ADDENDUM: Looking at these photographs, I suspect that I am getting some bad press from my previous post where I spotted the pegboard from behind the crucifix. When someone sees the backgrounds on these shots I suspect that they think they were achieved by spotting out pegboard or other objects. I don't suppose I should be upset about that assumption but you would be surprised how infrequently I do that. Yes I do occasionally remove objects, especially on the edges when I simply can't avoid getting them in the photograph. I work very hard to 'select' from the clutter, find a point of view that provides a 'clean' background. Many times I will pass up a shot because I cannot avoid the clutter--not often, because I generally make that decision when I see the object and seldom attempt to shoot something that I am aware will simply not work. When I shoot in antique stores, or anywhere else, it is just as important to me to look at the background as it is the primary subject matter of the photograph. I approach the objects like I do much of my photography as found objects, I almost never move or rearrange an object--I'm sort of that way with all my photography. I'm not interested in arranging. I am interested in what has been arranged, either consciously or without human intervention. Not exactly sure why that is, but it is. In browsing through these images only the first one has a background that does not work as well as I would like. I just couldn't get high enough. Most backgrounds were chosen very deliberately from what was available--and none have the pegboard spotted out. Just thought I would mention that.