Cars spoiling pictures of ancient surroundings

It can be difficult to get a shot free of cars in many locations these days, such is our love affair with the car.  I am as guilty as most others in being a car owner myself, but I try to park inconspicuously when visiting scenic locations.

Careful consideration of how to line up a shot can help in excluding cars from the scene, or by choosing a quiet time of day, but it seems to be a losing battle. There are many views in England which have changed little in 500 years or more and the intrusion of the car into such scenes is quite depressing. Unless there is no alternative, I would not bother photographing a historic scene spoiled by cars. 

Any other members consider the motor car to be their 'Bete Noir'? 

I must say I agree with you Edward. Why are they always bright red cars or white vans. I wish people walking in the country would also refrain from wearing red jackets! Suppose we have just got to put up with it and try to frame them out.

For most shots I would agree with you that cars and people can initially spoil the shot. I say initially because it is always worth taking the shot for historic value. It is always good to look back on the shot a decade or so later and you will see them in a totally new light and nostalgia. They may never be great shots but they do have that documentation and interest value and someone may want a photo dated from a certain period.

Sorry Paul but I have to hold my hand up and say I own a red estate car no red jacket though. In my defence as a photographer I do try keep the thing hidden. 

Cars look fine in street view shots in a contemporary context, and as  you say Darrell, give an indicator of the period when the shot was taken .They are part of our life and love them or hate them, they won't go away. I am not too bothered by people in shots, unless it makes the shot look like one of Granny's holiday snaps.  

I think my original gripe is when I see a line of parked cars intruding on the view of ancient buildings. Some councils are sensitive to car parking in historic environments. I know of some streets in Oxford where cars are banned, and the only hint that the view is 21st century is the presence of double yellow lines ! 

Red is often a very good colour to include into photography, including scenic and urban shots. 

As for cars, well they are part of 21st century life. Often, they can be cloned out. People, whatever they are wearing can also be either cloned out, or if on the move, made to be invisible by a long exposure.

I know that the use of photo editing is frowned upon by purists. But then people use to think that steam locos would stop the chickens laying! Full frame sensors also allow more in the way of cropping. he end result is nearly always the only thing a viewer is interested in. Photoshop was not invented by the Devil.   

I am reluctant to use photo editing software to clone out cars (or any other undesired objects) from a scene, because it goes against my aim of trying to get the composition right at the time of shooting. In any case, the result can often be less than perfect, unless you are extremely skilled (which I am not).

However, I am not against using Lightroom or similar for Dodging and Burning (using the Adjustment Brush) as would be done by hand in the old fashioned darkroom. In fact this step is often necessary to avoid the dreaded 'whited out' skies which seem so common in the UK at the moment. 

I agree that photo editing, especially cloning can be seen as a last resort. However, unless one is prepared to return to a scene in the maybe futile hope that all will be perfect, then cloning can save the day. 

If the result after cloning is not good, well certainly capitulate with fate and either delete or try again. 

Photoshop is not the product of the Devil, merely a tool. Things have moved on since the days we all had darkrooms. As a bit of a Luddite myself, I have had to realise that photography is now an even more complex medium, involving less chemicals but more in the way of (digital) manipulation. I fail to see how manipulation is bad if it is not detectable.  

Do the end results justify the means? Maybe a topic for more debate.

Over to you Edward, Darrell and Paul.  

I certainly agree with you Rod. It was brought home to me some time ago when I was shown some wedding photographs of a family friend, A whole set taken by the church doorway with a bright red fire extinguisher standing next to the bride, I scanned them and extinguished the extinguisher. The couple were over the moon.

Certainly if something spoils the look of a shot or is an irrelivance then I would clone. With all the modern digital programs available it would be foolish to ignore their capabilities. There is a need though to not overcompensate leaving an unrelistic appearance.

One should not forget though that care should be taken when setting up a shot to try and avoid including obtrusive objects.