LarryFitz Loc: Beacon NY

You can also use TIFF.

Bogin Bob Loc: Tampa Bay, Florida

I am excited about the upgrade offered with Luminar 4 and now I will spend some time to learn where it can be best used for my photographic style. As with my portfolio of tools - Lightroom, NIK and easyHDR, there is not one single application that offers a do-all/end-all solution for me. Based on the native image I am post-processing, I reach into my toolkit and apply what my experience has worked for me ... oh, and I continue to find editing gems in each application as I experiment.

Re: clouds and skies ... I agree, shoot your own when out on a photoshoot, always carry a camera with you for that unplanned opportunity and search the web for free textures and images to save in a folder on your computer. Some include for example

https://freestocktextures.com/texture/
https://unsplash.com/collections/365/night-sky

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

You are correct about the glow. I did it quick and dirty in around two minutes to give an idea of the possibilities without the distraction of changing to a busy sky which draws attention away from the main subject. It wasn't intended as a finished product. I should have been clear about that.

While softening the sky might have helped a bit, both replacement skies are way too busy and unnatural looking. Perhaps for landscapes or seascapes with no single specific subject they might work better.

dannac Loc: 60 miles SW of New Orleans

Raw does not work on my machine ( Win 7 PC )

Tiff and jpg do.

Files supplied by Luminar are jpg.

Files below are screen captures.

Original

(Download)

With tiff sky

(Download)

Faststone Image Viewer

(Download)

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

I know you were just posting this as an example, but interestingly, the one with the original sky looks much better in my opinion. The added sky does not look that natural and is so busy it distracts the eye away from the actual subject, the tree. I'm sure with diligence there are sky replacements that will work quite well in a lot of situations. However, I'm afraid that this special effect will be overused by those who don't understand the negative impact of an overly busy and unnatural looking sky on their overall composition. I also believe that most people will use these overly dramatic built in skies rather than their own.

It seems to me that in the end, for many images the focal point will be taken away from the original subject and replaced with these busy and dramatic skies. In that case, why bother taking photos in the first place? Just create them on line.

dannac Loc: 60 miles SW of New Orleans

Yes, someone asked if it only works with jpg ... just wanted to show it works with tiff.
... and that you can also add your own images to the Luminar sky texture folder.

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

You can add your own custom skies for replacement; not limited to the defaults! bwa

cyclespeed Loc: Calgary, Alberta Canada

Let's be honest. Most of us would never attempt to replace the sky until L4 came along. Now it can really enhance your image in less than 1 minute.
Any time we get someone appraising our images we have a variety of opinions. It is only natural. I like the time saving functions that Luminar offers since I'd sooner be there as in outside enjoying life as opposed to spending a lot of passive time in front of a computer.
Going for a bike ride now. bye. 😎

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

"Enhance" is a matter of opinion. I'm all for saving time, but for me whether its worth replacing skies will depend on how natural it looks and whether the result is true to what I had in my mind's eye when I captured the image. So far, all the examples I've seen in this thread and others have resulted in unrealistic an overly dramatic and overly saturated looking skies. If the skies and the effects they create were subtler I mind find the process more appealing. I think they purposely included very dramatic looking skies to make the end result more obvious.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

While I think sky replacement can be a valuable tool, my personal opinion is that the examples shown overdo it. The skies distract from the main subject in the photos.

And I would highly recommend creating your own library of skies to be used for replacements.

Ednsb Loc: Santa Barbara

wow, I thought this was a place for photographers to chat not attack. CC is fine but there is a fine line between I'm not sure I would do it that way and you suck

to recap facts:
1. the ai sky replacement is a pretty good piece of coding
2. it doesn’t fit every picture (lots of videos out saying what to do if if did work
3. you can use your own skies - but they do have to be jpegs for now and you need to crop them to have nothing on the horizon then adjust it horizontally
4. for me the biggest issue with this is the same as for any composite image - they have to match. You can't have a picture lite from the back then put a sky in that has it lit from the upper left.
5. like everything else Macphun/skylum has put out in the beginning people will experiment and show OTT results. HDR, sun rays, and now this. How does the old saying go - all things in moderation.

What I am hoping they take this to being able to mask anything.. now that would help me a ton.

Wanderer2 Loc: Colorado Rocky Mountains

Thanks for this info on sky replacement. If my own skies have to be jpg files I will wait and hope that L4 changes that so my RAW files can be used. If anyone using another editing program that does sky replacement easily and relatively simply can recommend one please post that info. I use Affinity Photo and it can do sky replacement but AFAIK it's much more complicated and labor intensive (I've yet to try it) than that described for L4 in this thread. I only wish to change skies between two I have taken, the two being of the same scene.

Thanks again. I know what it's like to be the subject of "your photographs suck" criticism and it isn't pleasant. It should be kept in mind that much of what we do is subjective as to what is good and what isn't.

dannac Loc: 60 miles SW of New Orleans

You can use Tiff files also.

Bogin Bob Loc: Tampa Bay, Florida

Well said ...

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

I not sure anyone said the photos with the replaced skies suck. I know I did not. What I did say was that so far all the images I've seen in which skies were replied in Luminar didn't look natural and were overly dramatic. What that means is that not every image is necessarily a good candidate for dramatic sky replacement and that sky replacements should be selected very carefully taking the impact to the original composition into account. In real life skies are rarely as dramatic as some of the examples I've seen. At this point I see the sky replacement as an interesting special effect that may work with certain images, especially equally dramatic landscapes and seascapes. Like any special effect it can easily be over used and over done though. It is not a panacea for every image with a less than exciting sky.

The other issue I have is if the sky is a significant portion of the final image, then it becomes more of a composite image, manufactured and put together. And its not even all your image if you use a built in sky. This is very different from using post processing tools to enhance the actual image that was captured. I may occasionally remove small visual distractions from my images, but I never add anything that wasn't there to start with.