# Whats the point? Input please!!!



## Skhigh (Apr 18, 2012)

Ok, so I love photographing nature and wildlife because it is beautiful-imperfections and all!  So my question is-how much touching up should be done?  I feel like adjusting the brightness/contrast and small things like that are fine, but "erasing" weeds or spots and such should be left alone. What is the point of taking a photo of nature/wildlife if you are going to try to make it look perfect....


----------



## SCraig (Apr 18, 2012)

Read your signature.  Especially the first sentence.

In many ways I see nature as being closer to perfect than man-made objects.  If something is in the way and I don't want it there I have no objections to removing it.  If the contrast or color or brightness or anything else needs fixing to make it look the way I want it to look then I have no objections to doing it.


----------



## jriepe (Apr 18, 2012)

You do as much editing as you are comfortable with.  If you are uncomfortable cloning out needless clutter then leave the clutter in.  In other words to each his own.  How much is too much is up to the person doing the editing.  

Jerry


----------



## Skhigh (Apr 18, 2012)

I agree with both of you,..here is a photo that I took..my teacher told me that I should think about cloning out all the dead weeds on the rocks...I think they should stay...


----------



## SCraig (Apr 18, 2012)

That looks familiar.  Is it at Old Stone Fort State Park?

I'd get rid of them to.  If someone were painting that scene I doubt they would show the weeds on the rocks.  Should photography be any different?  They aren't adding anything to the scene and in some ways detract from it.


----------



## Skhigh (Apr 18, 2012)

hmm...that is a good point.. This is at the spill-way of Montgomry Bell State Park!


----------



## marmots (Apr 18, 2012)

i agree with the teacher on that one

the weeds just give off a completely different feel than the water, it looks like they should be in a completely different image

the water has a beautiful sort of heavenly look, whereas the weeds look like something out od a dark, grungy/scary image

they just kind of clash


----------



## SCraig (Apr 18, 2012)

Skhigh said:


> hmm...that is a good point.. This is at the spill-way of Montgomry Bell State Park!


May have to run down there some time.  I love a good waterfall


----------



## Overread (Apr 18, 2012)

I can see where your teacher is coming from, weeds are a somewhat messy and distracting element, plus the composition puts the rocks fairly strong in the frame, which then has you looking at the weeds a whole lot more. Personally I'd consider it too much work for little gain in the shot to remove the weeds (to a good degree of quality). 

I'd rather consider heading back (if possible) and trying to get a stronger composition that shifts the focus of the viewer away from the weedy rocks and plays on the water more. 

I'm not sure about the strength of the composition over the whole shot - it might be a little weak which makes distractions stronger elements since there is less to compete with them.


All that said if the weeds had not been flagged by you (and your teacher) I would, personally, have probably not noticed them as anything more than part of the scene that you captured.


----------



## Skhigh (Apr 18, 2012)

SCraig said:


> Skhigh said:
> 
> 
> > hmm...that is a good point.. This is at the spill-way of Montgomry Bell State Park!
> ...



There are a few levels to it, none of them are very big but its a really pretty area!


----------



## SCraig (Apr 18, 2012)

Skhigh said:


> There are a few levels to it, none of them are very big but its a really pretty area!


I've been to Montgomery Bell many times, but I didn't realize there were any falls there.  I chased all over Tennessee for waterfalls about 3 years ago.  I Really like them in winter when there is ice in places.  Bunch of pix Here.


----------



## greybeard (Apr 18, 2012)

I think my signature says how I feel.


----------



## baato (Apr 18, 2012)

I don't see a problem with the weeds, and I think sometimes people get a little carried away with manipulation. It's often the case that people manipulate simply because they can, or that they're convinced that they should because they're expected to 
Your tutor is entitled to his or her opinion, but hey, it's _your_ photograph, and I think that means that _your_ opinion is what really counts here 
Every person (unless they have commercial restraints/customer obligations), should render their pictures just as he or she really wishes to. I think that it's a good pic, and I would be proud of it if it was mine 
And, uh, yes, I would leave the weeds in


----------



## jriepe (Apr 18, 2012)

In this particular shot at this size the weeds don't bother me and if it were my image cloning them out probably wouldn't even enter my mind and if someone pointed them out to me I would probably still leave them in.  If the image was displayed much larger where the weeds were more prevalent possibly I would feel differently but I have a difficult time telling much about an image displayed in thumbnail size.

