Cloning

I am not sure whether this is the right time to be posting a thread like this so if it isn't, please tell me.

This is a subject which causes much controversy amongst wildlife photographers as it causes questions about whether the image you see is a true representation of what the photographer saw.

When photography was all film, the photographer could not clone out branches, leg rings, or out of focus birds and branches, but now we can.

I would like to know what you guys think about what is acceptable to clone and what isn't Currently, most wildlife photography competitions do not allow cloning, and I agree with them.

I would only clone out dust spots on my sensor, and do not usually like cloning out other parts. I find that it is a bit odd that some people are against cropping, but will clone things out of their shots...

What do you think?

Oscar

An old topic raised again Oscar and you mention a point which has had me perplexed too!.
A good example is my Green Sand pic with the OOF green leave blur in the foreground. I hadn't noticed it but took it out (badly ) by cloning. Personally the first image didn't look that bad to me but I bowed to opinion I suppose. I think it depends on the level of what is taken out - or put in. Dustspots or small artifacts , I don't have a real problem with but its just another of those un answerable questions. It will be an interesting thread I am sure.
I doubt if there are many on this forum that haven't cloned something out (or in - which is what cloning is after all !!)
Cheers
JohnR

Probably not the best time to ask Oscar...

If anyone wishes to help Oscar debate this, then please keep all your comments polite and non-personal ...

Yes I thought it may be but I was interested to see what people think. I definitely do not want it to end up like the cropping debate...

Hi Oscar

Interesting question at the bottom of a very large can of worms. Perhaps your instinct about it being the "wrong time" was correct.

A very simple answer (and one based on the principle of film photography) would be to get the shot right in camera - a very healthy habit to get into for lots of reasons! Look at Andy Parkinson's shot of the dunlin - he could have cloned the white blob out but didn't; is the shot any less successful because of it? My answer is no. Just because modern photography allows you to do something, it doesn't mean you have to.

Just be honest, you won't go far wrong.

Cheers,
Chris

Oscar,

Many, many different opinions...

First of all, back in the good old days of film, yes, you could 'clone' you used a very fine brush a very sharp scalpel and an airbrush, with care certain things could be 'hidden'.

I am not against cloning out certain things, my last post I removed detritus floating on the water for no other reasan than to make the image more aesthetic, I would have spent the time and done the same to a transparancy... The line has to be drawn when objects such as branches or major distractions are removed.. for posting on a forum it is fine (IMHO) as long as it is declared, when making mony from images then yes if it takes the image to that next earning level.

Competitions... (I have a bit of insider knowlege here) at the moment the idea is for the playing field to be level for the digital and analogue entrant... the rules are constantly being reviewed and modified (sometimes wrongly) and you will see quite a few changes over the coming years... watch this space I guess....

I do not find it odd... nothing really surprises me any more.....

All the best

Phil

Hello Oscar

I will try not to upset any body this time.

I think we should all look at the rules of one the most important competitions in the world of wildlife photography which is the WPOTY and then take their rules and work around them. It states no cloning, manipulation or any excessive cropping of more than 20%. You can do levels and curves to bring out the best of the raw image but no more than that. I think that is fine as that way when you see an image in that competition you know it will be the case which I personally think is right (just my opinion). There will be others that think it is ok to do this stuff and again that is their opinion. I know you are a young photographer and I think you should start as you mean to carry on and this is get the image as close as you possibly can in the veiw finder of your camera. So exposure, low ISO for better quality, sharpness, no distracting objects, clean background/foreground, light, composition, subject, everything you can to get it right. That means patience and field craft and understanding the subjects you are photographing and going back again and again to get it right. Thats how I work and it might not appeal to everyone but it works for me and others that I know. It is just my opinion and I have asked Oscar's question, others may disagree or try and defend they way but just explain it yourselfs because I am not having a go just telling you how I do it.

Danny

Sent you an email Oscar.


Simon

Hi Oscar

We all want to get the perfect image where you do not have to crop, cloan etc and that is naturally to be preferred. However the decision to cloan is yours and yours alone - if you do decide to do so and are happy with what you have done - as long as you declare it you won't go far wrong.

I often do light cloaning where it doesn't change the essence of the image and I am happy with this and would declare the same.

