that our work is true to nature, other types of photography have no such inhibitions, and use the right tool for the job, to achieve the final image they want.
Generally commercial/advertising - as they're selling a fantasy, a dream. Yes I've cloned on a commercial shot - but I will say that those that have had cloning weren't nature/wildlife shots. I've also learned that in most cases the cloning is a total waste of my time/effort and I can only think of two occasions in the last 6 years that cloning has been warranted, once to reduce the quantity of fake blood drops in a gladiator fight (too gory), and once to remove a video camera from somewhere it shouldn't have been (anachronistic) . My point being that there has to be a real reason for me to bother cloning anything...(other than dust bunnies of course ). While a nice shot of a Spug, there is nothing in John's shot that warrants spending ages trying to clone anything out - to me at least. I don't think John's that desperate to get applause from us, or to be published. I could be wrong, but he's not really got to prove anything to anyone with his photography here.
I might be wrong here, but I don’t believe John does “prepare” his “kill zones”, before each shoot, he lets nature do its thing. But that isn’t what most people do.
That is potentially where John can get more useful help - rather than in how to clone. By pointing out some bits he's missed or overlooked, he can be helped to train his eye to look for the 'blemishes' on the canvas. That's if he wants to of course...
Dawn - don't 'shut up'. Anyone who posts here has to accept some give and take. You can learn by asking questions, and getting answers - even if the answer isn't what we anticipated, or want to hear - it all helps.
Enjoy the day people... Now I think I'll join Vince in a more profitable task and go look for a HogBrush somewhere - or at least find a cup of coffee
John, I always enjoy watching your pictures, so please keep on posting
Sandra
Posted by John Robinson on November 19, 2008 at 9:13 AM
As a matter of interest I usually check and change the pool set up at least every second sitting !
Things get very boring if you don't. If something falls or ends up in the wrongbplace its no big deal in a case like this to get out and sort things out. You don't do that in a buzzard hide or baiting site or something similar though.
Nick
I used to thrive on published stuff in the old days After many hours in cramped hides though I would get rattled if the shot wanted didn't come. We,ve all been there.
I soon realised that I could make more money doing lectures and surveys. I then started to enjoy my photography much more , and that's why its now become a little less enjoyable in todays photographic world and climate.
Cheers
JR
Posted by John Lee on November 19, 2008 at 5:50 PM
Hi John
Just got in and seen this thread. No inferences were intended. I was just looking at the image as a whole and noticed this pattern in the background and wondered what it was.
As it is I like the image as shown.
You have to be true to yourself, and to my mind your insight into an image can be very revealing. So always say what you honestly mean, and you can’t go far wrong.
So please keep on saying/writing what you honestly think.
Nick.
I would have been ahead of you. Once I have seen an offensive feature, the image(s) are gone from the camera, and if at all possible from the perch, so that I might still get some acceptable images from the session.
Cloning, is just one of a whole raft of procedures which are available to the photographer, or as many would say it’s just a tool. It is a rare image indeed, that doesn’t have some post exposure procedure carried out on it.
I’ll tell you what I will do. I’ll post an image where I have done some cloning, and I would be highly surprised if you wouldn’t have done the cloning as well.
You also wrote: “Personally I want to build a business based on image quality and integrity, not necessarily cloning ability. There are those such as Laurie Campbell that can do that - so it's not unattainable.”. Seems like you are harping back to the days of slide film, where you got what you took, end of story.
You wrote: “rather than in how to clone. By pointing out some bits he's missed or overlooked, he can be helped to train his eye to look for the 'blemishes' on the canvas.”.
John has said that he takes his shot, as it is presented to him, although he says above that he does check/change the setting every other visit. By taking shots as presented, I believe what he means is, what falls in the pool re leaves etc. stays in the pool. Take away the leaves and the subject, and for the majority of his shots are all the same, shooting angle, lighting etc.. So, Nick when you say “canvas”, you choose a very apt word, it’s the same blank canvas.
If anyone else took, say, three shots of different subjects, but using the same “stick”, then comment would soon be made about it. I think you get my drift.
It is as easy to change the setting around a pool, as it is to change a perch, at a feeding station. I know, because I do both all the time.