Jerry


----------



## Overread (Apr 18, 2012)

jriepe - its an attachment using the sites software - if you look just under the picture there is a black bar and the pixels of the fullsized version uploaded displayed. Clicking on the attachment (ie the photo) will open it in fullsize (at the uploaded size of course) in your browser.
If you rightclick on it you can choose to open it in a new tab or you can click it using the middle mouse button (normally located under the scrolling wheel) to auto open it in a new tab (in most browsers).


----------



## greybeard (Apr 19, 2012)

On the subject of the weeds and the waterfall, they appear in upper left hand 1/3 sweet spot of the picture and they do draw my eye and I can see how some might find them distractive.  From an artistic standpoint, it would improve the picture if they were removed. (jmho)


----------



## sm4him (Apr 19, 2012)

I base how much I edit on the "potential" of the photo--if I believe that I have a really strong image that would become something special with just a few adjustments, then I take the time to make the adjustments.
But if it's a mediocre photo to begin with (understand that when I say "mediocre" I don't mean it's not "good," just that it's not "great," it's not got that quality that can take it to the next level), and making edits is not going to change it into a 'great' image...I generally don't waste my time.

In business terms, I guess I think of it as ROI--return on investment. Am I going to get enough of a "return" on my time and effort to edit the photo to make it worthwhile?  In this case, if it were MY photo, I wouldn't bother. It's a nice photo of a waterfall (and like SCraig, I do love me some waterfalls!), but it's not spectacular and cloning out the weeds isn't going to give it that "wow" factor to take it to the next level.  

All of that is, admittedly, always-an-amateur-never-a-pro opinion.


----------



## sm4him (Apr 19, 2012)

SCraig said:


> Skhigh said:
> 
> 
> > There are a few levels to it, none of them are very big but its a really pretty area!
> ...



You've got some nice waterfall photos there, SCraig, and I love your idea of documenting which ones you've visited and photographed--I may have to start my own log.


----------



## jriepe (Apr 19, 2012)

Overread said:


> jriepe - its an attachment using the sites software - if you look just under the picture there is a black bar and the pixels of the fullsized version uploaded displayed. Clicking on the attachment (ie the photo) will open it in fullsize (at the uploaded size of course) in your browser.
> If you rightclick on it you can choose to open it in a new tab or you can click it using the middle mouse button (normally located under the scrolling wheel) to auto open it in a new tab (in most browsers).



Thanks Overread,  I wasn't aware of that but I guess an old dog can learn new tricks.  When I see it enlarged the weeds still do not bother me but I feel the very bright area of the water is distracting.

Jerry


----------



## WesternGuy (Apr 19, 2012)

Well Melissa, you started a good discussion here, I mean who would think a few weeds would be _the _focus for an artistic discussion.  Personally, I would agree with those who are of the opinion that it is YOUR image, you do with it what you will.  I think (hope) you will find that as you gain experience with your imagery, what you like or dislike will probably change - even your own personal style will change - it is how we all evolve as "masters" of our chosen "interests".  I was going to say "profession", but not all of us are necessarily professionals and yet we still strive for some form of artistic improvement in our work.  I know that if I look at some of the images that I shot ten years ago, when film was in vogue, I look at them and wonder  - "did I shoot that?" - so I know that my imagery has evolved - has it gotten any better - I think so and so do a lot of my contemporaries - mine and their opinions mind you - so you will see your imagery evolve as you grow and try new things.  So I would reiterate what has been said that if you like it and you are happy with it, then that should be sufficient, at least it is for me.  I think that greybeard says it all in his sig - "If it looks good, IT IS GOOD." What you do to the image to get it to the point that you like it and think it is good is again, up to you, after all YOU are the artist.  HTH.
_______________
WesternGuy


----------



## Joel_W (Apr 19, 2012)

To answer your original question, as others have already stated, to what level one manipulates, removes, changes anything, is up to them.  My main focus is on proper exposure above all else. I do the vast majority of my cropping when I compose the picture, not in PP editing. I do remove imperfections if they jump out at me. It's not always nature that puts them there. Many a time while photographing in a Arboretum or greenhouse, leaves and petals are stained with liquid fertilizer. I remove them. Some times, ok many times, I can't control the lighting well enough to prevent harse shadows, so I just kind of rework them. Leaves overlap flowers, I move them. 

