Railway Station Entrance

[Wandjina]

This is the northern entrance to the Adelaide Raiway Station.
It has been photographed by nearly every Club photographer in this city and the burning question is whether to clone out the green and white exit signs or leave them.

[billtils]

Probably "Yes" to the clone out, but possibly crop to frame within the arch and leave the 2 of them in?

[Manfred M]

I suspect your hunch about cloning out the exit signs is correct; they appear to clash with the surroundings and don't add to the composition.

[Geoff F]

Just a thought, but I wonder about cropping tighter instead of struggling to clone out those signs? Maybe end up with something like 4 x 5 ratio which would give more apparent height to the scene?

[billtils]

Agree with exploring crop options Geoff - could also try going B&W to deal with the intrusive signage. All that still leaves the lady in the arch at the RHS ... An interesting scene with lots of potential and challenges.

[tybrad]

I am an in-camera guy and I'd opt to not deviate from what's there. I do see value in the crop to clear the right-most sign but I very much dislike the clone-elimination process.
The B and W option could work, but I like the colors presented.

[Manfred M]

I am an in-camera guy and I'd opt to not deviate from what's there. I do see value in the crop to clear the right-most sign but I very much dislike the clone-elimination process.
The B and W option could work, but I like the colors presented.

To each their own, but advanced photographers have always spent a lot of time in post-processing cleaning up the captures. If you look at the work of the great photographs of the past; Ansel Adams, Yousef Karsh, Henri Cartier-Bresson all had a lot of post processing done in the traditional wet darkroom.

Adams would spend all day in the darkroom making just a single print. Karsh's printer would spend up to a week working on a single print (the week would include numerous test prints) and the final print would take all day to produce.

Straight out of camera will get you and an average image based on processing rules designed by a (likely) Japanese engineer. As the camera never saw what you did as the photographer, it's hard to understand how the camera can produce an image shows what you saw.

[William W]

This is the northern entrance to the Adelaide Railway Station.
It has been photographed by nearly every Club photographer in this city and the burning question is whether to clone out the green and white exit signs or leave them. . .

If you're taking a vote - get rid of them. They're a most terrible WHS artefact which spoils this image and many other images, in every possible manner: except when the image is for Historic Record.

WW

[billtils]

?whs?

[billtils]

To each their own, but advanced photographers have always spent a lot of time in post-processing cleaning up the captures. If you look at the work of the great photographs of the past; Ansel Adams, Yousef Karsh, Henri Cartier-Bresson all had a lot of post processing done in the traditional wet darkroom.

.

This is a good point but not the only way to look at things.

One of the more interesting members of my local camera club is a retired press photographer who takes great delight in berating anyone who submits a competition photograph which in any way has "altered the truthfulless of what was shot". And of course since I'm old enough to have shot (mainly B&W) film I have to agree with him, albeit not all the way all the time. Using the railway station as an example, he would say that the photographer should have recognised that the signs would be intrusive in the colour image and moved to where they are not in shot, or looked for a different but still interesting composition, or employed some form of manipulation such as cropping or traditional techniques applied to a monochrome conversion.

"To each their own" indeed!

[William W]

?whs?

The image is of a train station located in Adelaide, Australia.

WHS = Work Health and Safety, previously OH&S, Occupational Health and Safety, which is the General Title of Laws and Regulations (Federal, State and Municipal) pertaining to the safety of Workplaces and (all) Persons therein.

LINK

WW

[tybrad]

To each their own, but advanced photographers have always spent a lot of time in post-processing cleaning up the captures. If you look at the work of the great photographs of the past; Ansel Adams, Yousef Karsh, Henri Cartier-Bresson all had a lot of post processing done in the traditional wet darkroom.

Adams would spend all day in the darkroom making just a single print. Karsh's printer would spend up to a week working on a single print (the week would include numerous test prints) and the final print would take all day to produce.

I know, and did not agree with it then (when I learned that it was done). Might as well hang up the camera then, and pick up a canvas and some paints where such creative liberties are better suited, in my opinion.

Straight out of camera will get you and an average image based on processing rules designed by a (likely) Japanese engineer. As the camera never saw what you did as the photographer, it's hard to understand how the camera can produce an image shows what you saw.

I do understand the thing about the camera not seeing/feeling what you did in the moment, but that is a complex environmental/psychological dynamic that only YOU can understand. I am not opposed to blurring, sharpening, bumping or reducing color saturation to a degree... whatever you think that you need to do to reach the psychology of the moment.

I was not writing about in-camera processing. I was addressing the outright elimination of things that were present in the environment after the fact. I don't consider a post-camera cropping as 'a cheat' (as I call it) because you could have done that while taking the shot, but did not. And as an in-camera guy, I study my scenes a lot and look for myriad potential problems. But I don't like seeing or making real things 'disappear' in the final scene being presented.

