Cheating?

Hi All,
I took this picture of a sand castle sculpture at my local seafront but because of the background it is not one I would care to look at again and it would remain in the library only as a record shot.




So I changed the background.




Opinions?

Not a problem. The background allows the eye to concentrate on the work in hand i.e. the castle. The original context does the castle no favours. You get a more fairy tale feel to the image and the art of the sculptor. IMVHO excellent job. Certainly NOT cheating.

Thank you Doug

I agree with Doug!

I really like it Steve - did you do this with Elements?

Very clever however it was done,

Kind regards
Charlotte

Not cheating if it's about the image rather than an accurate record of events. I would have probably chosen a dark sky or lightning to give it a more 'horror movie' feel.

I'm currently tweaking all my recent holiday photo's to give them a more pleasing look.

Not cheating Steve - you have turned an almost unusable image into a great one! There are endless possibilities now that you can choose your own background - what about a nice sunset?

Some good ideas there, lightening...sunset I may have another go.

Charlotte, I used a picture I took of a great sky with whispy cirrus clouds as the background and simply used the eraser to rub out what I didn't want so the sky showed through.
P.S I was once told that if I saw a good sky to record it and keep it in a folder because you will take loads of pics that will have bland or grey skies and use these "backup" skies instead. Good advice, this is the first time I have tried it and it seems to have worked.

what is the point of this photo? i think you might want to show everyone that you have come cross an amazing thing in the real world. how do i know it's real, rather than being created from a computer program? the background told everything.

Cheating, yes imo but I don't see an alternative.

The moment you point a camera and compose a shot you change/slant/interpret the meaning of what you see. Taking the image of a refugee through barbed wire, even though it doesn't surround them etc etc ...

On these forums there is almost no discussion of meaning, and very little of composition.

It's a fabulous sand castle and the second treatment enhances and conveys that very well. The disruption to your verisimilitude by the background, highlights just how good the sculpting is ...

The simple blue background is very effective at highlighting the castle but as others have pointed out more dramatic and fantastic skies may deliver even more.

I like it

Personally I don't like altering a photo with major cloning/ background changes without telling people - you have told people and have not tried to pass it off as unaltered so I have no issue - for me it's all about the description/ honesty

Hear Hear!! Agree with every word Stuey.

It's your photo, do what the hell you want LOL.

Personally the original background is a nightmare, far to frantic with colours shapes and lines, not to mention just a plain ugly urban scene.

I like the new background, but would like to see it B&W, as mentioned might give it a bit of the Bram Stoker.

The '3rd way' I suppose you could create the fake BOKEH in Photoshop with the original background, keeping a hint of the 'record' but not taking from the castle

Cheating? What is cheating? Are there rules somewhere? Ones we sign up to when we buy a camera? Is photography art, or is it the recording of information? I think it can be either. It's especially good when it's both.

IMO The sandcastle looks far better with the replacement background; my only criticism is that, as previously mentioned, the background itself could be a bit more dramatic, to do this amazing sculpture justice. If yoy are going to "cheat", you may as well go the whole hog.

I have no problem with replacing the sky, but I do think the image is somewhat spoilt by the inconsistent lighting. The sky shows dramatic, bright lighting, but the foreground is dull unlit and bland.

When two images are combined, it's very useful for the lighting conditions on all parts of the image to be the same. Without this, we won't be convinced that the sky is really part of this scene.

Hope that doesn't seem harsh and that it helps.