Posted by Cliff Young on November 22, 2008 at 3:01 AM
Lively debate all! Wish we'd had this sort of exchange during the Open University Digital Photography course that I took a year ago - it would have added considerably to the basic digital darkroom techniques being taught .............. but then most of the students (there were over 1,200 on that inaugural course!) were just starting out in photography. That said, it was an enjoyable course and fully utilised the concept of peer review, a little like NPN only with "enforced" weekly postings!
Discussion
23 repliesI feel this is a bad advert for this forum and also a good way of getting potential members to go elsewhere.
I personnally as a nature photographer of 50 plus years feel insulted.
All said
JR
Keep um coming
I think the site & its members are having a bit of a down turn due to the dull weather conditions we are all encountering. Lots of polititical issues about
Major.
You shouldn’t feel insulted in the slightest. I recall the question was asked. I suppose that was a challenge and there’s nothing wrong with that. Your range of images is awesome and has always stimulated lots of comments/discussion. I’m feeling my way with digital and the opportunities it offers. I suppose cloning is just another tool in the armoury. I recall recently responding to a cropping suggestion by doing a bit of cloning to eliminate a bit of unwanted sky. I was (correctly I suppose) chastised for cheating. That part of the background didn’t exist in reality. But where do you draw the line? Is adding canvas allowed? I’ve discovered that using the clone tool with low opacity is a good way of softening offending intrusions (they aren’t removed from view). Maybe we should declare every time we clone, but that becomes tedious. With film prints, people used all sorts of techniques to make “corrections”.
I’ve followed several threads before about cloning on the main site. I think most people draw the line at deliberate intent to deceive. Of course, that is open to interpretation and could apply to any of the tools we use. I still have an open mind about it and look forward to the views of others.
If you post an image on a forum such as this, and ask for criticism, then you have to expect some critiques which you don’t like.
When a member suggests something, it is the prerogative of the author to take such comments on board or not.
The reference to cloning which you mentioned, was in my opinion justified, and on a personal note I thought it did improve the image, by the way you missed some of the branch behind the leaves.
To ignore such procedures, surely is far more likely to cost members than to not. This forum, and I would suggest the majority of others, is visited by a large number of people who have a genuine interest is leaning. If this is the case, then it’s surely upto the photographers who post here, to show via there images what is good practice and what isn’t.
Cloning is just another word for “burning”, which has been standard practice when printing for decades.
When you say that you have been photographing for 50 years, surely this is implying the same as saying, “I have been driving for fifty years and I am therefore an excellent driver”, it just doesn’t equate, time doing anything does not equal competency/proficiency.
John, if an image is commented on, the comment itself can be the result of a wealth of experience and competency, to try and diminish its content isn’t necessary, it will stand or fall on its own merit. You can’t tell just from the name of someone commenting, the competency and experience of the person behind it.
I would never presume, that anyone who comments on any of my images, doesn’t know what they are talking about. For a start, they are commenting on the presented image and as such are arguably at a disadvantage, as they weren’t there when the image was taken.
Finally, what’s that phrase about not being able to take the heat, Ah yes, don’t go into the kitchen.
I enclose a blow up off the original.
I fail to see anything unusual, and certainly nothing that has "improved" the image in the slightest.
JR
FWIW I gave a talk one evening to a mixed group and after the presentation the very efficient lady in charge if it all thanked me profusely, and singled out one image she'd been particularly impressed by.
It was a slow shutter speed image of a running red deer hind - she was really taken by it and said
"and I just loved that deer picture near the end, it was stunning, so good, really really lovely, it looked so good...it looked like......er.....looked so good it looked like....er"
(and then with a sudden rush of brain activity)
"....it looked so good it looked like you've copied it from a book!"
I thanked her graciously for her 'compliment' .
I think many people on UKNP and other forums think a small amount of cloning is perfectly acceptable, you only have to look at the number of comments on images along the lines of 'you may want to clone that leaf/twig/light patch' etc. So in a culture when cloning is common place it's unfortunately inevitable that people think they see it when in fact they don't. But you shouldn't take it as an insult or an inference of 'cheating'.
Keep posting John, I always enjoy seeing your images.
Matt
Burning makes all pixels affected go DARKER - Cloning REPLACES on lot of pixels for another.
