airplane jet streams

<p>What do you do with airplane jet streams in your photos: ignore them, erase them (if possible), ...?<br>

See the photo below, it could be interpreted as a piece of pristine nature spoiled by modern life, or a modern version of nature. I have found that is some great places there is no longer such things as stream-free skies. What would Ansel Adams have done with for example Grand Teton & Snake River ...and a nice jet stream?</p><div></div>

<p>That's why they invented photoshop as far as commercial image sales go.</p>

<p>Either you use photoshop, wait (possibly a long time) for clear skies or you just put up with them. There are no other choices. In most places there should be some times of the day (and directions) when no aircraft are visible</p>

<p>If none of the above are acceptable to you, then you're screwed I guess!</p>

<p>It doesn't seem as though we're talking about journalism, here. Fix it in post.</p>

<p>I make them disappear using the PS condensation trail filter, (aka clone tool.)</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>I actually have a photo gallery on my website called "Contrails". Embrace them when they are unusual! If that doesn't work for you, just go to wilderness areas that are not underneath the usual jet routes...or confine yourself to macro shots of flowers...or wait for a storm and cloudy conditions...or...yep, I guess there is always the clone tool.</p><div></div>

<p>The clone, content aware and healing wand in Photoshop, all offer correction options, depending on the severity and location of the con trail in the image. When I'm shooting a landscape, I feel no guilt in removing a man-made element.</p>

<p>You could crop.</p>

<p>Thank you for your answers. So erasing the "contrails" seems to be the common advice (unless it is the main subject), or wait...<br /> <br /> back to the core of my initial question: would you keep the photo above as it is, no cloning, no cropping? My answer is yes, although I am not so sure..<br>

An what about this one below? My own answer is yes, but only because the contrails are somewhat parallels to the mountain' stratigrapy, and maybe to other clouds.</p><div></div>

<p>Why not make both 'real' and 'photo-shopped' versions then view or exhibit according to taste? For the second PS'ed shot it might be best to replace the sky completely from a similar shot without the contrails.</p>

<p>Sometimes, the contrails work with the shot, especially if the aircraft is visible.</p><div></div>

<p>Colin, is replacing the sky still photography, or painting?<br>

William, nice photo, but no longer Chiricahua, if it was your initial intention. I would say now: Chiricahua today, modern life, etc.</p>

<p>Or, Chiricahua, interrupted? ;-)</p>

<p>I don't do enough landscape stuff to worry about the contrails but, have had a few show up across some "open sky" BIF shots.</p>

<p>When possible I use that same filter they do in SD!</p>

<p>I suppose a contrail in the right position just behind the subject of a BIF shot could <em>add</em> to the photo, . . . well, maybe not!</p>

<p>"When possible I use that same filter they do in SD"<br>

"SD"? what is this magic filter?</p>

<p>I remove them in post. Radio towers, too. They are usually much easier to deal with than electrical wires...</p>

<p>Amazingly, just a couple of weeks ago at the coffee shop an actual believer in "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory">chemtrails</a>" introduced himself to me. I didn't think what I was discussing with another person was <em>that</em> weird. What did Burns say about the power to see ourselves as others see us? (rhetorical question)</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>That's not a chemtrail, THIS is a chemtrail...</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>is replacing the sky still photography, or painting?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Didier, to me replacing the sky is just a choice. If you change the image at all with post-processing then changing the whole sky is just a matter of degree and you would still retain the original with contrails.</p>

<p>It's your pixels. You decide. You've already removed the colors I can see.<br>

If you want people to see "a piece of pristine nature spoiled by modern life, or a modern version of nature", then don't remove the stripe. However, I'm not sure if this is a good example of that.</p>

<p>Colin, "If you change the image at all with post-processing then changing the whole sky is just a matter of degree". Well, IMHO at some point there is a transition, like ice <=> water even with a steady variation in temperature.<br>

Frode, "You've already removed the color I can see." Yes, but that was before taking the pictures (B&W film). So it's a bit different...<br>

"It's your pixels. You decide". Sure, but, like all photographers, I am interested in other people's opinion.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Frode, "You've already removed the color I can see." Yes, but that was before taking the pictures (B&W film). So it's a bit different...</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>OK (however, I don't agree on the distinction you make). But then, what about the very white and visible arrow you added in the image?</p>

<p>There is a point in what I'm saying, that you make images to show something you want to show, not to fulfill a set of rules.</p>

<p>Most photographers will clone contrails out. Personally although I don't want them in my public images, I decided long ago to leave them in as well as all manner of other man made elements in my subjects. And state such on my Style & Philosophy sub-page. That can mean I won't get the shot and indeed such has sometimes been the situation. I simply wait till they drift away or change my frame. With contrails in certain regions, there are certain types of weather and times of day when they tend to make taking any image impossible. This image had a fine contrail upper mid right that I leave in the large print.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.davidsenesac.com/images/print_06-O-6.html">http://www.davidsenesac.com/images/print_06-O-6.html</a></p>

<p>For some types of photography manipulating images in post processing is no issue at all. For example product advertising where all manner of creative actions are expected. However the OP is more narrowly considering landscape and nature images. I learned Photoshop at a high level back in the 3.0 days in the mid 90s before this era of digital cameras. One of the processes I studied was totally replacing skies and can readily do so. I could see there would be a day when many photographers would embrace manipulating skies without limit and that has come to pass. As just a form of art,l I don't have ethical issue with any photographer that modifies their images in post processing removing or adding elements including skies as long as they are honest and up front about what they do at least in some small way with their public audience.</p>

<p>Unfortunately among serious photographers who sell images it is those who manipulate the most that often are the least likely to say anything at all. Thus there are not a few prominent photographers that are producing highly manipulated skies beyond just removing contrails and jacking up saturation. A favorite is brightening up clouds and skies at the center golden spot so it centers the balance in a frame. Also replacing any clouds that don't add to the overall frame aesthetic with blue sky. Although I don't have ethical issues with those who do manipulate their images in post processing adding or removing elements as long as they are honest with their public audience, it is also true I don't value their body of work as much as those that do not.</p>

<p>"I decided long ago to leave them in as well as all manner of other man made elements in my subjects". So you would rather keep the contrail on my first photo, which is so far my favorite option.<br>

Maybe time will legitimate contrails' presence in landscape like it has done for steam from locomotives?</p><div></div>

<p>To the OP i would personally edit the first image, but not the 2nd.<br />The first one while barely visible, is an inconsistency.<br />Where as the 2nd image, has the trails consistently through the entire image</p>