Is It Time to Stop Cloning Things Out? 

These questions are meaningfull for journalism/documentary photography. When you Creating an art - you creating an art, so its to you to decide what art you wanna bring.

Journalism and documentary photography definitely need the higher standard, but I agree with a number of comments here about art. You are doing creative work so that someone can essentially enjoy a beautiful landscape. This type of work is not about fact checking, or protecting yourself or others against liability for documentary purposes. You should feel completely at ease about pushing boundaries and allowing yourself the freedom to do good work. That is what art is all about. Please take out the power lines. Thank you!

You’re creating art and the final product really is what matters Keep removing any distractions, and show us the before and after so we can see your fantastic artwork. Love your content 👍🏼

I don't think the answer is 100% in either direction. All that matters is how you want it to look. Cheers.

I support your decision to not clone (permanent fixtures) for two reasons. 1. Honesty - as a species we are inevitably drifting further into an AI universe, and grounding our images in honesty feels more important than ever. If for no other reason than to differentiate ourselves from the inevitable AI generated art that we're going to be flooded by. 2. Embrace the imperfections - once you embrace the imperfections, you'll realise that these imperfections actually add to the image by grounding them. Everything is not perfectly placed and that's why it's good. It's real and grounded. Reality isn't perfect.

Clone away. I started my photography journey as a strictly straight out of the camera, no edits person. Believing that was the best way to show others what i saw and expeienced. Over the years I've noticed that while what comes through the camera tmay be a good record of what was in front of my lens, it was a terrible reproduction of what I "saw". When standing at the base of a waterfall or beautiful vista i dont see the phone lines or random distractions. I just see.. beauty. As such I've transitioned into someone who edits every shot, I clone things out, tweak light and shadow and concern myself more with what I "saw" and how it made me feel. Rather than simply a record of what was there.

Outside of lens corrections (dust, water spots, etc), I only clone things out that aren't permanent. Anything that will be there in the future is part of the scene and shouldn't be removed. I do remove temporary things that could distract from the photo such as twigs, debris or any kind or trash.

Hi Tom, I'm so glad you have considered this. I do not clone anything out, I don't suggest that it shouldn't be done, it's just not for me, thanks and well done.

Photography is creative, and to allow others to see the world through your perspective. It’s an expression of yourself, so only you get to decide what you want your photographs to look like.

I haven't cloned out anything other than dust spots, so far. But, as my photos are for my own consumption, I can live with seeing what I saw on the day. You, naturally, have a different objective in creating your work, so artistic license is certainly applicable! Enjoyed the video, thanks Thomas.

Personally you were there to photograph the landscape, not wires and Pylons. If you started moving trees and mountains then its time to back off, but a few cables? clone them out

There’s a flexible line on what to clone. As an astrophotographer we are also challenged with constantly increasing satellites and light pollution, they usually get edited out (at least mostly) but I recently have been asked to leave it to increase awareness of the public. I’m planning on making 2 versions of my photos

I suggest framing the question thus: if you were a landscape painter painting a scene, would you feel obliged to paint in all the discordant, "inconvenient" details? Is your mission as photographer really that much different than the painter's?

Supposing i'm not doing a documentary image, cloning is great. When i photograph, i want to communicate how a scene makes me feel, not how it literally appears. The very process of composing a shot, leaving out or keeping elements in, is a form of cloning out! I want to focus on the parts that spoke to me most deeply!

I went on that same road in January, and I was headed to conference and couldn't stop to snap it. But where I am at currently, is I like to create art. And sometimes I am inspired by a scene but there are parts that to me are not perfect. I have found it to be a case by case bases, where sometimes the imperfections add character and help tell a story. Other times there is a more perfect scene that is more pleasing to me. Whether others agree I do not take into consideration. I am not competing with others in my art, I am on my own journey to document beauty as I see it and as it speaks to me.

