coogee wrote in post #17490873
I disagree, I think people not only bring scale but they can lead us into the picture. People walking into the castle in the first image would have done exactly this.
I've gone from being a people-cloning-out-addict to having a much softer stance now and often leave them in, humans are interesting too! and the relationship between them and the scene can really enrich not detract. That's all generalising of course, I'm sure there are many examples to support either view and each image would be different.
I wouldn't have a 'rule' on people but maybe consider including some, this is
a tourist scene, as you said it is a 'landmark', maybe let some people admire it and be drawn to it within your frame?
I agree that sometimes people add to the pic. Most of my London pics have people in them just because it would look so odd without them. And in many cases, the people in the image are more interesting than the structure. This shot of Beamish would look weird with no people. We lucked out and caught a day when it was very uncrowded, so it looks deserted already with just these few folks in the image.IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/oWxuqn Beamish Museum
by Mark J Photography
, on Flickr
Nathan wrote in post #17491159
I know I've found myself desaturating or changing the color of people's bright shirts.
This is a shot I took in Vietnam - lots of distortion, I know... best I could do. Also lots of people walking in and out... I wish it had no people. I chose the shot with the fewest people in the open doorways. I have been too lazy to go back and clone them out... didn't feel like the photo itself was worth the editing time: http://www.nathantpham.com …KQ3G/3/XL/_MG_2217-XL.jpg
I've done the desat bit as well with pics where cloning wouldn't work and somebody had a glowing shirt or jacket. Your image is fine with those few people. I wouldn't have even paid attention to them if you hadn't mentioned it. They actually give an idea of scale, so better to leave them in.