John - I think I was the among the first to comment on your Spadger image. Yes I did see the area in question, and yes it does look a bit 'odd' but I chose not to mention it.
If it were my images AND I hadn't done any cloning then I WOULD DO SOME!
There is too much linear order and repetition in the detail of the area in question so it's bound to illicit clone tool assumptions.
I take it from your wounded feelings that you didn't put those pixels there - if that is the case that means that nature did - and you'll have a devil of a job asking some folk to believe that
With this thread, is this such a big deal
Why don't we all just cheer up & enjoy the skills we practice. On reading other threads, there seems to be a lot of moody photographers about nowadays, very professional indeed!
Have a beer
SMILE
Be joyful
Say hello
Educate & show respect & stop
I think that one thing I have learned very rapidly on this site is that you are no fan of cloning. That does not mean that others of us feel the same way. Personally I do not mind a little bit in my own pictures, but draw the line at something too intrusive - possibly because I have insufficient skill or experience to do it well. As far as I am concerned cloning is not cheating, any more than when a wildlfe artist slaps a bit of paint over a part of the canvas he or she no longer likes.
I have not been on this site long, but already have a number of comments on my pictures that I disagree with, more that I do agree with, and those precious few that make me a better photographer. That is part of what happens when you put pictures up for comment, and I would far rather have a comment I disagree with, but which makes me think, than a dozen of the "great capture" type.
Don't be insulted - on another day I might have suggested the cloning if I hadn't been so taken with the bird. You are one of the better photographers on this site, and I for one would really miss your images if you stopped posting.
David
If that was how nature made it, then I accept that 100%
Please don't stop posting your great photos!!!
All the best,
Dawn.
Paul
To me it was just a shot of a sparrow in a puddle ! I always get confused when people see things that I don't. It makes me question my senility ??!
If I was going to make a hash of a clone job, then I certainly don't think I would do it on this forum !!
Please don't get me wrong- I don't mind criticism at all- there are many times when I have altered pics on the suggestions of members. It is just that when some comments are untrue I am the kind of person that has to respond. Its always been a fault of mine.
Thanks JohnR
BTW, nice hogbrush Vince - but as a set-up you should really have removed that leaf sticking up in the middle. Now if it where to go for publication, you might like to try and clone it out
To my mind burning and cloning are very similar, one just uses an enlarger and the other a computer, in order to achieve a certain effect in the finished image.
If a photographer wanted to manipulate, and yes that is the right word, a print when in the dark room, he would have a series of masks which he would place between the light source and the paper being exposed, thus altering the final print. That was/is “burning” in one area relative to another. In other words changing the emphasis of one areas detail within an image, relative to another.
But all that aside, the real point I was making was that since the first photographic exposure was made, photographers have been manipulating their images, its just that today it is a lot easier.
Surely as photographers, we should at least be aware of these processes and explore them.
Nature photography is unique, in so far as we proclaim that our work is true to nature, other types of photography have no such inhibitions, and use the right tool for the job, to achieve the final image they want.
So are we wrong to make suggestions as to how in our opinion, an image can be improved, or should we ignore such thoughts/suggestions and bury our collective heads in the sand.
Nick would you remove that branch between the leaves, YES, you would, if it was the difference between having a sale and not. You either do it right or you don’t.
I might be wrong here, but I don’t believe John does “prepare” his “kill zones”, before each shoot, he lets nature do its thing. But that isn’t what most people do.
I guess for me in a way while studying for my commercial photography degree we were taught to be so self critical and to an extent be more so towards other's work - in an attempt to push peoples creative stance on their work. I think in that way teaching photography seems to have lost it's way a bit. I was always very stubborn though and us much as I listened to crits I would always try to prove my image was the best I thought was appropriate for the circumstances.
Cloning can be useful, but only in the right circumstances - it seems really to be designed for the highly commercial market and not for nature based work. I have always tried to get the image right in camera leaving little work for PP. Depending on the situation I have sometimes missed something and it is quite useful, I do try to minimize it though. I'm not saying I'm great at using the tool but I guess a lot of it depends on how you use it in conjunction with other tools - and of course not using it to a detrimental effect. I guess really, don't take all crit to seriously, we are all photographers, and only us ourselves know what we want from our images.