As for your picture, I dont' mind the vines from the weeds. It's nature. It's natural, and it fits the scene for me. So I'd leave them. Besides, as Overread said, it's a lot of work to do it correctly.


----------



## spacefuzz (Apr 19, 2012)

as everyone else said, its personal opinion on what you want your art to represent. In my work, I would remove the weeds if they didnt fit with my vision of the photo.  My personal vision is a mix of how I saw it and how I _wanted _it to be.  I would advise determining your vision and then the answer of wether or not to edit extensively will follow naturally from that.


----------



## Skhigh (Apr 19, 2012)

Thanks everyone!! Everyone's opinion has really helped!!


----------



## Overread (Apr 19, 2012)

spacefuzz said:


> as everyone else said, its personal opinion on what you want your art to represent.



I would also add to this statement with a clause. 
Often people say - your camera your rules - your art your creation your choice. 
However, its my feeling, that whilst such viewpoints are valid and that you should always maintain a (humble) pride in your own achievements; when it comes to anything you also need to consider the wider context.


For a beginner what I mean here is learn things - theories of composition - theories of exposure - look at the works of your peers, try to come to understand them. Try to view as wide a range and diversity as you can. Often you might not like what you see, but at least try to come to understand why others might - is it the content; the message; the exposure; the composition; a combination of the mentioned. 

This development is the ongoing part of learning photography (or any art) and its something that will change overtime. Shots that, once were your best you might find, in time, come to be only childish works by your own view. 

I guess what I'm trying to say is avoid falling into the trap of "its art it can be whatever it wants" without first learning art and without viewing lots of it.


----------



## greybeard (Apr 19, 2012)

Here is a 10 min clone job............quick and dirty but it will give a good idea if it would worth the trouble to do it right.




waterfall-no brush by GREYBEARD12, on Flickr


----------



## Skhigh (Apr 19, 2012)

I see your point, it does help to focus your eye on the waterfall. I know this touch up was a "quick and dirty" one, but maybe because I know there is suppose to be stuff there I think it looks funny. I just dont know. *sigh*  I think I will go back and re-take it and by now there should be greenery on that rock so it wont be so distracting..lol.


----------



## WesternGuy (Apr 20, 2012)

Melissa, I would like to add just a bit more to what overread has said - _look at the works of your peers, try to come to understand them - _not only look at the works of your peers and contemporaries, but also look at the works of some of the older "Masters" - Ansel Adams, Galen Rowell, Eliot Porter and many others.  When you look at the works of others, try to discover what you like and don't like about any particular image.
_____________
WesternGuy


----------



## KenC (Apr 20, 2012)

There are a lot of Nature Photography purists out there (or just Photography purists in general) who will tell you that any manipulation is bad, that is anything beyond cropping and brightness adjustment.  Purists of any sort always give me a PITA as the world is more complicated than they try to make it and there are all sorts of reasons for doing things differently, especially in "art".  I've known people who take photos of animals in zoos and consider any photo that shows bars, walls or any man-made object unacceptable, as if they were pretending they took the photo in the wild.  I once told one of them that if I could stand going to a zoo at all I would make the bars, etc. obvious to make a point about captivity and he looked at me as if I had lost my mind.  Oh well, enough rant ...


----------



## greybeard (Apr 20, 2012)

KenC said:


> I once told one of them that if I could stand going to a zoo at all I would make the bars, etc. obvious to make a point about captivity and he looked at me as if I had lost my mind.  Oh well, enough rant ...



I agree................as for photo editing, it really depends on the subject matter.  If you are trying to capture what is actually there then cloning out objects won't work.  If you are wanting to use a photo as source material for creating an image then all sorts of manipulation is OK, as long as you don't misrepresent it.


----------

