Sometimes we edit out things that give out too much details such as phone number or location name clearly visible on items and I do so conspicuously.

How do you guys feel about editing out visually annoying and distracting chicken scratch graffiti tags from pictures we post? I think it's fair game in "art photos" for posting but not for journalism or documentation photos unless done very conspicuously, like blocking out in a solid color.

I think it's just like any other post processing or techniques used to intentionally make things pop up or spatial perception.

For example:
Before:


After:



I didn't do the best job in editing out and you can clearly see where I edited, but would it be dishonest if it was done much more less conspicuously?

I feel like if it's your photo, it's legit to do almost whatever you want with it, unless of course you've made promises in advance as to how it will be edited or whatever.

Insert some Jawas or Stormtroopers into it if you like. ;)

Perfectly fine to edit them out unless... you* did them.
I never wasted the time to edit any out. My preference is for untagged sites or just not shoot the tag.


* Note: "you" does not refer to you, Deuterium. Although I do have someone in mind.

This one, I edited out and purposely did it conspicuously, because the placard there would give out the location, although if I did that on a picture that's supposed to be aesthetically pleasing, it would look stupid.

I wouldn't call it dishonest and if you took the picture, you should feel free to do as you wish with it. Personally, I don't edit my pictures (except the occasional removal of an address/phone number/license plate etc.) because I want to show the location as it existed when I visited. Of course, my photos are more documentary in nature and I can definitely see the appeal of removing tags if you're more into the artistic side.

Go the extra step , clean off the graffiti at the location BEFORE you take the photo .

I've erased an errant drawn penis or two and non family friendly words before for photography display sake.

Posted by sleeperspirit Go the extra step , clean off the graffiti at the location BEFORE you take the photo .

That's going overboard. Something like that should be left as community service for someone who gets caught doing it.

I would say I'm the interests of protecting a location, it's perfectly fine. Also if you took the picture, you should be able to do whatever you please.

Posted by tombombadom I would say I'm the interests of protecting a location, it's perfectly fine. Also if you took the picture, you should be able to do whatever you please.

People say "protecting locations", but protection from what is often unclear. The green duck, i don't mind, but everything else is visually annoying in my opinion. I think the second one looks much more aesthetically pleasing if I was going to put it on my wall or use as a desktop background or to show to others. My dilemma was if it's considered dishonest to do so.

I don't understand why people would see this as dishonest. Lots of photographs are edited. Sometimes graffiti can completely ruin a shot, like someone mentioned with the penis graffiti. I could see if members here were doing documentary photography and were trying to portray places accurately, but for the most part it's just to show off where we've been. Just as I edit out things like people, garbage, and random items that shouldn't have been in frame to begin with, I don't see the harm in editing out graffiti.

Posted by Deuterium People say "protecting locations", but protection from what is often unclear. The green duck, i don't mind, but everything else is visually annoying in my opinion. I think the second one looks much more aesthetically pleasing if I was going to put it on my wall or use as a desktop background or to show to others. My dilemma was if it's considered dishonest to do so.

Theres that too. I was thinking along the lines of making it harder to identify in case it was a spot that you didn't want to give away the location of. But I also agree with you that its sometimes necessary to "clean up" a cluttered picture.

Sorry guys , I thought yall liked my penis and swastika graffiti .

oh thank god the little green duck was spared the magic eraser.

#longlivetheduck

It depends on the subject. Honestly, the pic in the OP I would have probably left alone.

This morgue had a large tag across the top:

I voted number 1, and I like the 'shopped image you cleaned it up nicely

Posted by DawnPatrol I don't understand why people would see this as dishonest. Lots of photographs are edited. Sometimes graffiti can completely ruin a shot, like someone mentioned with the penis graffiti. I could see if members here were doing documentary photography and were trying to portray places accurately, but for the most part it's just to show off where we've been. Just as I edit out things like people, garbage, and random items that shouldn't have been in frame to begin with, I don't see the harm in editing out graffiti.

I don't really see it myself either. I wanted to get a feel for consensus among UER members. The inspiration to ask was this thread:
http://www.uer.ca/...id=1&msgid=1794579

They are your photos, you can do what you want with them.

Soooooo, would it be wrong if I photoshopped dicks into my photos?!

Posted by matis Soooooo, would it be wrong if I photoshopped dicks into my photos?!

Depends on where you get them.