Removing background clutter from photos; yes or no?

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Two photos of the 20.00 Eastleigh - Merehead empties. 

 

The first with a lamppost emerging from behind the loco. The second with it photoshopped-out.

 

Artistically I prefer it without the post, but is it right to remove permanent structures from photos to "improve" them?

 

Any thoughts?

 

 

 

 

 

[newbryford]

Two photos of the 20.00 Eastleigh - Merehead empties. 

 

The first with a lamppost emerging from behind the loco. The second with it photoshopped-out.

 

Artistically I prefer it without the post, but is it right to remove permanent structures from photos to "improve" them?

 

Any thoughts?

 

P1170947.JPG

 

Copy of P1170947.JPG

 

I can see some merit in "tweaking" them for publication for profit. (Given the choice, an editor will pick the photo without the erroneous roofline clutter).

 

As most of my photography is for personal reference only (unless I get lucky with the rare shot that may be considered for publicising elsewhere) I have never yet manipulated a picture of mine other than changes to contrast/colour if only to improve the view of what I'm looking for. 

 

Cheers,

Mick

Edited May 21, 2018 by newbryford

[4630]

Sometimes I do photoshop out lampposts, but then again, sometimes I don’t.

 

It depends how much time I have available to edit my photos, and how important any particular photo is to me.

 

I do try to compose my photos though to exclude any such structures in the first place, but then again, that’s not always possible or practical. Might just be me and God knows I’ve had enough practise over the years, but I do find Eastleigh one of the most frustrating places to take photos. There’s always something getting into a shot that I’d prefer wasn’t there!

 

I’d take a sharp, correctly exposed photo, including any stray lampposts or structures, over the alternative of missing the shot entirely or deciding not to take it at all though.

[brianusa]

Sometimes the background is more interesting than the subject.  It can be rail related or country scenery which in a lot of cases is dominated by a tight shot of the subject which is all right for reference  but not so as a picture.

 

Brian.

[LBRJ]

Is the lamp post actually there in reality?

 

Then leave it in the shot

 

Unless its not a record of reality and some arty portrait.

 

Just imagine how poorer our knowledge would be if al those photographers of long ago could have photo shopped the background out of the standard "Loco Portrait" type picture.

Edited May 21, 2018 by LBRJ

[PatB]

Is the lamp post actually there in reality?

 

Then leave it in the shot

 

Unless its not a record of reality and some arty portrait.

 

Just imagine how poorer our knowledge would be if al those photographers of long ago could have photo shopped the background out of the standard "Loco Portrait" type picture.

 

I'm reminded again of a story I've told before on RMWeb, where the official loco portrait of a class I've forgotten now (but I think was Scottish) showed a peculiar pipe fitting apparently emerging from the tender top, against a white/pale grey sky. As alleged by the author of the magazine article accompanying the copy of the photo that I saw, a number of models had been built using this picture as a reference, all faithfully incorporating the pipe fitting thingummy on the tender. Somebody then realised that the thingummy was, in fact, a ventilator on the roof of a horsebox standing behind the loco, which the photographer who made the original print had failed to block out with a paper mask, as they had the rest of the background .

[petethemole]

I find the lamp posts at Eastleigh annoying, not behind the locos but in front; stabled locos are often parked behind one.

 

 

66783 The Flying Dustman, taken from the footbridge window due to inconsiderate parking of yellow wagons (note reference for interior colour/weathering)

 

 

[KeithHC]

Two thoughts on this point. Yes the picture does look better with the lamppost removed but it is as said a modified shot. Just think of some time maybe 75 years hence. Along comes a modeller of Eastleigh desperately looking for evidence of that very lamppost. Now we end up with was it there or not and then time will be spent searching and searching the WWW or what ever it will be then for evidence. I have been doing this for years to find photos of the Scott Derick in the wood yard of Rowfant station. I have a couple of shoots but just one with close detail would be great. Never mind just have to keep looking.

 

But Peter just keep on taking plenty of photos.

 

Keith

[Reorte]

I'd say keep it in. All useful detail for future modellers of the location if nothing else. I'd probably edit a photo I was using as a background but then it's just a case of using a few elements to build up a scene (similarly filmmakers editing bits out is fine when they're essentially using bits of reality to assemble a fictional setting, or even a different real one). If it's a photo that I'm taking solely to look at for aesthetic reasons, hmm, I'd be a little reluctant to edit it (I've occasionally removed things like bits of litter), and would certainly want to keep the original. The problem then is that what's really a work of art can be confused with an accurate representation of reality when it isn't.

[Oldddudders]

Our hobby is trains. We snap trains, by and large, or at least if we snap a train it is intended to be the focal (sorry) point of the picture. In the landscape, in the station or sidings, no train means no picture taken in most cases. Because trains are large we tend to need to stand some distance away to avoid distorted perspective. Use a wide-angle lens on our pet subject and some degree of caricature may emerge, particularly if the wide-angle was needed to get it all in shot. By and large we hate that.

 

Now think about portraits. Family or pets, the most engaging results may well have the background thrown out of focus, reducing its scope for distraction. The face becomes everything. We can seldom do that with full-size trains, but cutting out the extraneous detail such as Peter’s unwanted lamp-post strikes me as a good start.

[Reorte]

That picture in post 7 looks like one for the when the real thing looks like a model thread!

