Your opinion: New software (Luminar 4) has the function to insert or overlay a false sky onto almost any landscape photo. I am somewhat of a purist and prefer to enhance the landscape...

notnowdarnit

New software (Luminar 4) has the function to insert or overlay a false sky onto almost any landscape photo.
I am somewhat of a purist and prefer to enhance the landscape as photographed. I had to try the software just for the sake of curiosity. The results were amazing and no one could tell that the landscape was a fake.
What is your opinion about inserting false elements into a landscape ?

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

It's your image, your art. Unless you're trying to present as reality ("Look at this awesome rainbow I photographed!"), where's the harm?

On UHH, I think it's instructive to state any major changes. In Photo Gallery there are a lot of sooc purists and those who do no post-processing. I think it would be courteous to let those folks know if you are faking

I have sometimes said, "this is definitely not straight out of camera" and then people can ask about creation or elements within if they are curious. I recently posted a photo to Landscape Forum that is the least processed photo I've shared in awhile, yet to some it could look a bit unreal:
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-632640-1.html

btw, there have been Luminar skies posted here where some of us could tell they were fake because the color of the light, its direction and time of day were wrong. That is an example of what I mean by "instructive" - we can all learn from discussions of that sort.

couch coyote Loc: northern Illinois

I think it depends on each photographer's individual preferences. There's really no wrong answer. If I get one that is great right out of the camera, I'm thrilled. But part of the fun (for me) is creating something that doesn't exist in nature. The only limit is my imagination. Wheee! :)

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

How would anyone, other than the photographer, know that the sky was from another image?
Does it really matter if it's an artistic creation?
If one uses a polarizer, I guess that's not really what the sky looked like, it's been enhanced.
Or enhanced in post.
Does anyone ever ask a painter "Is that really what it looked like?"?

Where is the line drawn?

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

couch coyote wrote:

... Wheee!

Ched49 Loc: Pittsburgh, Pa.

notnowdarnit wrote:

New software (Luminar 4) has the function to insert or overlay a false sky onto almost any landscape photo.
I am somewhat of a purist and prefer to enhance the landscape as photographed. I had to try the software just for the sake of curiosity. The results were amazing and no one could tell that the landscape was a fake.
What is your opinion about inserting false elements into a landscape ?

If you are somewhat of a purist, then you wouldn't use Luminar 4. To practice with it to see how it looks is one thing, I would never alter a photograph that I took.

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

notnowdarnit wrote:

New software (Luminar 4) has the function to insert or overlay a false sky onto almost any landscape photo.
I am somewhat of a purist and prefer to enhance the landscape as photographed. I had to try the software just for the sake of curiosity. The results were amazing and no one could tell that the landscape was a fake.
What is your opinion about inserting false elements into a landscape ?

It can be an artistic decision. For "documentry" potographs it is a big no no!

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Ched49 wrote:

If you are somewhat of a purist, then you wouldn't use Luminar 4. To practice with it to see how it looks is one thing, I would never alter a photograph that I took.

For ME, Photography remains a believable REALITY medium. Additions and subtractions ARE possible -IF- they are subordinate to the reality of the main subject and are undetectable by normal means.
.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

notnowdarnit wrote:

New software (Luminar 4) has the function to insert or overlay a false sky onto almost any landscape photo.
I am somewhat of a purist and prefer to enhance the landscape as photographed. I had to try the software just for the sake of curiosity. The results were amazing and no one could tell that the landscape was a fake.
What is your opinion about inserting false elements into a landscape ?

Photography has always been manipulation. Just look at Ansel Adams. One just has to determine what the rules are if it is a competition, or decide just how much manipulation one is willing to do. Even from the most purist perspective, film or sensor will never capture the exact same colors that one's eye will see. You may not be able to detect the difference, but the difference in color is already the very first infinitesimal manipulation. Add in the many other manipulations as you wish. Stop when you have achieved the image you want.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Ched49 wrote:

If you are somewhat of a purist, then you wouldn't use Luminar 4. To practice with it to see how it looks is one thing, I would never alter a photograph that I took.

A true purist will not use an editor as it transforms reality. Camera modes and filters can also transform reality.

I'm SO glad I'm not a purist!!!

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Photographers have been replacing skies almost since the invention of photography. It's really up to your personal photographic ethics. Myself, I have no problem making images that don't resemble how my eye saw the scene.

Stardust Loc: Central Illinois

notnowdarnit wrote:

... I am somewhat of a purist and prefer to enhance the landscape as photographed.

Isn't that an oxymoronic statement? Can one be a purist and an enhancer at the same time? In reality photographs are altered the second they enter the lens. The only question is where one wants to stop at alternations.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The artist spends years learning to create images no one else could create in a life-time.

traderjohn Loc: New York City

CHG_CANON wrote:

The artist spends years learning to create images no one else could create in a life-time.

I think with all the various software programs that can enhance the average/normal picture; the creation is done by manipulating a variety of different sliders. Then moving that result into perhaps another software program for a finishing touch up. Not an artist ...now a technician.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

PP's great strength is that it can be used to push a shot in the direction of what it would have been if it had been taken in better circumstances. If you're changing the sky from what it was when you took the shot you're simply saying "This is what the sky could have been like on a better day". Is anybody going to jump up and shout "No it couldn't!"? If you're not deliberately trying to deceive then I would say you haven't broken any moral or ethical code and I would be inclined to congratulate you on successfully improving one of your shots - which is what I would be inclined to do with any successful PP.