Does this look ok after cloning?

[Jonny]

Can anyone see where i have cloned out some clutter?

Does this look good to you?

Thanks

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/j.speed/Forums%20Pictures/77.jpg

[rick barclay]

Almost. But the parachutist is not in full black silhouette, and that gives the
impression that you simply underexposed your subject. Just my opinion.

[Hellashot]

At the image size you've posted it's hard to tell anything. You can never really tell image quality unless you're dealing with the original images which is a large size to begin with.

The clouds in the center just above the ground look suspicious.

[dtrayers]

Clouds on the horizon on the right look repeated. :?: :?:

[Jonny]

heres the original. I was quite pleased with the result.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/j.speed/Forums%20Pictures/orig.JPG

[Hellashot]

I am against objects removed from images. Makes the whole setting "fake". The joy is finding the unspoiled scenes not making them what you want.

[Jonny]

I am against objects removed from images. Makes the whole setting "fake". The joy is finding the unspoiled scenes not making them what you want.

That is all well and good in landscapes but try it with sports. You can't dictate where the action will be!

[Radtech1]

I am against objects removed from images. Makes the whole setting "fake". The joy is finding the unspoiled scenes not making them what you want.

Not me. I have no problem cloning, removing, importing from a different photo (usually taken in the same shoot) with a better expression, focus or lighting, inserting a different background or sky - any of that. The reason is that I want to show the viewer what I, as the artist saw when I looked through the viewfinder. And what I see is not always what is actually there. I see an interpretation, an impression, an idealized perception of reality.

Do you have that same opinion regarding monochrome (Black and White). Do you say, "Hey, I have seen those before (whatever the shot is of) and I know that they aren't just shades of grey - this is fake!" Or what about a shallow depth of field shot, "Hey, look at that thing behind the thing, it's all blurry! I know that those aren't really blurry - this is fake!"

By limiting yourself to simply opening and closing the shutter you are limiting yourself to simply being a transcriptionist. It is in taking what is there and applying your personal vision that opens the door to being an artist.

There is an excellent essay on the subject here. Cloning out The Can. (http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/cloning-the-can.shtml)

As far as the shot at hand is concerned - I think that it is an excellent job of clonework. The only thing that I would ask is that he actually darkens up the lines at the top of the frame. They seem to disappear.

Rad

[rick barclay]

I like the cloning. I think it was appropriate for this picture.

[lucasdigital]

I am against objects removed from images. Makes the whole setting "fake". The joy is finding the unspoiled scenes not making them what you want.

Thats a surprisingly popular school of thought. The idea that photography is the end result of taking a picture, and that the truth of the picture shouldn't be altered in the interests of aesthetics.

Even in my other interest of 3D graphics, there are people who believe that post process is a big cheat.

While I see where your coming from I'd argue that in art, there is no such thing as cheating. When the shots come out just right, thats wonderful, when they don't, thats when a whole different craft comes into play. It aint photography, but its still art.