What's up Thomas? I tried not to chime in on this, but this is simple. Either clone or just don't take the shot. I think authenticity is always best. As far as people is concerned, either ask them to kindly move or just wait till they leave. Nice video, peace!

I think we all have slightly different lines on this, for me there is no right or wrong and I certainly wouldn't tell anyone else what to do, especially if the final image was a good one. Personally I don't shoot a scene with something major that I knew in advance I would want to clone out but happy to take out small distractions or things I hadn't noticed while taking the shot. As Monty Python said - we are all individuals! Great video as always Thomas.

The scenery at 10:48 is breathtaking. A cold Irish morning.

The Craggy Island Parochial House was the absolute cherry on top for this video! Honestly it gave me such a big smile seeing you go there!

I used to do a lot of photoshop works on my photos, especially when there were people in my images. But these days it’s very rare. I’ve learned to appreciate the imperfections in a scene and embrace man made elements.

Father Ted house was an unexpected bonus. I’m of the mind that you own everything in your composition. If you don’t think it belongs in your picture then either compose around it or change it through tone or clone. If you’re a photojournalist, dogmatic documentarian, or a diehard believer in wabisabi then revel in the imperfections of life. Plenty of rooms in the mansion for all of us.

Context is key, I reckon. If taking a shot to specifically represent the area, then govern that mouse button. If taking a stock image to represent "a beautiful landscape", then have at it with PS!

It depends on what you want the final image to look like. Personally I'm OK with leaving in if in that frame of mind or cloning if I feel it needs it. As long as you enjoy it

Cloning is fine but it depends on the resulting images use. If you want to create an artwork, then go ahead, it is all,part of your creation. If you are documenting a subject then no, as it is no longer a record of the subject. If it is for a competition and cloning is allowed but must be explained all good. Honestly, it is all about context. I don’t want to see power lines on a calendar page.

Documentary vs interpretation/creation. I’ll clone things out of the background of portraits for clients, there’s always a time and place for everything. For landscapes, I tend to leave things as they are, a sign of mankind. But it’s all personal preference. Great video, man!

Subjective of course. There is a good rule from portrait photography that basically says If it's there in a week it's a part of it. But things like a random hair flying around or a pimple or other temporary stuff, that all can go. I think it works for landscapes as well, at least if the goal is to depict reality.

I have often thought about the possibility of the ethics of post processing. Sometimes I will use photoshop to remove an object in a picture. Sure as a distracting 'For Sale' sign for example. I have decided to be honest if someone were to ask me if I used photoshop to remove something. But as time goes on I'm getting better at taking pictures that don't need to be photoshopped. This is a good video with a relevant issue.

I guess it all depends on whether you are trying to educate or simply sharing your creations, as long as you are honest about your use of the clone tool it's entirely your call. For those new to photography it's useful to know that even the pros have to use the clone tool to create the perfect image, and you can't always capture the perfect image on location. I wonder how Ansel Adams would have used the clone tool if it was available to him? Thanks so much for sharing your techniques and insights in all your videos.

When I collect images for my catalog which I use for drawing landscapes, I don’t clone. When I draw, I edit everything. Most often, I am simplifying the scene. It’s what minimalists do.😎

Art or not, pictures live on after us and as you said, if someone was to look at your images years after, they should see things as they were. Pictures should capture that point in time as it is. Nature is never perfect. There is always something. Capture that...and let's move to the next shot! Love your work!

Welcome Mr Heston, we've been expecting you

Photography goes through these introspections every so often. People debated over the move from B&W to color, then from film to digital, and then from darkroom processing to Lightroom/Photoshop, and now we're all facing a whole new world of fakery in AI. This could be another pivotal moment, so you're right to give it some thought. But, frustratingly only you can answer the question. We want to see images made by Thomas Heaton! And, in this particular case you were totally right to keep the power lines. They added some visual interest and made the eye move across the image in an interesting way. Great stuff!