I suspect that you and I will agree on much Manfred, but not on some things.
A good discussion from all!

[William W]

. . . One of the more interesting members of my local camera club is a retired press photographer who takes great delight in berating anyone who submits a competition photograph which in any way has "altered the truthfulless of what was shot". . . .

In his profession he had to follow strict rules. I assumed you knew that and that you were implying same: I am just spelling that point out, because many people wouldn't know.

I wouldn't mind spending a few hours, over a few drams, bending his ear on this topic; he sounds like an inflexible chap molded by his training and profession, perhaps not willing to accept any other purpose for Photography. Probably we would need to agree to disagree, but I would very much like the discussion, and also the Whisky.

WW

[Manfred M]

.

This is a good point but not the only way to look at things.

One of the more interesting members of my local camera club is a retired press photographer who takes great delight in berating anyone who submits a competition photograph which in any way has "altered the truthfulless of what was shot". And of course since I'm old enough to have shot (mainly B&W) film I have to agree with him, albeit not all the way all the time. Using the railway station as an example, he would say that the photographer should have recognised that the signs would be intrusive in the colour image and moved to where they are not in shot, or looked for a different but still interesting composition, or employed some form of manipulation such as cropping or traditional techniques applied to a monochrome conversion.

"To each their own" indeed!

It depends on the genre and the amount of work being done. In club photography, photojournalism and wildlife photography generally have very strict rules on what manipulation can be done to an image. In general, these categories allow all of the "traditional" corrections that were done in the wet darkroom; exposure, contrast, cropping, local exposure adjustments (dodging and burning) are all allowed. Removal of sensor dust is also allowed, but operations like healing, cloning, sky replacements, etc. are not.

The idea is to preserve the integrity of the scene. That simply means they are limiting the ways we are allowed to tell lies with our cameras as there are no restrictions of how the image is framed. focal length, depth of field, etc.

I know a few (now retired) journalists / photojournalists who were quite blunt about it; had they broken the rules on retouching, they would have lost their jobs on the spot.

The rest of us have a moral obligation to be honest about the amount of manipulation that goes on in our work. Most of my work complies with the photojournalism rules, but I do feel I am sometimes pushing the limits a bit. With dodging and burning, I can often make an offending element almost disappear.

[William W]

I still do some Corporate Portraiture and Portfolio Shots for an Actors' Agency: it seems to be important to the Client that the odd pimple and skin blemish is removed - no different to removing the three pimples in that railway station's face.

WW

[Manfred M]

I still do some Corporate Portraiture and Portfolio Shots for an Actors' Agency: it seems to be important to the Client that the odd pimple and skin blemish is removed - no different to removing the three pimples in that railway station's face.

WW

Some "clients" also don't mind taking 5kg / 10lbs of weight off either.

When it comes to retouching faces, I will always consult my subject as to what they want done on personal portraits. Temporary blemishes like dry skin or a pimple are always removed and generally I get no argument about removing them.

Permanent markings like moles are definitely personal taste; some people are fine with a cleanup and sometimes have a particular mole that is important to them and cannot be touched. A lot of people, especially men, seem to want to retain any scars; they almost look at these as a "badge of honour".

[billtils]

Yes I did know that Bill. I suppose the subtitle of the post could have been "Does digital make us lazy photographers?" or perhaps "Does digital make us poorer photographers but allow us to create better photographs?"

[billtils]

This was intended as a reply to WW, but I didn't do it as a "Reply with Quote" Sorry for any confusion. (But the drink inivitation stands even if you're not WW).

[Manfred M]

Yes I did know that Bill. I suppose the subtitle of the post could have been "Does digital make us lazy photographers?" or perhaps "Does digital make us poorer photographers but allow us to create better photographs?"

Another way of looking at this in another way is to ask the question; "has digital photography raised the standards?".

To a large degree, I would have to respond with a resounding YES!. There are certainly many more mediocre images posted on social media, but if I look at what photographers are creating today when I compare back to work done 10 - 15 years ago, the quality (and implied standards) have certainly gone up. Our cameras, lighting equipment, post-processing software, etc. and our skills to use them have gone up. So have the expectations of what a good image is...

[billtils]

In his profession he had to follow strict rules. I assumed you knew that and that you were implying same: I am just spelling that point out, because many people wouldn't know.

I wouldn't mind spending a few hours, over a few drams, bending his ear on this topic; he sounds like an inflexible chap molded by his training and profession, perhaps not willing to accept any other purpose for Photography. Probably we would need to agree to disagree, but I would very much like the discussion, and also the Whisky.

WW

Let me know the next time you're in Scotland - I have no doubt at all that Donald would love to meet and chew the fat over a few malts.