Luminar - Replace sky?
Apr 23, 2020 20:19:22 #
I don't care if someone else wants to replace a sky. It's up to the individual. To me my landscapes are personal records of the special places that I have visited during my life. Visions of these places are also stored in my mind and I don't need or want to change them.
Apr 23, 2020 20:31:00 #
https://www.anthropics.com
Check this out- from the Portrait-Pro folks, a new landscape program that, among another editing tools, has a sky replacement system. Looks interesting!
Check this out- from the Portrait-Pro folks, a new landscape program that, among another editing tools, has a sky replacement system. Looks interesting!
Apr 23, 2020 20:42:20 #
mwsilvers
Loc: Central New Jersey
rcarol wrote:
What if you use your own sky? Luminar 4 does allow you to use your own.
For those that use their own skies, that is a whole different story. However, I'm assuming a large majority of people will use one of the stock skies.
Apr 23, 2020 20:48:06 #
mwsilvers wrote:
For those that use their own skies, that is a whole different story. However, I'm assuming a large majority of people will use one of the stock skies.
I have a library of shots that I have taken and saved over the years. I have never used any other.
Apr 23, 2020 23:16:18 #
twosummers
Loc: Melbourne Australia or Lincolnshire England
Ah this old chestnut arises again. I agree with many that it's your photograph so do what you want with it. Most of us shoot in raw and processing is therefore a requirement. I am a real estate photographer and Luminar 4 has been a revelation for me. I also use DXO Photolab for perspective adjustment. Unless I've missed something I haven't seen anything yet that gets close to the sky replacement function in L4 - the masking in most cases is quite astonishing. If time is money and the client is happy with swapping a sky or removing an unwanted artefact then I don't have a problem. Whenever I see a nice sky and have my camera handy I'll add this to my collection and use these skies in L4 as appropriate. I'll often use HDR too which I suppose to some is cheating.
Apr 24, 2020 03:29:41 #
twosummers wrote:
.....which I suppose to some is cheating.
I've noticed that the anti-replacement camp keep using terms like "deception" and "cheating", as if such underhand motives were common amongst us advocators of sky replacement and other forms of extreme processing. Post processing isn't a despicable form of perfidy - it's a way to achieve our intent and vision. If you're a hobbyist you don't have to explain yourself to anybody, and it's up to you to decide how much disclosing you want to do, because it's between you and your own conscience.
Having said that, there is something to be said for honesty with ourselves and others. We can all claim ownership of the final product of our editing, but it would be dishonest to claim that it was all our own work when the truth is it included contributions from other sources. However, the anti-replacement camp keep suggesting that we're in danger of being overtaken by a tidal wave of such deception - I suspect the reality is it would be rare. Deliberate professional deception would be another matter, and a less trivial one, but for the most part that's not what's being discussed.
Post processing is a useful tool, and in the right hands it can be very effective. There's nothing virtuous about avoiding PP or using minimal amounts of it. It is in using optimum amounts that we demonstrate mastery of the craft, and that's where the true virtue lies.
Apr 24, 2020 04:48:21 #
wds0410 wrote:
I would say there are no rules and it's the final result that matters. Those who say there is a loss of integrity are the photograher equivalent of a writer who never uses an editor or re-writes anything.
rmalarz wrote:
Personally, I don't do a lot of PP because:Personally, I'm not a fan of this manner of work at all. With today's cameras, that try to think for us and then Luminar's push-button make a photograph, it's great for marketing but it certainly doesn't make a photographer. People who couldn't produce a photograph with a simple manual camera if their life depended on it, can now produce a "wow look what I did". That is after randomly poking at some buttons in a program. There is definitely a lack of integrity somewhere.
--Bob
--Bob
1. I'm lazy
2. I'd rather be out and about than hunched over a computer. Did that for 30 years.
When I started, I'd fix a bug by placing a machine code jump before the problem branching out to a patch area, insert machine code to fix the bug, then jumping back to continue. Does that make me a COMPUTER PROGRAMMER because I knew machine code, while someone who now "just" uses a high level language to recode, recompiles, and relinks not a programmer? I don't think so. When better tech comes along, I'm all for using it.
If I climb the mountain and use my 50mm lens to get a shot does that make me a "true" photographer, while someone standing at the bottom using a 1000mm lens with image stabilization enabled to get the shot is not a "true" photographer?
I learned on a Yashica rangefinder 50+ years ago. My travel partner's first camera was the one I bought her 2 years ago. She shoots full auto, I don't, so is she not a photographer while I am. Because I don't use full manual, but shutter priority with auto ISO, am I not a photographer?
For me, MY definition of photographer "is a person who takes photographs". Whether it's fiddling with settings, or pushing a button, SOOC, or PP'd, it's YOUR photo, and it's a photographer that takes it.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.