Aesthetics..how far do you go?

Was just talking with BC as to whether Aesthetics should always take precedence over Historical accuracy.

I clone out power lines and plastic bags..should one clone out anything that offends the image we seek to produce or do we owe some factual accuracy to the scene we capture?

I am primarily talking Architecture here as opposed to whether you take the pimple off your aunt's nose in photoshop.

I would take a pimple off my aunties nose, lol.

A 12th century obelisk, I would leave well alone, it's survived that long it's earned it's place

Thanks Grumps..it is a huge area and I would love to hear everyone's thoughts

I must admit I have Portrait Professional and have done a couple of 'morale booster' work ups for some friends who are very ill and feeling unattractive. Yes, It's 'lies' essentially but if I can make someone struggling with chemo look less tired..feel a bit more like they used to look then I am okay with that.

I am also doing a 'set' for a friend who is dying..and in that I am attempting to record the beauty of her self, the reality of her illness..and the joy of her life.

So..do I/ should I, have double standards when recording Architecture and ...other stuff!

Where do you draw the clone line or the wrinkle remover?

For people I think you do what you can or are asked to do, objects are a different thing to me

It's all a bit subjective. When we take a picture we compose the image within the frame we choose, maybe a rectangle of varying sizes and width, maybe a square. We choose to include items and detail or not by varying the point from which we take the picture, which lens we use, which aperture we use. We can enhance or subdue the colour, and even decide if we are using black and white how to change features... a red filter can make a red door very light, or a blue filter can make it look dark. So we change things anyway.

In your last image how tall that pillar is in the image would vary depending on your viewpoint. I just thought it looked a little prominent and competing for attention with the house. A small darkening in photoshop could make it less prominent. I wouldn't advocate changing the historical features by removing them, but I would consider a number of possibilities ouitlined above to adjust perception of the the overall image.

Incidentally I take pictures as part of my job. I'm not a professional photographer, but I have to record things exactly as they are. No photoshop or manipulation in any way is allowed. The lens should, wherever possible show an image just as it is with a similar perspective to the human eye. I have to be careful not to give a false impression by distorting perspective with various lenses, or introducing a false impression by excluding the whole scene and only showing certain detail.

Totally agree Stu..had no issue with that .

Just thought it opened an interesting line of discussion that could be explored here.

I admire you for being able to take a step back in your employment because that must be soo diffucult,,to NOT take the shot you want.

I take comissions for canvases of my already produced work and can only imagine being asked to 'make it pinker' or some damned thing.

Shudder!

Too precious me. lol

I think it depends on the context of the purpose of the image. If it's meant to be an accurate portrayal - then that's what it should be. If it's someone's personal photography - they it's up to them how they want to interpret the subject. Imo.

For me it depends on what it is, and what I want.

I don't really do much editing with wildlife shots, or any animals,( do take off distracting collars, if they spoil the shot) that I capture, what is there , is what I show, that would seem odd to me, and I don't really enjoy cloning, so unless something was very distracting I'd leave it be. I'm a bit like that with landscapes, and street photography too.

Portraits, again, depends what was required, I'm doing a project on breast cancer, inspired by my MIL, she was my first sitter. All the portraits are the same, the same pose, the same backdrop, the same editing,but hopefully each catches the essence of that person, none of them have been polished in a way that a fashion portrait would be. It's them as they really are, and they all have a beauty to them. On the flip side I've done portraits where someone has wanted the full works, and I've done it, but I'm never that happy doing it, to the point of flawless, plastic barbieness. I have sort of come in a circle with my pictures, I try to spend the least amount of time possible in photo shop now.

I don't really like to remove stuff after shooting, if I can, I will shoot around it, or not shoot something, unless it is really something that I need to catch, and then I will remove it.

I do love photo shop, and it's a wonderful tool, but I have got to a stage of less is more, it's a phase I'm going through at the moment

I will manipulate an image to create a more fine art feel at times, and the image I shot was a jumping off point, which was shot with the final edited image in mind.

So, basically, I do what suits me, I made up my own rules of what I was happy tweaking, and I'm happy with that.
I don't think anything is right or wrong though, do what makes you happy, and comfortable

Better to try and work the shot on site to exclude it but in a word yes.

If you 'seek to produce' a particular end product (without the eyesore) and you've been unable to do it in camera - clone it out. It's your shot and you know what you want.

For me Photoshop is a blessing because I got involved with a horse sanctuary charity and ended up producing adoption photo’s and certificates, calendars, birthday, Christmas cards, you name it really and a web site , well now not to be rude about these poor horses, but they all have seen better days and the wonderful kind people who run the rescue, love to see theses horses in lets say, their better days
so as you can image I have used Photoshop extensively,

But imo I think it’s the type of photo that you are creating, and agree with what’s been said already on here about it being an individual thing to the creator { hope that makes sense}