One of our members, Steve R, posited that technique has disappeared. He was referring to the discussions involving technique. It seems that the technique has been replaced with which camera and software will provide one with the satisfaction of creating a notable photograph. I've observed that trend myself but not really given much thought to that occurrence. Most notably, I've been opposed to Luminar's claim to fame of replacing skies, etc.

Up until recently, I was completely opposed to substituting incredible skies into a landscape photograph, etc. I prefer to capture what's there. If what I want isn't there, I'm not disingenuous to 'fake' it. I liken it to say one is going fishing and upon not catching anything, going to a fresh fish store, and purchasing a large fish to return home and announce oneself as a great fisherman to have brought this wonderful dinner home.

Well, I've had a change of heart. I can see where there is a good cause for substituting skies, or any other background, in a photograph. This change was due to viewing a commercial photographer's work. The subject was shot in a studio and then an incredible and related background was placed in the photograph.

In this photographer's case, these are commercial photographs. They are done for pay, a sizable payment to say the least, and done with a time limit. They would be impossible to accomplish with the deadline given, people's schedules, etc. To say nothing of having nature cooperate with the ideal weather for a backdrop. So, in these cases, it is quite acceptable to produce a product photograph as quickly as possible.

Now, to the average person who wants to be a photographer. There is the knowledge that is needed to produce a successful and pleasing photograph. Today's cameras and associated software remove a great deal of the burden of photographic knowledge and simply reduce a good many to being merely camera operators. Ask yourself, if you didn't take that path, or continue to look for that path. It comes down to whether you wish to be a photographer or a mere button pusher. The choice is yours.

You can't purchase talent. You can, anyone can develop talent if they are willing to invest in learning the necessary skills as a foundation and then continuing to build on those skills. The results will be far more satisfying than just mastering which button to push. Kodak used to have an advertising expression, "You push the button. We do the rest". If photography and photographic art were that simple, why didn't the notable photographers resort to letting Kodak do the rest?

So, it comes down to whether you want to be a photographer or just a button pusher? One will produce photographs. The other will be entangled in a constant search for the "next best thing" that will propel them to the heights of photographic accomplishments they couldn't achieve on their own.
--Bob

One of our members, Steve R, posited that technique has disappeared. He was referring to the discussions involving technique. It seems that the technique has been replaced with which camera and software will provide one with the satisfaction of creating a notable photograph. I've observed that trend myself but not really given much thought to that occurrence. Most notably, I've been opposed to Luminar's claim to fame of replacing skies, etc.

Up until recently, I was completely opposed to substituting incredible skies into a landscape photograph, etc. I prefer to capture what's there. If what I want isn't there, I'm not disingenuous to 'fake' it. I liken it to say one is going fishing and upon not catching anything, going to a fresh fish store, and purchasing a large fish to return home and announce oneself as a great fisherman to have brought this wonderful dinner home.

Well, I've had a change of heart. I can see where there is a good cause for substituting skies, or any other background, in a photograph. This change was due to viewing a commercial photographer's work. The subject was shot in a studio and then an incredible and related background was placed in the photograph.

In this photographer's case, these are commercial photographs. They are done for pay, a sizable payment to say the least, and done with a time limit. They would be impossible to accomplish with the deadline given, people's schedules, etc. To say nothing of having nature cooperate with the ideal weather for a backdrop. So, in these cases, it is quite acceptable to produce a product photograph as quickly as possible.

Now, to the average person who wants to be a photographer. There is the knowledge that is needed to produce a successful and pleasing photograph. Today's cameras and associated software remove a great deal of the burden of photographic knowledge and simply reduce a good many to being merely camera operators. Ask yourself, if you didn't take that path, or continue to look for that path. It comes down to whether you wish to be a photographer or a mere button pusher. The choice is yours.

You can't purchase talent. You can, anyone can develop talent if they are willing to invest in learning the necessary skills as a foundation and then continuing to build on those skills. The results will be far more satisfying than just mastering which button to push. Kodak used to have an advertising expression, "You push the button. We do the rest". If photography and photographic art were that simple, why didn't the notable photographers resort to letting Kodak do the rest?

So, it comes down to whether you want to be a photographer or just a button pusher? One will produce photographs. The other will be entangled in a constant search for the "next best thing" that will propel them to the heights of photographic accomplishments they couldn't achieve on their own.
--Bob

Bob, it seems to me that this is the age old issue of whether post-processing is part of the photographic experience. There are some that think any tinkering with an image in post is unacceptable and that everything should be straight out of camera. Your former idea about not replacing skies is along this line of thinking. As a portrait photographer in the LA area, I get really tired of a monotone blue sky - often with no clouds or anything. Frankly, it is boring and leaves large sections of some shots devoid of interest. I have found that sky replacement can make an image go from average to exceptional. This is not 'cheating'. Where is the rule book? If the goal is to produce interesting/stunning images then I don't see any problem here. Compositing is a similar issue - is it photography to make a composite image? Who knows, but it is certainly art, and I would say that it is photography as well as I would also consider photography to be art in almost all cases - with the obvious exception of photojournalism. I would agree that if one is a photojournalist then they should do little to no post production to the images and they should most certainly not replace skies - but for everyone else - have at it! Just my POV. Thanks for bringing up this subject for discussion.