Hi all ... just another little thing that bothers me somewhat (and I appreciate the opportunity this forum gives me to get these things off my chest!)
So here goes: We all know that photoshop allows us to clone bits and pieces into or out of pictures. Indeed, this is one of its most useful features. My problem is this: the extent to which this is becoming expected in the name of composition or a "tidy" photograph. A judge at my camera club recently marked down a photo of a line of trees because it had 6 trees in it. "An odd number of trees is compositionally stronger" he said, and suggested that one of the trees be cloned out. He was serious and it didn't seem to matter that there were 6 trees there on a rather lovely French landscape. What is wrong with photographing what is THERE, instead of what we would prefer to be there for compositional reasons?
I have seen it in one of my own recent posts where some folk have suggested cloning out museum signs. Now I DO understand what they are saying from a compositional point of view (I really do, and I appreciate them taking the time to comment). I am not in the least calling their judgement into question - maybe they are right. The point I make here is not whether the picture might have been stronger without them, but whether it is really wrong to show what happens to be really there?
It seems that nobody sees value in a photograph half the time unless the power lines/mud splatters/discarded coke cans/etc (delete as applicable) have been cloned out in the name of art. And if that woman in the red had isn't exactly on the thirds point - just move her!!
Now, I am as guilty as anyone in this, but it does sometimes make me wonder: What are we photographing? Reality as we perceive it? Or a sanitised version of it?
I really don't have the answers to this one. I wish I did!
Cheers (and only party tongue in cheek!)
Mike