David

I think it depends entirely on what the purpose of the the intended image is. If entering a photographic competition where cloning is not allowed then clearly it is not acceptable. Nor is cloning likely to be condoned if the image is likely to be used in an editorial context where the context of the image is altered. If printing an image to hang on your wall, or on someone elses wall, then I think you can do what you want in terms of cloning or compiling elements from different frames to create something that is limited only by your creative vision and skill with photoshop. The "grey areas" in relation to cloning arise in the main, in forums like this, where your image is being viewed by other photographers who are out there also trying to create visually attractive images and images with impact. In these circumstances most feel that a minimum amout of cloning - dust spots etc is acceptable. Others feel that a bit of additional cloning to remove unwanted leaves or branches is OK and this is clearly indicated in lots of comments made on images here. So where exactly is the boundary between what is acceptable and what isn't. As you can see from the comments above, there a number of different camps in this no-mans land. The best way to cope with this in my view, as I said in that other thread, is full disclosure. That way no-one is going to misunderstand the context of the image and perhaps feel either directly, or indirectly, that they have been misdirected.

As others have said, there is no correct answer on this, it is down to peoples own convictions and what you are trying to achieve with the image.

To a certain extent there is absolutely nothing wrong with cloning - in days of film we used to tidy up an area/garden/call it what you want/ before taking an image so we were manipulating the taken image from the true scene. Granted the gardening was extremely limited, you couldn't prune out whole branches where the subject was sitting or remove leg rings etc...... but as a philosophy it is not really any different to digital cloning - the amount of alteration is the difficult/touchy subject/grey area

The key to this is full disclosure on any Forum where you are seeking feedback - that is where you get into "passing off " difficulties ie the image presented is a long way from reality without any explanation

' When photography was all film, the photographer could not clone out branches, leg rings, or out of focus birds and branches, but now we can.'

Oscar, PhilH has already mentioned this, way back in the early days of film photography, cloning - or at least drastic alteration of an original negative or negatives was rife. This included natural history photography. Many of us will have seen the shot of the Kearton brothers photographing a nest in a tree, where one is apparently standing on the other's shoulders and using an impossibly tall tripod. If you are not familiar with this photo you can see it here: http://photo.net/nature-photography-forum/001fSz?start=0

I have better copies of this picture in books. It is interesting that the weight of the upper brother makes not the slightest impression on the shoulders of the lower one. I even have an early version of the shot where the upper brother appears to be floating several inches above the lower one. I think that round about this time (circa 1890) photography was regarded as an art form by many practitioners, rather being necessarily factual. The limitations of equipment available thus forced these photographers down a 'cloning' route in order to show what they wanted to represent. The Keartons, and many others, made no bones about how they altered images. It seems a skill they were very proud of.

Study some of the Edwardian photographers in particular, and you will find there is nothing new under the sun.

David

I don't know why you find it odd that someone who wants to take a well composed image without the need for cropping ie making every pixel on the sensor a good one, should also want to clone out a distracting background element. As long as the integrity of the original image remains I see no harm. The clone tool is fine, the crop tool is fine - if all used in moderation.

If you're only going to use the clone tool to remove dust spots from your image than fair play to you, it's not something I would ever adhere do - framing the image in camera so I don't have to crop I can control, an unseen bird or midge flying by in the background I cannot

Simon

Good topic to raise by the way. There's never a wrong time for debate.

For a long time I thought that cloning was "cheating" but realistically it is was so common place that I wondered if I was just being a dinosaur. Have I ever cloned? Yes. Will i continue to clone? Yes. but always with honesty, I would always admit that I had done it. I still think that it should be a stipulation on this forum that those submitting images for critique should state if any cloning has been done. I also believe that most already do, when they have.

A question/debate that will continue to be raised on this forum for a long time to come.

Oscar,

I wrote the following article about 7 years ago: now I do feel feel old!

It may be a wee bit out of date, and I cannot find the proof read copy so it will be riddled with typos but in essence nothing really has changed....

A case for Cloning?

“The subject’s welfare must come first.”

With modern technology and its tools do we need to rethink some old practices; or at least re-evaluate them? If not, are we potentially the preverbal Ostrich?

The advent of digital camera technology and specifically the capture of light in bits and bytes, rather than silver halide, has lead to an explosion of previously complex image alterations being achieved more expediently by those who are computer savvy. For example, it is but a drag and a click of a mouse to crop an image: no more slide masks: no more duplicate slides to present multiple format crop options.

There is one tool however whose use appears to divide opinion quite markedly: the Clone tool.

It hasn’t a good rep has it? It’s been used to create images that have never physically existed. It’s been used to remove serious oversights on behalf of the photographer. It’s been used to alter the very fabric or relationships between image contents. This ability to alter an image is all so new, isn’t it? Sorry, but no it's not; it’s actually quite old! Film has been there and altered for many years; centuries! The difference today is that everybody is doing it when trying to create a better image; and some more successfully that others! This presented lack of success is highlighting the amount of photographers that are trying to use the technology as a crutch rather than a tool! It’s also raising questions about the integrity and honestly of the image and the photographer.