Even Ansel Adams performed a great deal manipulation in post. And that was with film which is much, much more difficult and requires a great deal of manual dexterity. One of his most famous photograph, Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico, took a great deal of post processing to achieve a satisfactory image. "He took the precious film to his studio. Here, he developed the negative with multiple water baths to bring out its stark tones, but found it difficult to print. Over the next few years, he repeatedly revisited the negative, experimenting with different contrasts and printing techniques. Finally, in the 1970s, he achieved “a print equal to the original visualization that [he could] still vividly recall.”

I've always kept the power lines and usually make them a character in the image. I do band-aid sky spots and litter now that I'm getting better at editing with photoshop. It's really personal preference.

Artists do not require other people's preferences to direct their creation. Nobody ever told Michelangelo how to compose his work. Creativity is an emotional expression, not a technical one.

I come to this channel for the photography AND the introspection and thoughts. My first impulse was to „not to crop“, but I much prefer reading/ listening to the discourse.

You can always give the option of before and after that's what I do for my clients. I always explain to then about photojournalism, documentary and the art side of photography. Most of the time they will ask for the distractions to be taken out. I wish I had known you we're in Donegal at the start of your trip I would have nipped across the border from Derry to say hello and shown you a few of my hidden gems to capture 📸📸😎

I think if it's something transitory, like footprints in snow, trash in the wildflowers, a distracting twig in the water, either physically remove or clone out in post. Something relatively fixed in place...move on, change framing, or possibly darken a bit in post.

I think it all depends on the end usage. Are you a documentary or artistic photographer? Also, if you’re honest and authentic when you share your image with others and they know you’ve made adjustments, you’ll sleep well. But I think it’s also a good indicator of character when you struggle with hiding/changing something that others may see.

I was pretty stubborn to keep my film camera. I kept using it well into the era when it became difficult to get film developed. That all changed when I took about twenty rolls of film in at the same time from a trip to Arizona exploring the desert southwest. Every single negative had dirt and lint on them!!! What a bummer. I got some great photos but man did I do a lot of spot removing. I bought a digital Canon years ago and never looked back. Focus stacking, whaaaaaat?

My thought is, using cloning tool is another option in creating art. However, I would leave the pictures as is. The power lines, wood posts etc… really add to the story and interest in the picture, they make me ask questions about the picture.

For me photos capture a moment in time and I like to respect how things were. I only edit the photos to adjust colors and cropping. I also have been shooting on film lately and I feel it’s a closer representation of the moment. That being said photography is what you want it to be, art is what moves you. Also power lines have been the bane of my landscape photography (in the US) for a long time now and I don’t blame you for cloning them out.

I think the decision about YOUR line is everything. I have a very strong belief that anyone who spends their time telling you how to make your art could be better spending that time making their own. I like to take photos to capture the way a particular place or person made me feel. Sometimes the human-made stuff adds to that, sometimes not. If it's ugly to my eye, I'll remove things (sometimes). I sometimes think about it with people that I'll remove things that are temporary (pimples) but not things that are permanent (moles). I don't know if that applies to landscape necessarily, but there might be something in there. Maybe some of the man-made stuff is akin to pimples in my mind, the gorges or plants that are messy, moles. A strange comparison, I know. Thanks, as always. Cheers!

Some people would crop, or clone out, some distraction to present an image of calmness and beauty. Another, would intentionally leave in the distraction, whether powerlines or actual garbage, to present another side of the story. It all depends on the purpose of the photo, and I believe an individual photographer should be free to flip-flop between either approach, depending on their prospective audience -- or their intent. Also, it's perfectly fine to ask other people what they think. This allows us to see different perspectives that we normally wouldn't be aware of.

Personally I ignore the would be gatekeepers and do what makes me happy. The problem is if you are catering to the most likes group to gain more popularity and money from RU-vid then the answer is leave the wires in if that's what you need to do. Just don't let them guide you in their direction whilst ignoring your own. Then again what do I know. Keep up the great work and I really like your videos, Thomas.

