Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Often, in the past, I have read how many photographers defend their PPd pics as being true photographs by saying that they have reproduced what their "eyes saw" rather than what the camera shot. What would they say when the photograph included a replacement sky, which bore no relationship to the true sky as recorded by the camera?

suntouched Loc: Sierra Vista AZ

In their mind's eye they saw a different sky than what was there :)

Lucian Loc: From Wales, living in Ohio

What would you expect them to say? Obviously that they replaced the sky. It's important to understand that no camera can reproduce the dynamic range that our eye can see, therefore we have to adjust portions of an image if we are to show a viewer what we actually saw through our eyes. That would be a perfectly acceptable thing to do. In fact, Ansel Adams spent hours in the dark room to bring onto paper, exactly what his eye saw. Not one single image was straight out of the camera, yet it seems none of the purists ever seem to comment on that fact.

Therefore, if someone wishes to change a sky to improve their image that is perfectly acceptable and if you were not there you would not know the difference, so why would it even matter? That is more to the question, when does it ever matter?

Rongnongno Loc: FL

If using luminar the choices are limited...
If using PS CC the sky is the limit...
Best bet is to use what the saw and it sees many things the eye does not. It is just how you pull this information out that makes a difference. If overdone of course it becomes ugly...

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

No artist ever sees things only as the camera would. If he did, he would cease to be an artist.

MW

Unless they be “journalists” reporting on the weather, other natural disasters or ET invaders I would say it’s NOMB what they do with the sky.

saxman71 Loc: Wenatchee

The only reason I would care is if I wanted to understand how it was done so I would know how to do it.

Electric Gnome Loc: Norwich UK

I think as long as the photographer is honest and admits any edits that change the scene quite a bit then there is no problem. I do not like major changes like skies or large objects cloned out without the photographer mentioning them. In the film days the top darkrooms made a surprising number of changes to negatives although mostly it was just dodge and burning. The end image is what we are all aiming for and whatever post processing you do doesn't really matter it's all part of the process. For me I hate heavy hands on sliders giving colours an oversaturated, ghastly look and sometimes wonder which planet the photographer was on as it certainly wasn't planet earth!

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Of course, anyone can do what pleases them. I post process every one of my raw images in DXO PhotoLab Elite so post processing is an important part of my photography. I played with a demo version of Luminar 4 and even though Luminar's sky replacement technology is quite effective and mostly natural looking I have a few problems with it.

It takes no effort to use and there is very little skill or creativity required by the user. Most people use the overly dramatic stock skies provided by Luminar which can divert the focus of an image from the original subject to the sky. Sky replacement also automatically changes the lighting and affects the colors of an image to match the new sky with little input from the user. The continued use of the same set of stock skies is already becoming repetitive and monotonous. On several occasions I have noticed various images "created" by different people using the same Luminar stock sky. It's getting boring. Finally, and most importantly. if you replace a significant portion of your image with a dramatic stock sky created by someone else, can you still claim the resulting composite image as your own?

Luminar sky replacement is fun and easy to use but I don't think the technology will become an important, oft used tool, for serious photographers. However, who can say what changes the future will bring.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

"Defend" their pp? Is this an example of a false premise?

The photographers I know are happy to share their vision, decision-making and their techniques with any who are interested. For those not interested: it's your image, do what you want to it 😇

R.G. Loc: Scotland

I would say "So what? That's the sky they would have had under better circumstances. And that sky looks perfectly feasible to me. It's every bit as "true" as any other photo of the sky that he/she might have used, including the original".

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

No - not defend their PP - defend the pic as a true photograph. They may, of course, be right. I suppose I still hold the opinion that a true photograph is a true record, so perhaps rather than suggest that PP'd photographs should be denoted as such in some way, photographs that have not been physically altered should themselves be described differently, but I think I'm on a hiding to nothing, as I can only think of "truepics"

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

A camera never sees what an eye is capable of seeing and our brains interpret what the eye sees. We are all unique in that respect.

The only set of eyes and brain that matter are behind the camera. If inserting a sky into a photograph pleases you then do it...otherwise don't. Its no different than HDR, high or low key, B&W, or artificial lighting.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

You're still using "defend" as if it's what the photographer is doing. It's not.

As to truepics, surely you've read the weekly topics on the subject of sooc vs pp? In-camera processing vs. software? Wet darkroom? Ansel? I know you have!

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Linda's right - your choice of words is suggesting that there's something inherently deceitful about using PP. If a photographer was presenting a photo as being "real" with the intention of giving a misleading impression, that would be deceit. Replacing a sky doesn't fall into that category.

For most people the intention behind taking a photo is to produce a pleasing image. That's why we clone over bits of rubbish (and other distractions) and replace things like skies. If you see that as transgressing some moral code then I suggest you rethink your ethics because you're limiting yourself unnecessarily.

When artistic photography was in its adolescence there was a trend for deliberately having subjects (including people) touch the edge of the frame to the point of having parts of them out of shot. It was considered to be a way to preserve the integrity of the art because it was a deliberate reminder that photos aren't real. By giving that reminder the photographer/artist was showing that they weren't trying to use photography to deceive. I think we can safely say that we've grown beyond that need to repeatedly prove our honest intentions.

There's no such thing.