Simple for me, my image, my edit. I don't need to explain my process to anyone. If I feel I can improve my image with the tools I have at my disposal then I will. It really is no business of anyone else.

I think one of the major factors that needs to be considered is "Where is it being published?"  If you are making a wall hanging, edit away.  If you are performing documentary work, accurate representation of reality is of high importance.

When we take a photo, we are already editing what is seen and what is not when we compose the image.

My opinion is quite simple: basically we do what we want!

Nevertheless, to be more precise about the logic of my personal approach, I would say that it makes sense to be able to remove elements from your photo if it bothers us. You can quite like a scene and find it a shame that there is an annoying element, such as a pylon or a vehicle. Even changing the sky if we want, it's our photo after all and we do what we want with it. On the other hand, I am against lying. For example, we must not make people believe that the scene was as it is if it is not. I don't think we should not necessarily disclose everything, but simply admit that we have removed elements for example. And then, people are offended by everything now...

Exposure blending is just the digital equivalent of the dodging and burning we used to do in the darkroom.

My fine line is I have no problem removing things (poles and signs and wires for example) put I draw the line on adding anything.

My best closeup photo of my cat's eye had to be edited because I'm quite clearly topless in my garden in the reflection in his pupil 😅

My general rule is that I’m happy to remove small things I could easily have physically removed before taking the photograph, like rubbish or a stray twig and leaves. I’m also happy to remove things that could have moved out of frame on their own had I waited, like people, cars, sheep or birds.

Beyond that, the thing being removed needs to be relatively small in the scene, not key to the image, and not require substantial cloning or AI to recreate that part of the scene.

I once watched a video where a photographer ripped out some ferns because they affected his composition. Even if they’re common and seem insignificant, I’d much rather remove them digitally than cause damage for the sake of a photograph.

I choose not to add or remove elements from my photographs, but thats a purely personal choice. I dont post my images anywhere at all they are simply for my enjoyment. However I have no issue with people editing photographs in any way whatsoever so long as they mention that this has been done. So long as they are being honest theyre nor hurting anyone. Too many people feel that they have the right to push their opinions on everyone else.

Thanks for another great video. Post processing, yes or no and if yes, how far to go? Given that photographers have been ‘editing’ their shots since the dawn of the darkroom it often amazes me how fellow hobbyists take such an afront to the very idea. I photograph for me, not for social media, not for anyone else, and if people like my photos that’s great. I’m happy to post process my photos to a greater or lesser degree depending upon the shot and what I’m trying to achieve. I always look to keep things natural and avoid anything to do with AI, but I do not set myself red line boundaries because I don’t see the point of limiting creativity.

My personal take is that as long as you adjust, it’s photography. When you remove (and then you have to add something), it’s graphic art.

Hi Ian, I have a very definite answer to your question. No it doesn’t matter and everyone does it. Is anyone saying that all of Ansel Adams’ images are to be devalued because he was the ultimate master of B&W darkroom wizardry! No, of course not? And surely everyone has tweaked an image either in production with a polarising filter or shoved the slider across in post production to enhance a sunset ! Or to erase some pesky person( or tripod!) that just walked into otherwise perfect shot!

Best wishes,see you in the autumn, IanT

ARRRGGGGGHHHH! The number of times I've screwed up with leaving my gear in a shot - shush though, I don't tell anyone!

Hi Ian, thanks for all your great vids, I have been in a little funk lately and your vids have inspired, thanx. I wanted to tell you about a rule we have to follow in our camera club. I am an English guy located in Ohio USA. Under our Nature category we cannot show the hand of man in any form what so ever. It even includes the tractor tyre prints in the mud, fence posts, cut stone, barb wire, gates etc.  Do you realize how hard that rule can be? When you are out and about in lovely Wales, just think about not showing the hand of man and capturing the image under our crazy rule. I can see you pondering the task, thanx again Steve

Mostly a camera capture what the eyes doesn't. Especially when doing low-light, Astro and aurora photography.

I don't mind cloning out a distraction that I couldn't remove or did not notice at time of taking , but I don't like to go to the point of adding things that were not there , or swapping skies etc  but its a personal choice so each to their own at the end of the day , it's your art - do it your way ......

Absolutely loved that image of the cluster of rocks framed by the tree's trunk and branches!

To many minds causes confusion there’s only one mind and that is truly the right decision. This is true mind at its highest levels

Your approach is almost exactly what I do. If I could theoretically have moved it, I am happy to clone it out. Traffic cones, temporary signs, fallen branches, windblown grasses, etc. An interesting example is cars. If a car is parked in my scene, I could wait for it to move on or I could clone it out. But if it's an abandoned rusty wreck, I treat that as part of the landscape and I'll leave it in.
However, I differ on sky replacement; I will do that provided the new sky is very similar to the original in light direction, tone, colour etc. Plus I tend not to fully replace the sky, rather, I blend another on top using soft-light blending mode and maybe 70% opacity. I find that gives a more seamless effect. My logic is that the sky is a changing backdrop and I could theoretically just wait till a new one arrives, but in practice there may not be time or opportunity, so I'll put in a sky that could have been there. What I won't do is try to fake a stormy sky or a sunrise etc. because that wouldn't reflect the scene as shot. But of course it is all a matter of personal judgement on how far you can stretch "integrity"!
One final thought; artists with paints have been adding and removing elements from their scenes for centuries and called it "artistic license". And they didn't feel the need to advertise it. I see no reason why photographers can't do the same if that's what they want.
BTW for focus stacking I use the focus bracketing in my camera, just with a small number(usually 3) of brackets; the camera then uses its high-speed continuous shooting to ensure no movement of the frame. I find that a lot easier to blend in post than trying to manually reframe the image accurately. (Of course, your OM1 will actually do the stacking part too if you want but I usually do that in post.)

I appreciate knowing about camera settings, focus stacking,bracketing etc. is helpful for improving my photos.