Sometimes you just have to make things happen. Much of the time I am an observer of nature and try to share the sights and my emotions as I interpret them through use of my camera and lens…occasionally with a polarizer or neutral density filter to manage time or balance the exposure. Yesterday morning I went looking for our recently ever present fog and found…none. All the valleys were either clear or quite thin with it. So I switched intention.
I’ve visited Harvard Pond and noticed these reeds a few times. I wanted an image that was simple and clean, but there were a few other plants, mostly lily pads, floating around them which I didn’t like. I will never physically remove plants from a scene, but digital allows that so I did. This isn’t something I do very often, mostly if there is litter in a scene that I can’t reach to pick up, but I decided to make this image with some cloning. There is a lot of debate whether this is an acceptable action and most of the time I am not a fan. But an artist of the brush can add or not include whatever he or she wishes and it can be considered great art. So I decided to do that here.
Many people feel that photography is required to be an exact representation of reality. Yet we alter that reality through choice of lens, length of exposure, control of focus through aperture, the use of filters and so on. The image is a two dimensional representation of three. As I said, this isn’t something I plan on doing often and I would not add things to a scene. If I do it again, I’ll say so.
So I am interested in your opinion. Does it bother you that you are seeing a scene that has been digitally altered? Do you still enjoy the image knowing it is not exactly as it was in reality?