To clone or not to clone: that is the question:

[David Richhart]

- My apology to Mr. Shakespeare...

To clone, or not to clone: that is the question:

Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer

The dust and scratches of outrageous fortune,

Or to take Photoshop against a sea of troubles,

And by cloning end them? To edit: to crop;

No more; and by a mouse-click might we end

The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks

That traditional photography is heir to, 'tis a consummation

Devoutly to be wish'd.

<a href=http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3133273</a>”>





Or is it not to be wished??? I have lately been scanning a collection of 5x7 inch glass plate
negatives from the 1910-1913 era. The cloning tool in my photo-editing program does a
great job of spotting and retouching the damaged portions of the plates, but how much is
too much??? When does it cease to be "cleaning up a print", and become "digitally
enhanced" ?

With the cloning tool I can clean someone's shirt, paint a house, polish shoes, clean horse
manure off the streets, comb a stray curl of hair, or remove a wedding band. I can use the
cropping tool for what I feel is the best compositions, but shouldn't I scan full-plate as the
original photographer intended?

Not earth shattering questions and I don"t really need an answer, just thoughts that have
crossed my mind while spending hours working with the scans.

[Jeffrey Sipress]

Nice prose, but why are you worrying about this? Just cleanup any spots, dust, and damage to your own satisfaction and be happy. There are no guides, fears, rules, misconceptions or moral issues. Just do what you need to get the job done, and everything will be OK. It's just a tool. You be the craftsman.

[David Richhart]

Sorry about that bad link... I hope this works better

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=388609

Jeff... I am not worried about it, just thoughts that pop up after several hours of "spotting" digital prints...

[MacGregor Anderson]

I moved a pine needle the other day. Just a boring amateur black and white 4x5 of a mini waterfall and some ice. I pulled on that floppy needle in the current (long exposure, worried about blur) and up came a clump. Took a minute or two to empty out the small pool that the water fell in. I felt like I cheated on my wife. And I don't have a wife.

The shot is pretty nice. But I don't like it very well.

Dust, distortion, it's a different thing. But I understand your angst.

[John Flavell]

Ah yes, welcome to my world. These are questions we digital users in the journalism world have had to contend with since National Geographic Magazine moved the Pyramids for a cover photo over 20 years ago. Nearly every cover in the "Day in the Life" series were altered. Then-- and this is the really sick one--TV Guide put Opra's head on Ann Margaret's body for a cover shot. This list can go and on.

It's really hard to believe but most of those nifty digital tools just duplicate what we did in the darkroom or in other pre-production shops. Life Magazine, in the good old days, had rooms full of people who did nothing but 'fix' pictures. The difference today is the ease of changing things with computers.

And, the ethical questions are the same. Dust and scratches that are not intended to be there should be removed without feeling like you cheated. But when you change composition, add or remove objects, and change a crop you really have crossed the line.

It's really fun to get caught up with what can be done in the digital world, but if you feel like you've cheated on an imaginary spouse it was probably wrong.

[John D Gerndt]

When I look back through the family album what was not intended to be photographed tends to be as much or more interesting than the subject. I also find what is out of focus to heighten what is in focus.

We are creatures concerned with detail. I hate to see data, even blurred or seemingly useless data eliminated. I'd stick to getting rid of dust and let time register whatever else shows up as important or not.

[Dominique Labrosse]

I think this discussion points out to me that photographs are mere 2-dimentional representations of our world. As such they are subject to our own perspectives and opinions. This happens at every step in the process... when we capture the images on film, when we choose specific film, development times and paper... how we use filtration. Most importantly of all this happens when we compose our photographs. If we look at our photographs as our personal interpretations of the "real world" or as representations of our ideas/views/emotions and not as factual documents then I think it justifies whatever means we need to make the photographs reflect our vision.

However, if we "frame" our photographs as documents of fact, then we must be a little more careful about our choices. This is where things can quickly become misleading and where we have to stay critical of the world around us, especially the news media.

This leads me to conclude that if you are spotting an historical document then painting buildings and cleaning a shirt digitally may "cross the line". However if you are only trying to represent your personal "old timey" ideal using old photographs in some sort of art project then clone away.