Let’s be clear from the onset about one thing; when presenting your work you should present it honestly. This honesty is especially important in Nature Photography where, by the actual subject matter, there is an increased participant level of professionals. Biologists, Conservationists, Nature-Wardens, Ecologists etc will see inconsistencies in a cloned image that are hidden in the morphology, ecology and relationships between subject, substrate and habitat. Seeing these inconsistencies is well beyond the allowance of many photographers as they are patching and cloning away, but is not missed by the aforementioned scientific professionals who have spent a career (years+) looking for these clues for other reasons; analytical observation is after all an essential part of their job.

Now, these inconsistencies are not a problem if you’re not claiming something else, and herein lies the crux of the issue: in photography (as opposed to nearly all arts) what is presented is taken to be true representation of actuality; so to alter it and not say can be nearly taken as being dishonest. Please, be seen to be honest.

So where is the line between disclosure and non-harmful non-disclosure drawn? I would suggest disclosure is required when you alter the main subject of the image, or when the subject’s context or interaction with something else is altered in any way. A distracting grass stalk on the LHS of an image could be cloned and not-disclosed, but if that stalk crosses the body of the subject I would disclose it for you will alter the main subject when removing it. What is a definite disclosure is when you have moved or cloned-in another element within the image – to be honest this moves the image (and I would suggest your reputation) irrevocably towards the art end of the art->actuality continuum.


So cloning has a few pit falls, does it have any benefit? Yes, and one could argue the biggest benefit is to the subject in specific circumstances: that is, when disturbance of the subject is likely.

Consider and picture this; you are on the coastal mud flats, it’s just breaking dawn, there in front of you are thousands of Pinkfoot geese roosting just getting read to take flight for their morning feed. The light levels rise and from your ditch you see a piece of red plastic jetsam right in the frame ruining the shot. Bugger! When are you going to remove it?

Consider and picture this; you’re in a WWT hide and a Bittern is moving along the other side of the reed bed, it is generally obscured. Tracking it along it finally comes to an opening but a bottle is floating behind it in the water! The bottle will be out of focus blur. When are you going to remove it?

Consider and picture this; you have a schedule one license for a nesting bird. You arrive and set up your hide, but notice there is a lot fishing line entwined in the nest structure. When are you going to remove it?


My answer to the above is that technology has provided me with a much more elegant and beneficial solution than previously useable: cloning. And if you are shooting a really sensitive subject, a subject that is very easily disturbed (licensed or otherwise) I can definitely see a case for removal of minor distracting elements (a blade of grass, rubbish, a piece if fishing line, jetsam) from the image after the shutter has been pressed.

Yes, this may negate the use of that image in some competitions but I for one would rather that than risk disturbing the subject through trying to get 'that' perfect shot. The subject’s welfare must come first.

Finally just remember, cloning is a tool to better your photography and not a crutch to support bad photography and, above all else, be open and honest about its use.

T

P.S. I know purists would say “Ah well, just look for a better opportunity and don't take the shot” but in my 20+ years of photography I have only ever met one ‘practicing’ purist, but heard of lots of theoretical ones.

I'm told that in the old days nature photographers often went out with wire and secateurs and would carefully prune and tie back distractions from the areas where they intended to photograph. So I actually see very little difference between doing that and cloning out a branch, especially if I have previsualised a shot, knowing that is what I'm going to do. And of course, ethically, the cloning brush causes no disturbance to the subject.

I agree whole heartedly with Danny's take on this subject.

I spend a lot of time taking news and sports photos that have to meet tight deadlines, so no time for anything except a quick levels/curves adjustment, a small crop, sharpen and ftp the damn thing. It's a good discipline to get into as it makes you realise that with a little care and attention before pressing the shutter button it can save you a lot of time/effort afterwards.
Now when I take any wildlife stuff I do the same things as I do with all my other shots, a little levels, a little curves a crop (if needed) and touch of sharpening then away with it and move on to the next thing.
For internet forums I would have no problem with getting rid of stray debris on any of my shots, but for editorial and agency stuff it is strictly "found view".

For the most part it is photographers that mostly notice the debris in shots that could be removed by cloning, the vast majority of folks are happy to see a found view, indeed if they were told that such and such was airbrushed out then they would look at the genre with an added scepticism in future..... look at the state fashion photography is in with the perfect skin tones portrayed on every model. Do we want every shot to be perfect?