Cloning - Jeeze, whatever next!

I was a bit horrified yesterday by some of the 'cloning in general' replies to Johns original post.

Frankly some folk should know better - when you are making as much money out of this game as Arty Morris without ever using it then perhaps your point of view will be valid

The clone tool should not be regarded as a "cheats tool" - like every other tool PS has to offer it is 'open to abuse', but used properly it can get you out of many an awkward scrape.

Here's a case in point:

I've been wanting a GSW on this particular rotting birch limb for ages and the other day it obliged me for the very first time - for all of 2 seconds.

The light was poor and it had been to-ing and fro-ing from another log all afternoon - so when it did eventually do my bidding the comp was all wrong, and I had no time to get it right either.

I got 2 frames only - one soft, and this one.

Perfect focus, but the eye was 2/3rds across the frame.

So some quick clone work to extend the BG a bit to the left gives me a half-usable image.

The entire processing of this image including the usual Bibble raw stuff and resizing including text and border was 11 minutes.

Now come on - that's not an inordinate amount of time is it??

I've removed nothing, nor touched the subject - so the way I see it it's not cheating any more than sharpening when you've got a slightly soft image, or masking.

Yes I know I can't enter it in comps as it breaks the rules, but with a good understanding of what subtle and quick work you can do with it the clone tool is a valid addition to your workflow. Seeing as it's done on the 16bit native tiff it'll make a nice print!!

If you want to try and spot the join there's a bigger version here http://wildlifeinpixels.com/img/nov/WIP00023301L.jpg

Just my to'penorth

D300
300-800mm
ISO 400
1/125th @ f6.3
Bibble Pro and CS3
Full frame, then 260 pixels cropped off the right.
260 pixels added to left side of canvass.

Looks pretty good to me - great eye contact and pose, and good BG!



Mark

Its a beautiful shot, well worth the 11 minutes spent in the "darkroom". As for cloning in general, I wonder if sometimes cloning is merited if it means less disturbance to the subject that would have been caused by removing "offensive" vegetation or other items?

Great image Andy. To me, this would be an acceptable use of the clone tool. In the wrong hands it can be dangerous though

Andy,

lovely image, really works well.

I'm glad to see someone looking at the clone tool in a similar light to myself. PS like any other piece of kit is there for us to use at our discretion and if done well and not to have a detrimental effect on the image then as image makers there should be no problem. I wonder if you had one nature photogrpaher and one commercial, say product images both sit down and talk about the clone tool, the commercial photographer wouldn't ever have a problem with it.

My point is this; nature photography as much as 95% see it as conservation/preservation first there still are commercial nature photographers and yes they are a business - some will do what ever is asked to get the image right.

Great image !

Drew

Hi Andy I looked at the image big and it is perfect. Great capture.

err Andy, as the BG is so monotone anyway, why bother using the clone tool - why didn't you just extend the canvas and then stretch a selection of the BG out into it... would be easier & quicker.

Nice woody BTW .

PS FWIW, this is so incredibly easy in PS CS4 now using the Content-aware-scaling feature. Before anyone condemns anyone else for adding canvas in such a way, bear in mind that CAS is an incredibly useful tool for magazines & layouts and they're going to be using it. You might as well give up believing front covers and DPS's from now on as the designer can just fit the BG to suit the layout needed without affecting the subject. As with all tools, it needs a bit of skill to master, but it's incredible to see being used! Is it right or wrong... who knows - I guess it depends on the context it's used in.

Nick - simply because it's not as monotone as you seem to think - there are a lot of subtleties in there that are not apparent on the jpegs.

Using the clone tool and picking sources from all around the BG, and using a soft brush with low opacity and flow enable me to quickly do a much better job (in my mind) than stretching pixels.

Having said that the CAS feature in CS4 does look very interesting indeed - it'll be one of my main reasons for getting CS4 (when I can afford it!!!).

I suppose it's just the way one gets used to working; for me a quick clone job is quicker to do than making a selection, plus, if needed, I can switch to a protected clone operation half way through the job at the touch of a key or two.

Anyway, glad you like the woody

Hi Andy,

Great image!

Ah, I’ve read most of the cloning debate and some of it made me laugh!

I think mastering the art of ALL digital darkroom techniques to process an image is part of the digital workflow and should be embraced not ridiculed.

Some photographers seem to be forgetting that we have switched to shooting in RAW to gain more control over our images yet sneer at anyone who doesn’t say ‘This is how it came out of the camera!’.