Drew
I guess it's my turn to be insulted is it? As far as I was aware jpeg compression artefacts are square, seen as pixels are square, and they appear randomly over an image and affect edge clarity. They do not cause a repeating pattern of circles in a single area.
I am more than happy to accept that the pattern was natural, caused by a reflection, something in the water, or ripples from the sparrow having his bath. I apologised to John for causing upset as it was not my intention, and I was in fact horrified to learn that I had upset him. I have great respect for him and think his photos are fantastic.
I had no idea that asking a mere question would cause so much fuss. In the future I will keep my mouth shut.
Wrong Ray, for me personally such an image would have been consigned to the rejects, and most certainly wouldn't have made it to the selects for including on a customers lightbox for a sale. I'd have learnt the lesson and gone back and reshot with the improvements. But I realise that's my outlook on things, and not necessarily one that everyone will take. Personally I want to build a business based on image quality and integrity, not necessarily cloning ability. There are those such as Laurie Campbell that can do that - so it's not unattainable.
Generally commercial/advertising - as they're selling a fantasy, a dream. Yes I've cloned on a commercial shot - but I will say that those that have had cloning weren't nature/wildlife shots. I've also learned that in most cases the cloning is a total waste of my time/effort and I can only think of two occasions in the last 6 years that cloning has been warranted, once to reduce the quantity of fake blood drops in a gladiator fight (too gory), and once to remove a video camera from somewhere it shouldn't have been (anachronistic)
That is potentially where John can get more useful help - rather than in how to clone. By pointing out some bits he's missed or overlooked, he can be helped to train his eye to look for the 'blemishes' on the canvas. That's if he wants to of course...
Dawn - don't 'shut up'. Anyone who posts here has to accept some give and take. You can learn by asking questions, and getting answers - even if the answer isn't what we anticipated, or want to hear - it all helps.
Enjoy the day people... Now I think I'll join Vince in a more profitable task and go look for a HogBrush somewhere - or at least find a cup of coffee
Sandra
Things get very boring if you don't. If something falls or ends up in the wrongbplace its no big deal in a case like this to get out and sort things out. You don't do that in a buzzard hide or baiting site or something similar though.
Nick
I used to thrive on published stuff in the old days After many hours in cramped hides though I would get rattled if the shot wanted didn't come. We,ve all been there.
I soon realised that I could make more money doing lectures and surveys. I then started to enjoy my photography much more , and that's why its now become a little less enjoyable in todays photographic world and climate.
Cheers
JR
Just got in and seen this thread. No inferences were intended. I was just looking at the image as a whole and noticed this pattern in the background and wondered what it was.
As it is I like the image as shown.
John Lee
You have to be true to yourself, and to my mind your insight into an image can be very revealing. So always say what you honestly mean, and you can’t go far wrong.
So please keep on saying/writing what you honestly think.
Nick.
I would have been ahead of you. Once I have seen an offensive feature, the image(s) are gone from the camera, and if at all possible from the perch, so that I might still get some acceptable images from the session.
Cloning, is just one of a whole raft of procedures which are available to the photographer, or as many would say it’s just a tool. It is a rare image indeed, that doesn’t have some post exposure procedure carried out on it.
I’ll tell you what I will do. I’ll post an image where I have done some cloning, and I would be highly surprised if you wouldn’t have done the cloning as well.
You also wrote: “Personally I want to build a business based on image quality and integrity, not necessarily cloning ability. There are those such as Laurie Campbell that can do that - so it's not unattainable.”. Seems like you are harping back to the days of slide film, where you got what you took, end of story.
You wrote: “rather than in how to clone. By pointing out some bits he's missed or overlooked, he can be helped to train his eye to look for the 'blemishes' on the canvas.”.
John has said that he takes his shot, as it is presented to him, although he says above that he does check/change the setting every other visit. By taking shots as presented, I believe what he means is, what falls in the pool re leaves etc. stays in the pool. Take away the leaves and the subject, and for the majority of his shots are all the same, shooting angle, lighting etc.. So, Nick when you say “canvas”, you choose a very apt word, it’s the same blank canvas.
If anyone else took, say, three shots of different subjects, but using the same “stick”, then comment would soon be made about it. I think you get my drift.
It is as easy to change the setting around a pool, as it is to change a perch, at a feeding station. I know, because I do both all the time.