Don't be daft. Clone those lines if they bother you.

Nothing wrong with taking them out. I agree with what you’ve always said in the past… You can take it out, but don’t add fake stuff in. I think generally speaking that’s good advice.

It's entirely up to you. Don't worry what someone else has to say, not even me. I know what I would do but that is irrelevant. It's your shot, your creation and your decision.

You are 100% correct, leave the power lines in there or don't take the shot, if not, just don't call it a photo when you start removing (or adding) things, it's an image, not a photo any more.

Depends on what you want from the shot, clone them out if they are a distraction to you, keep them in if you are trying to tell a story about the place/area(documentary photography) all depends on what you want, no one else should dictate how your images come out , You have to be my favourite photographer on RU-vid I have watched your videos since 2018 and I watch your videos every week, do what ever makes you happy just do it.

I either accept the powerline as part of the composition or don't click the shutter. Mostly because my past attempts at removing them was a ridiculously long time with terrible results😂 But seriously, if I'm not trying to document something I'm not opposed to cloning out little bits of clutter. If it could blow in or out of the scene it's fair game. If it's trash that I notice I try to pick it up before I take the shot. I've also done the odd branch clone out with wildlife. Fun video!

What is the intended use or audience for the photo? Fine art - Would a landscape painter put in the wires? Travel guide - Tell the whole story. Not sure - Satisfy yourself but add a note to any advertising letting the buyer know what was removed.

The first picture is actually really good the way it is. All of the things that you were annoyed about, I think it made the image, THE IMAGE.

I should have put this on my last post, but my grandpa loved photography and had old film cameras, flashes, video cameras and a dark room. Although he enjoyed black & white, he started coloring his old photos not exactly sure how they did this back then (I think they painted it on), but one of them is of my dad when he was a little boy a sleep with a toy and the colors, he used on this was just amazing. It looks so good. this was in the late 40's and through his life he did photography and video. This picture stood out back then (I have it somewhere in digital format now) and was an exciting time to use different tools to get it on paper. Photographers enhanced even with old tools that's why they bought them. Digital developing is much safer than all the chemicals in a dark room. Anyway, just thought this was useful to help justify tools are good.

The trees and the island are really beautiful and the picture looks even more intense without the power line. But you also have to bear in mind that you can only see the power line and not the pylons. If you capture the infrastructure in this landscape, then the power line is part of it and possibly forms the leading line. As always, it depends on the composition and what you want to show everyone else. I like it either way. 💯👍🙋‍♂

The creative process is personal - there’s no absolute ‘wrong’, but it’s also true that what is ‘right’ today might not be so tomorrow (we all have howlers somewhere in our archives). I think that some of this comes down to who we’re actually ‘creating’ for: If photography is your profession and your ‘product’, put yourself in the shoes of those who’ll be looking at, or perhaps buying your work. What would they want to see? What story do you want to tell them? If imperfections are a part of that story, leave them in. If not, clone away - it’s just another editing tool, like a vignette as far as I’m concerned. It’s perhaps telling that our personally favourite images are unlikely to be those that are technically perfect, rather they’ll be the ones that connect with us in some way. The trick is to help others connect that deeply - whatever it takes.

Hi Thomas, one answer to this question is: I live in a place looking out over a beautiful hilly landscape, with ....indeed.... 2 sets of powerlines and big masts. This place remains beautiful, despite of those lines and masts. I agree, would be esthetically finer if they were not there. But now they belong to my vista. And give me electricity to mail you this answer. Enough vista's to find without power lines. And when you decide to clean them up with photoshop, there is a reason: you create another 'reality', neglecting the lines. If you like that more, its your choice. And I will appreciate your photo perhaps more then with then in the picture. Bert.

bonus points for going to see Ted's house. One of my favourite shows. Still watch the Christmas special every year. Power lines, just edit them, others out there changing skies and everything. Cloning a rock out is no big deal

Having visited Pine Island three years ago I had the same reaction -'who gave planning permission for this!' I decided to clone then out! However it wasn't until the recent upgrade in Photoshop that I was 100% successful. Its a wonderful area to photograph so many opportunities. When we were there the causeway was under two feet of water, so no walking to the island.!

