An odd situation here....

[John Kasaian]

I've spent two evenings contact printing one very difficult (for me) 8x10 negative which I thought was reminiscent (stylistically) of Fredrick Evans---taken in a partially restored 10th century Carthusian Chapter House in the early morning, with light streaming in from the windows illuminating the vaulted galleries---lots of stone carving and textures with various shades of gray and streaming bright light, it wasn't an easy photograph to make nor to print but I did and I'm finally pretty happy with the results except--except--for what I thought was a terrible flaw. On the wall is a large white spot---not a dust spot but more like a star-ish shaped white blemish high up on the walls on one of the galleries.
What could it be caused by? Not dust, not uneven developing, and definitely not a light leak. It was well defined but too small to be anything but a distraction.
Could the print be saved? I thought. Maybe spot it out? No it was too large and there was a lot of detail on the wall--it would look like I was trying to hide something with a Sharpie. I could print it again, burning in the wall until it was in the shadows but then I'd loose all the texture and details as this was on the darkened side of the reading room which was so beautifully illuminated.
I thought of posting an image but the "flaw" I'd perceived would only look like a monster dandruff flake on your computer screen and nothing more.
So I went back and studied the negative and went back to the print to examine the "spot" closer, and...and...(building up suspense here)and...it was in the perfect shape of one of the tiny windows on the opposite wall, projected by the brilliant light of the early morning sun!
Whoa! That's detail!
So now I have this print with a not so hidden paradox---a projection through a window that looks to the unaided eye to be a monster flake of dandruff.
I find it charming. But I think a viewer, unless they went over the print with loupe, would merely find it distracting and perhaps even suggest a dandruff shampoo.

[f/stopblues]

I have a print with an odd white spot that sounds pretty similar. I tried a number of things, but eventually took the spot tone brush to it. I didn't try to match the surroundings, I just took it a bit off the stark white it was, just enough to keep it from being a distraction. I can see it because I know it's there, but it doesn't act as a beaming searchlight coming from the print now.

[DannL]

I agree, what a paradox. But, if it's a distraction then toning it down until it isn't a distraction may be the only solution.

[Vaughn]

As an instructor told me years ago -- if it looks like a dust spot, spot it out!

[John Kasaian]

It's way larger than a dust spot. I may try spotting it out on one of the work prints to see if I like it. The floor of the building is covered in turkey poop---which is what spotting that large of an area might look like. I don't know which would be more distracting to the viewer, the puzzling light or the apparent poop of an aerobatic turkey!

[Jim Andrada]

Well, you could always scan it and fix it in Photoshop and....

(Sorry - couldn't resist!!!)

[John Kasaian]

Here's the problem---there is no problem! The camera accurately saw and recorded the scene. The distraction isn't an issue for the print, it's in the viewer's noggin' (heck, it's in my noggin' and I shot the photo!) I could crop it out on an enlargement, but that would reduce the ceiling and the soaring ceiling is an important element for the picture.

[Bill Burk]

I would most definitely leave it there. I have a recent print that for all intents appears to be fogged by a light leak. Only I know the reality... when I was composing the shot, a sharp gust of wind came behind me. I waited for the gust to subside then took the shot. Was certain the wind had caused camera shake but turns out not the case. The shot is sharp.

But what happened is, my gust of wind had crossed the inlet into the scene and kicked up dust! Because it is accurate, I am leaving it in.

[evan clarke]

If it's a nice picture and that's what viewers focus on, find different viewers..If they ask about it, explain it, it's very cool and would be excellent if you could post the picture.

[Jim Andrada]

I think it has to be all about the image and the concept. My approach is that if something significantly detracts from the total image I want to present, out it goes, without a second thought. The little white bird on the tree branch might be cute, but if it doesn't fit with my vision, the cute little bird is history, lying on the cutting room floor so to speak. I think a photographer is in a different position than an artist working in more traditional media. The painter looks at something and visualizes an image and starts with a blank sheet and selects elements to add to the white canvas, and in a sense consciously decides what to leave in, whereas I think the photographer starts with a complete scene and has to decide what to emphasize/leave out/downplay, or risk producing a technically excellent point and shoot image.