I feel a need to explain my personal bias before responding to this question. I am not a strong supporter of the cut, paste, and cloning tools found in Photoshop, or other like programs. When a photograph it taken, it's not just a record of the "main subject," it's a record of the surroundings. When we remove or add stuff, we are not capturing the moment, we are creating a world that does not exist.
In this case, instead of searching for ways to "improve" the image by removing references to civilization, why not incorporate them into the photograph as a record of the inter-face between us and the wild creatures we stopped to admire in the first place.
Yeah, I agree totally, when I cut and paste, I feel like I am somehow cheating the photograph.
A few years ago we stopped somewhere in Northern CA, or maybe Oregon, and photographed Elk grazing on grass in front of a red building. It might have been a church or something. The juxtaposition of the elk, green grass, blue sky, red building, and tourists is one of my favorite photos.
And before you ask, yes I use Aperture for my post production work. Mainly to correct my mistakes in exposure, and maybe add a little contrast.

Photoshop Elements 11 will do this in a variety of ways. It is on sale in Costco this week for $49.

These ladies had some stuff around them I removed with Elements 10. They were in a neighbor's yard.

I feel a need to explain my personal bias before responding to this question. I am not a strong supporter of the cut, paste, and cloning tools found in Photoshop, or other like programs. When a photograph it taken, it's not just a record of the "main subject," it's a record of the surroundings. When we remove or add stuff, we are not capturing the moment, we are creating a world that does not exist.
In this case, instead of searching for ways to "improve" the image by removing references to civilization, why not incorporate them into the photograph as a record of the inter-face between us and the wild creatures we stopped to admire in the first place.
A few years ago we stopped somewhere in Northern CA, or maybe Oregon, and photographed Elk grazing on grass in front of a red building. It might have been a church or something. The juxtaposition of the elk, green grass, blue sky, red building, and tourists is one of my favorite photos.
And before you ask, yes I use Aperture for my post production work. Mainly to correct my mistakes in exposure, and maybe add a little contrast.

Simply taking a photo creates a world that does not exist. Last I checked the world is three dimensions, but photos are mostly in two dimensions.

Next, exposure alters this reality.

Then lens choice alters this reality.

And lastly, the way I look at a scene is probably much different that the way you see it. Which one of these is right?

Of course there's the philosophy that there is no reality, since all of us interpret our own reality.

Heavy enough?

Go ahead an continue shoot your photos the way you're most comfortable with, I'll shoot mine my way. I don't have to impress you unless you hired me. :-D