I have an ethical stance on manipulation but I find enhancing an image is at times necessary unless you’re the best thing since sliced bread and have no need to process.

Nicely done Andy... I would off course have rejected it eventually

Cloning is fine in many images as long as it is done well.... I am always telling people to use a soft low opacity brush... do they listen?

Nice Woody too...

I have no problem at all with this sort of cloning. Nothing is being misrepresented, the subject is accurately portrayed but is simply presented in a more attractive manner.

This is a lovely shot Andy. The colours, exposure and pose are excellent.

Matt

Hi Andy

Super shot, great exposure and detail. Beautifully processed and I agree with Matt's comment about it not being a misrepresentaion of what you saw!

David

Lovely colours and a great comp-worth the extra PS time

Dave

Cheat

This cloning debate will never be settled as far as I can see.



Paul

Your picture is great Andy and I don't see a problem with the way you have achieved the image.

Thanks for sharing.

Austin

Stunning shot!! Amazing detail and sharpness, great perch and lovely background! Well worth PS time.



Perhaps the forum should be limited to one major discussion per week? How about next weeks topic: "The benefits, disadvantages, morals and ethics of using photoshop's marquee tool in nature photography post processing - discuss"
It would go on forever!!

Seriously though, it is good to discuss these things, but can we go do some photography now please?

very nice image, the colours and sharpness are great, personally i wouldn't extend the frame in my own images however as long as people are honest with it i don't see a huge problem, if you had just posted it without mentioning you had extended the canvas i wouldn't agree with that, not that i'd have noticed

don't see how any of this is a major problem as long as people are entirely honest about what they do i see no problem and people will trust the integrity of each other's images

A lovely image, and well worth the effort in PS. Extending empty space is really no big deal in my book!

Well wort 11 minutes of your time, I see nothing wrong with this use of the clone tool, nothing in the image of any great importance has been changed. Like the colour of the background, sets the bird off well. Nice image.

John Lee

What the h*** is all this about.

Why is an honest comment in another thread, being questioned in such a fashion ???

Now I might be wrong but:

1. Wasn’t an image posted for critique.
2. A suggestion was made about cloning out a feature within it.
3. The author obviously thought there was some merit to the suggestion, as it was reposted with the suggested modification.
4. I pointed out that there was still some of the branch present.

Surely the initial suggestion is a reasonable one, as I think mine was, the cloning is either right or it isn’t, so do it right or forget it.

The use of any tool within Photoshop, is for the author of the image to decide upon, as is declaring its use.

But then, to go for someone, by questioning their comment(s) on an image, be it surreptitiously, when they suspect something is amiss or they see a way of improving the image, is wrong. Particularly via another thread.

People frequently lie, either intentionally or by omission, that unfortunately human nature.

So to me it boils down to the following:

1. Take your chances and post your images.
2. Don’t post, if you can’t take true/valid criticism.
3. Put at the bottom of your posted image “PLAUDITS only please”, or something similar.
4. Leave it to the author to question any points raised. Which I suggest, is best done with a shake of the shoulders, and then let it go.

Finally, please get back in your prams and stop shaking your rattles.

By the way, I haven’t read the whole of the thread, got better things to do.

Ray - calm down & grab a cool drink. You're barking up the wrong tree... the 'cloned' image that caused the 'upset' & discussion was John's Sparrow in the pool. You're obviously referring to a different image - the Nuthatch image - which John openly reposted with cloning in response to someone's request/suggestion.

Now go & do something a bit more relaxing on a Fri night - like watching a movie or something .

Nick

With the greatest of respect, I consider my comments apply to both, if it was just the House Sparrow thread that was being pointed at, then Andy should have made it clear. He didn’t.

What I wrote: But then, to go for someone, by questioning their comment(s) on an image, be it surreptitiously, when they suspect something is amiss or they see a way of improving the image, is wrong. Particularly via another thread. Definitely still applies, as does what I think it all boils down too.

As far a cooling it, I’m perfectly cool as I’m currently enjoying a very nice malt. You will know when I get upset.

But I take your point.

Ray - if you care to actually READ the threads you are referring to then you'll see I never pointed any fingers at John, and neither am I "pointing" at, nor "questioning" anyones images or integrity with this thread.

The clone tool was getting some 'bad press' so all I did was 'spring to its defence' by posting this thread.

It's funny how everyone got this - apart from you.

So get back in your own pram please, and in future refrain from putting inferences in my threads that are not there.

Time out - topic shut