Jump to content
  • 0
Sign in to follow this  
meanderingemu

Edits on obvious editorial in nature shots (not Live News)

Question

After reading one of the sold post the rights owner mentioning having done some alterations on the background of his shot, i decided to post the question since i've been wondering for a while now.

 

What are the general guidelines on edits for pictures submitted to Alamy, that are more or less only for editorial needs.  For example i did a recent search on a Church which is bordered by a wall with a green painted quote, and was surprised to find one of the first picture available had clearly removed the writing in PS.  This seemed a bit extreme for me and there was no mention.

 

So i wondered, can I remove an ugly pigeon in the sky?  Can i alter a license plate to retain privacy? remove phone number from a For Sale sign?  

If yes to any of those, do you add a mention in the description?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 1

I would answer yes to all of those, though I don't usually bother about licence plates, I leave that up to the buyer.  My own campervan appears in some of my shots and I haven't altered the licence plate.

If it's a major edit I have sometimes submitted both versions and added a note in the 'Additional Info' field giving the reference number of the alternative version.  There's a well-known beautiful Victorian building in Manchester that has an ugly modern lamp post stuck right in front of it which I removed, but I submitted both versions.  Only the one without the lamp post has sold. 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, meanderingemu said:

After reading one of the sold post the rights owner mentioning having done some alterations on the background of his shot, i decided to post the question since i've been wondering for a while now.

 

What are the general guidelines on edits for pictures submitted to Alamy, that are more or less only for editorial needs.  For example i did a recent search on a Church which is bordered by a wall with a green painted quote, and was surprised to find one of the first picture available had clearly removed the writing in PS.  This seemed a bit extreme for me and there was no mention.

 

So i wondered, can I remove an ugly pigeon in the sky?  Can i alter a license plate to retain privacy? remove phone number from a For Sale sign?  

If yes to any of those, do you add a mention in the description?

 

There used to be a question in the old image manager along the lines of "Is this image digitally altered?" which in itself led to numerous debates here about what consituted digital alteration. Altering the content of the image by addition or removal of objects would generally consitute digital alteration but there were numerous grey areas. Basically, aside from news pictures, you can do what you like with your images. You can't really say how your images will be used anyway.  If you want to restrict them to editorial use, then obviously mark them as such but there is no rule about digital alteration of editorial images.

Edited by MDM
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1

I once spent an aeon cloning out street clutter in front of a building, normally not worth doing, but this one sold, for a high $$$ sum, so occasionally worth the effort.

 

I normally annotate the image to explain that some digital modification has been carried out.

 

Obviously verboten for news images.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1

I always ask myself this question: could I have taken the same shot at another time without the objects that spoil it? If the answer is yes, e.g. birds, bits of rubbish, traffic cones, blurred people in the background, then it's fair game. If not then it's usually digital manipulation. In the case of a lamp post I would submit the pic as is, but I would also strive to find an angle or a detail without the lamp post.

 

Alan

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
7 hours ago, Inchiquin said:

I always ask myself this question: could I have taken the same shot at another time without the objects that spoil it? If the answer is yes, e.g. birds, bits of rubbish, traffic cones, blurred people in the background, then it's fair game. If not then it's usually digital manipulation. In the case of a lamp post I would submit the pic as is, but I would also strive to find an angle or a detail without the lamp post.

 

Alan

 

 

 

thanks that's a nice way to see it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
23 hours ago, Inchiquin said:

I always ask myself this question: could I have taken the same shot at another time without the objects that spoil it? If the answer is yes, e.g. birds, bits of rubbish, traffic cones, blurred people in the background, then it's fair game. If not then it's usually digital manipulation. In the case of a lamp post I would submit the pic as is, but I would also strive to find an angle or a detail without the lamp post.

 

Alan

 

Exactly my approach. Something that might not have been there on another day or five minutes earlier - pigeons, litter, (which you could pick up before taking the photo if you are very public-spirited) cigarette ends, people - can be edited out. Stuff that is always there - street furniture, littler bins, signposts - I leave. 

I have been known to remove bits lampposts and things creeping into the corner or edge of a frame that I could conceivably have avoided by changing my lens / position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Long ago a photographer I knew that supplied the calendar market would loosen the screws holding signs to posts and turn them so the thin edge faced the camera. Other times the sign would be removed then after shooting would be replaced. Then he shot 4x5 E6 and later scanned, but still preferred getting it right in camera if possible. I've moved obtrusive cones and bins before shooting, then put them back afterwards, unlike the wedding photographer that photographed my nieces wedding, the blue rubbish bins alongside group shots looked very odd. 

 

I've hidden plastic bottles, chunks of polystyrene and anything that would cause burnt out areas on beaches before, its usually quicker than cloning later. Now the emphasis is often on showing the problem caused by rubbish that doesn't quickly decompose.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Posted (edited)
On 28/07/2019 at 11:07, sb photos said:

Long ago a photographer I knew that supplied the calendar market would loosen the screws holding signs to posts and turn them so the thin edge faced the camera. Other times the sign would be removed then after shooting would be replaced.

 

John Wilfred Hinde

 

"If he found something unpleasant or out of place in his pictures, he could simply cover it up or move it to get the best shot. So common was this practice that he kept a saw in the back of his car so that, if there happened to be an unsightly object in the view of his camera, he would chop down a nearby rhododendron bush and use it to conceal the eyesore."

Edited by Vincent Lowe
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.