You're an artist, who has chosen photography as their medium. If you were a painter, would you be having the same dilemma as to whether or not to paint the power lines? You have an artistic vision which you're trying to fulfil, using what exists in the landscape as a starting point. Let's say you use a shallow depth of field to blur out a distracting background element, is this any different? I think like others have mentioned, the conflict arises because photography has the capacity to be a "perfect" rendition of the real world, and in some cases (like documentary photography) this is even expected. No photograph is an exact replica of real life. No photograph is unbiased. The photographer has chosen what to portray, and how to portray it: get down low with a wide angle lens and make your subject feel imposing and intimidating; capture them from afar in a sea of people to make them feel insignificant. To summarise my ramblings, you're telling the story. Tell it how you want to tell it. That doesn't preclude you from being honest about your process to get there.

Hi Thomas. There is no right or wrong answer here, but I would support leaving in the power lines. We have to work with what is there and it’s possible just to see through the blemishes to the beauty behind. Nature, people and life is never perfect.

I have never cloned anything out from any of the photographs I have taken, the only tweaks I make are shadows/highlights, contrast, focus stacking, cropping and white balance. I don't think there is anything wrong with cloning, especially if you are making products with your imagery such as posters and calendars, I think it is nice to polish images especially if you are going to sell them because you want the customer to have the best viewing experience possible. But from a purist point of view, I feel a lot of the excitement comes from the challenge of finding the shots where it needs lite to no post production.

As long as you are producing journalist or documentary images, cloning out is fine in my book. I am an artist and my personal approach is that I will never add anything to a scene, but I will remove distracting elements. That said, I would prefer to remove or minimize distractions while in the field by recomposing. As PS/LR makes it faster and easier to "fix it in post", I am finding myself getting lazier than I'd like. So I will be making more of an effort to do more in the field.

I haven’t read all the comments and don’t know the answer, but to me you are creating Art you enjoy looking at. would an artist choose to paint the power lines in or just leave them out, I think most would leave them out.

A worthwhile discussion, no doubt! Ultimately, Popsys is excellent for his style, you are excellent for yours. I don't personally think there's a right answer here.

Something's , not all things. Personally, I think you get it spot on

If you're cleaning up a minor thing... paper flying across the grass, clone away. But if it is a major element in the composition - like the little pitch in your first shot, I'd leave it, since it's part of the area. I agree with the sentiment of the power lines. Realistic art, to me, is more powerful and meaningful.

I do editorial fashion so it is a bit different. My general "rule" is "if it will disappear on its own given enough time, I will clean it up. If not.. I want it to stay". Granted for me that is mostly skin blemishes / etc but I try to stand by that rule with everything.

I 100% agree with your view, if your work inspires other to travel out to get a similar shot it should be honest. For a lovely wallpaper to put up on the desktop is a different story.

Yes you are overthinking it. But anyway overthinking is a key character trait of Thomas Heaton.

I'm firmly in the camp of not cloning out. That island would never even cross my mind because of the power lines.

I have only done it once on one image. I wanted a vibe reminiscent of the 80s Athena posters they sold with neon colours of a moped in front of an Art Deco theatre in Paris. Cloned out the license plate and an annoying post that wasn’t straight

How do you handle personal hygiene when living in the van? Where do you wash each day? Where do you use a toilet?

