Removing background clutter from photos; yes or no?

[EddieB]

First and foremost, a photograph of a prototype railway subject should be truthful. I would prefer to keep things as they are, but can forgive the removal of a minor distraction (such as the post in the example) to clean up an image, as long as it doesn’t materially alter the shot. That use of Photoshop more or less equates to the techniques of “dodging” and “burning” when printing negatives and were widely practiced in the darkrooms of yore.

 

As far as possible, I believe in making the best of any given situation that is presented, and recording it faithfully as it is. There have been times when I’ve turned down offers to move a loco, or have blocking obstructions removed. For a static subject, it might mean waiting a long time for a people-free opportunity (days of my life gone that way) or better lighting. Distracting vegetation can be bent, weeds flattened, litter removed. Definitely no oxyacetylene torches to remove unwanted bits or pots of red paint to make parts of the subject stand out! (Yes, it has been done).

 

I can see how the painting out of areas of larger format negatives (which was advocated by Ransome-Wallis, among others), or its equivalent in Photoshop, could be applied to technical portrait shots, where the prime importance is to show the subject in detail and without confusion in foreground or background. Such images can be useful to modellers, but should be clearly labelled.

 

I have no time for images that have been manipulated for “artistic” reasons, such as falsely combining a sky from another image or adding smoke (model or prototype). In a different genre, there was a famous image of a running cheetah, which far from being a true representation, turned out to be a composite of around twenty different images stitched together in Photoshop. As a result, I place no trust in the integrity of the photographer and certainly wouldn’t buy an album of his photographs.

[JDW]

I think that the reason for the picture is the important question.  As a photographer, I like a nice well composed image, although have to admit that beyond adjusting light levels, contrast etc I don't tend to do much manipulation of images.  However as a historical record it is important that images are not materially altered and then presented as "fact".  If an image is being created as a piece of artistic photography, that's fine, but I wouldn't want to start seeing reference books or historical magazine articles featuring altered pictures.  A case in point on another thread (no offence intended to the poster) was an image of the prototype HST being referred to in reference to the correct shade (or otherwise!) of the new Oxford Rail Mk 3 coaches in Swallow livery.  Although the image was labelled below as photoshopped, the poster missed this and took it as fact.

[newbryford]

So, here's one I took in July 1984, at Welshpool, showing 25279+325 departing with the 0730 Euston-Aberystwyth. The scene is now totally changed, with the railway & station moved to the right of the photo, the bridge rebuilt, a road built though the station, the signal etc all gone.

 

Do I remove the tree sticking out of the locos? Not sure if it's still there, but if it is, it's probably the only reference point still there apart from the station building.

 

Whatever editing is done - always keep the original safe somewhere.

 

Cheers,

Mick

[Right Away]

Anything within the frame which can distort the viewer's perspective and detracts from the overall subject can be considered game for digital enhancement/removal, provided the manipulation does not in iself create further visual inaccuracies.

 

The luxury of the perfect camera position is rarely encountered.

Edited May 29, 2018 by Right Away

[The Border Reiver]

Is removing people acceptable?

 

 

Edited May 31, 2018 by The Border Reiver

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Don't see why not, as they are not a permanent feature, unlike, say, a lamp post.

[daftbovine]

Regarding the diesel with a tree growing out of it, would it be possible to lighten the tree slightly so it doesn’t disappear completely but isn’t quite so prominent?