[dibber25]

It's 'horses for courses'. If it's for publication, it is best to take out clutter behind the subject. I recall pictures of diesels at Crewe with fuel tanks behind them, that made them look like they had some strange out of gauge 'nuclear' conversion. In some instances a publisher will tweak a photo to remove confusing clutter. It has been done for years. Most of the GWR Swindon 'official portraits' of new equipment had the background entirely painted out. I recall that Brian Stephenson and I once soaked the 'paint off a very large Loco Pub Co glass plate of the No. 111 The Great Bear, just because we were curious about what was in the background. The 'painting out' had been done by gluing cardboard over a large part of the plate and painting out the remainder with a red paint which proved to be water soluble. What was behind it all? An ugly derelict section of brick wall and a factory chimney. It was easy to see why it had been painted out! (CJL)

[jonny777]

My principle is that lamp posts, which annoy me when I look at the photo (such as that first picture), I will take out. Others which are not so obviously irritating, I would leave in. 

 

In the case of 66783 in #7, as the post is in front of the loco I would count that as part of the image, so it wouldn't worry me. It is objects appearing to 'protrude' from the top of a loco roof which I like the least. 

[Wickham Green]

........... and then there's technology that removes things you want kept !  -  I scanned some slides a few years back and tried the 'Auto Dust Brush' software : yes it did remove what little dust was present but left some very obvious specs on a picture taken at Dundalk ......... but I couldn't see anything on the surface of the slide. What the software had done was delete a number of lamp posts but left the lamp heads floating in mid air ! ................... then a couple of shots of Hastings Diesels Unit 1001 showed it numbered 100 at one end and 101 at the other ........................................ needless to say everything was promptly re-scanned with 'Auto Dust Brush' OFF.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Thanks for the comments guys.

 

I do very occasionally photoshop out some transitory items in my photos, eg a brightly coloured plastic bag that has blown into the shot, a coffee cup dumped on a platform or someone's arm appearing at the edge of a picture.

 

But it's the permanent features, like lamp posts, that I'm more loathe to remove due to some of the reasons above.

 

Though, of course, any view taken is in some way subjective.....

[beast66606]

I take what the camera sees - no modifications, warts and all.

 

I strongly dislike what seems to be a recent habit of photographers for overprocessing not quite "perfect in the sun" shots to bring out shadow detail, which unfortunately in most cases makes the photos look carp - stick to the actual thing, you can't go wrong.

[eastwestdivide]

On the other side of the coin, I've used the power of computer manipulation to rescue detail that I never realised existed from film shots from 30 years ago, and also to correct exposure mistakes that I made, and the effects of film emulsion fading over time.

 

Both the camera record (film or digital) and human perception have different limitations, so the result of any "unprocessed" photo may well be different to what the human who took it perceived.

Do we adjust the result from the camera to match what we perceived when we took the photo? There's no easy answer, and as someone said further back, horses for courses - "is it art, darling?" or "what's the purpose of the photo?", to which the answer is not always the same.

[John M Upton]

Whilst I have no problem with a little cropping of a photo, I have and always will be strongly opposed to any digital alterations especially anything being either removed or added.

 

For me, the addition of smoke to models in mags is a particular bug bear.

[jetmorgan]

I don't have a problem with photoshopping out certain bits of background or foreground. But only things that stick out like a sore thumb. Like you I have deleted lamp posts or lineside photographers wearing high vis jackets. Also I have some marks on my cameras sensor which leaves a dark circle on every picture, especially in the sky, so the photo has to be digitally altered.

[dibber25]

Whilst I have no problem with a little cropping of a photo, I have and always will be strongly opposed to any digital alterations especially anything being either removed or added.

 

For me, the addition of smoke to models in mags is a particular bug bear.

 

Does anyone do that, these days? (CJL)

[Andy Louch]

Well, for my three penn'th  it's my photo (image) and I can do whatever I like with it!! I'm sure the greats such as WJV Anderson, Eric Treacy and Ivo Peters etc.  'adjusted' their masterpieces in the dark room to produce something they were happy with. Same for me with Photoshop/a.n.other package; if I can produce something I prefer without a lamp post/orange jacket/HT pylon which, I feel, detracts from the main subject, then I'm happy to adjust accordingly. After all, I take pictures first and foremost to please me not to produce a historical record!

[DaveF]

I think that any published photo should be warts and all - as they may be used by people in the future as historical reference.  I have been asked by magazine editors whether anything has been removed from my photos and told that if I had removed or altered something it would not be published, unless it was just a small piece of litter.

 

So I leave the content untouched but do adjust brightness/contrast/sharpness and crop.

 

If the photo is purely personal then it is up to the photographer.  I do keep a folder of photos I have altered, but they are just for me and will not be made publicly available.

 

David

[pH]

I have been asked by magazine editors whether anything has been removed from my photos and told that if I had removed or altered something it would not be published, unless it was just a small piece of litter.

 

 

That seems rather "cheeky", given what is removed from some photos before publishing, sometimes resulting in a caption bearing little resemblance to what remains in the picture. (And, no, this isn't sour grapes. I've never submitted photos for publishing, though I have been asked if some of my pictures can be published.) 

[rodent279]

So, here's one I took in July 1984, at Welshpool, showing 25279+325 departing with the 0730 Euston-Aberystwyth. The scene is now totally changed, with the railway & station moved to the right of the photo, the bridge rebuilt, a road built though the station, the signal etc all gone.

 

Do I remove the tree sticking out of the locos? Not sure if it's still there, but if it is, it's probably the only reference point still there apart from the station building.

Edited May 24, 2018 by rodent279

[jetmorgan]

So, here's one I took in July 1984, at Welshpool, showing 25279+325 departing with the 0730 Euston-Aberystwyth. The scene is now totally changed, with the railway & station moved to the right of the photo, the bridge rebuilt, a road built though the station, the signal etc all gone.

 

Do I remove the tree sticking out of the locos? Not sure if it's still there, but if it is, it's probably the only reference point still there apart from the station building.

Personally I wouldn't bother....Although it does look a bit like the tree is growing out the top of the loco the plume of diesel smoke does seperate the tree from the train somewhat. You'll also find it will be a long job trying to photoshop the tree out and keep that smoke in.