I follow a set of rules for cloning things out. Rule 1 Lens-censer debris, no matter how hard you try to keep your gear clean something always finds it way into your best photo. Rule 2 human debris, trash. Ideally you want to pick up others trash but sometimes that is just not posable. Rule 3 when the object in question does not add to the scene and maybe later removed through natural processes, Wind, rain, or waves. Rule 4 People that are in the shot and it is not posable to get the shot without any people. Though some people can make the shot better. People with cell phones who block your shot, they run in packs. Rule 5 Powerlines. Not all powerlines, just those that are located so that no repositioning will help to remove them. Removing powerlines should not be an issue, most people have access to software that will do that for them, even cell phones have an app for that. Rule 6 everything else in the photo that bugs me so that I am compelled to remove it. This rule pretty much accomplices all the above rules. But it also works in reverse, If it doesn’t bug me it stays. Rule 7 The golden rule I will never apologize for cloning. Photo manipulation is as old a photography itself.

My Dinorwic Quarry bag shot is what it is. Nothing gets taken out and nothing gets put in.

I've struggled with the very same thing as you were speaking of. I have recent;y come to the conclusion that I am not selling my prints and National Geographic aren't bothering me for them either so that leaves me to doing what makes me happy. I don't think a missing power wire will mean anything. I often have shot in "peopley" locations and just remove them later. I won't miss good light because someone is in my frame. I typically don't like sky replacements, I feel so cheap after that. lol 😀

I believe it depends on what you aim to show with your image. If purely a work of art that speaks to people's emotions, do either way. If journalism as someone wrote above, of course less reasonable to edit. In your case when telling a story from a location with video material as well, I believe it can be useful to enhance the artists intention, but still be a bit more careful than if there was an isolated image without a background story and/or location.

I feel that a bit of tidying up during editing is okay, such as cloning out garbage or errant footprints, but removing immutable objects misrepresents the area if the photo is to be published in any manner. Thanks for another enjoyable video.

My approach is that it's my picture, I'll do what I want. If it adds value to the picture it stays, if it detracts, it comes out. At the end of the day, its my decision.

I like to capture the feeling of being there, if there is an element in the picture that distracts from that "feeling" I remove it. This is the art, its more than a simple record of the scene Make a record of the feeling of standing by the lake with amazing light on a beautiful landscape.

My "line" goes with things that I could have physically removed from the scene myself before taking the shot but I omitted to do so, or didn't have time to remove. A typical example is litter/rubbish in the landscape, but it could also be leaves/branches that are in the way, or perhaps even a problematic rock or stick temporarily lodged in a stream. Things I could not have removed (either as I wouldn't have been able to, or wouldn't be allowed to) stay in. Things that were never actually in the scene, e.g. dust/water spots, lens artefacts (e.g. CA), etc, I can also happily remove. I imagine there could be situations where I would cross the line for some reason, but having crossed the line I'd then feel obliged to state what I'd done. However, it is an entirely personal choice (unless you are working with documentary photography/journalism).

I don't know where the line is either. I will clone distracting things out but I would never replace the sky. Cheers!

We’ve thought about this extensively for he Natural Landscape Photography Awards and have a general rule “do not deceive”. I like this simplicity. In the age of AI people seem to like knowing an image isn’t deceptive and presents something they could have experienced (with a camera) themselves. There’s also an odd opinion that seems common in landscape photography that you have to manipulate for a work to be art. This couldn’t be further from the truth . The art part is mostly in the photographer before they even take a picture and expresses itself in timing , position and framing. That’s more than enough flexibility for an artist to get lost in .

I do clone out myself! By the way, how dare them put those power lines in this beautiful view in the first place!! Great content Thomas!

Funny that cloning things out is the big topic here, this exact location and image is where I painstakingly cloned out the entire electrical wire that runs across the entire scene. Little did I know that Thomas would deal with it years later 😅

Are you overthinking it? Yes! Clone out distractions? Yes a million times yes!

The photoshop software should be used to emulate darkroom printing (burning, dodging, cropping). When additional photoshopping is done (remove tool) , your image transforms from an artisan’s photograph to a computer illustration.

For me I do what I can to edit it out in camera when I can. Then if I can’t make it work composition wise, then photoshop it out if I truly can’t live with it. Remember, just editing it, you create a false version of the image. I personally don’t mind that because I’m not only capturing the scene but the emotion of the scene so a little edit goes along way. If editing was such a sin then Ansel Adam’s wouldn’t be so loved. Oh and my wife and I love “Father Ted”. It was cool that you showed the house.

1) Clone. Go for it!, 2) Clone out power lines and disclose, or, 3) Use parallax, take two shots, one higher, one lower offset to left or right (enough to shift the lines and the poles) then use similar tactic to focus stacking to render one image without the lines and perhaps disclose. We are not photojournalists, but for me, I don't want to overdo cloning out being always very cautious about that. I have helped a friend clone out powerlines from a beautiful orthodox church with onion domes neither one of us felt this was inappropriate.

I think modern day photographers have the option to be both photographers and digital artists. It's up to each individual to choose how far they go with digital manipulation. It's also up to each viewer to decide how far is too far for their individual taste. The most important thing, in my opinion, is the honesty of the photographer in explaining to his/her audience how far they are willing to go in manipulating their photography. However, this applies to creative photography and not journalistic photography. That is a whole other issue.

That shot is on the N59 on route to Clifden, I have never photographed it over those bloody power lines!!!!! Honestly Its all I can see when I stop, Ballynahinch Castle has some beautiful shots about 10 minutes away

There’s a lot of comments around creating the shot you want to create and how this is art not journalism or documentary photography. Firstly, I wouldn’t be so quick to set up a dichotomy between artistic photograph and documentary photography, the latter can absolute be art. Steve McCurry is an artist. Gordon Parks was an artist. I often feel when watching people edit photos by removing distracting elements, particularly when those elements are evidence of humanities influence on the scene, that they are missing an opportunity to create a photo that tells a story, whether that’s about people enjoying the space or the adverse impacts of people on the landscape. Often I fell that what is left is a much more generic landscape photo when there could’ve been a photo that said something.

I obviously don't do photography for a living so it doesn't matter how many pictures I make every year even if it's only one ("finished") per year. But i've never cloned things out, that's probably why I only have a small handful of pictures but i'm really happy about all of them because I know that everything in the frame I am happy with being there.

My line is: I can remove rubbish and other transient items (like a blemish on a teen’s face), but not permanent or “naturally” placed items (logs, etc.).

As far as responsibility as a photographer goes, I think as long as you are honest about how you created the image, do whatever it takes.

Everyone's choices are different. As a general tenet, I don't clone anything without disclosing that I've done so, with the exception of sensor-dust spots on uniform fields.

Tom, it depends on the purpose of the photography, I have a great shot of Chesterman Beach (Tofino BC) - my Partner loves it, but didn’t like the few people, so I deleted them. I also photograph politicians these get cropped and maybe an exposure tweak - these must be honest. It depends on the purpose of the final image - of course images for competitions should not be altered. NHM is going to be interesting

1. a point worth contemplating 2. also worth considering what you call it since in the younger set the adobe nomenclature is waning since adobe usage is waning 3. i suppose it's on a spectrum where all the modifications of the image could be considered inauthenticity by a given viewer (the continuous spectrum may include anything done in post-processing to an image). I suppose it's on the photographer to define what their own rules are (and some may just opt for mystery).

I was in the camp of "don't clone it out" until I saw your hair as you were doing the Square Space commercial. Sometimes you do need some post editing.

The moment you 'feel' you have crossed the line, you've crossed the line. I say feel and not think because we have an incredible ability to rationalise pretty much anything we want, but our gut, our emotional reaction tends to be much mure intuitive and, dare I say it, true to ourselves. My first trip to South Africa, I took a shot of a hornbill and cloned out a twig across it's beak - it felt wrong and the recollection sticks with me 13 years later - wish I'd never shared that damned picture!! Ultimately that line in the sand is our individual line and nobody else's so we can put it wherever we want - a word of caution though - be careful where you draw your line in the sand, because you might just end up drowning!