lorvey Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

Luminar and PS 21 can now do sky replacement. Don't get me wrong, I sometimes massage my photos a lot by cropping, using spot repair, cloning out small unwanted bits, adjust exposure, and sometimes add a little saturation. But sky replacement to me seems like too much. Do you still call it a photo after you replace the sky? Do you enter it in a contest without saying anything. Do you accept compliments without saying anything? Not trying to be a purist, but when you start adding and replacing items in a photo, it seems to me it is no longer a photo. It's probably photo art. Not trying to start a fight, just interested in your perspective.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

Is photography an art or isn't it? If it is, are there any rules to art?

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

I lean towards your way of thinking!

Ourspolair

Didn't we just go through 22 pages of post on a horribly similar subject?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

It's simply a composite of two (or more) photos.
Still a photo.
But some people like to keep images a virgin, no "adulteration".

If it looks better/more interesting, what's the problem?

Photo+photo=photo.

But then it is a personal choice/belief.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

In photo contests where authenticity is important, I believe the usual procedure is to ask that the original raw file be tendered along with the finished photo. If authenticity isn't important, I suppose the simple fact is that nobody cares, as long as the starting point was the contestant's own photo.

As far as your comment above is concerned, it seems to me that what you consider acceptable or unacceptable will depend on what your intention was. If the intention was to create a pleasing image, you won't care what's been added or taken away, and you won't care about what other modifications have been made by way of post processing. If for some reason you want to use your image to deceive in some way, I suspect that you won't care whether it can be called a photo or not. Come to think of it, who is going to care what it's called? If authenticity is being falsely claimed then honesty is an issue, but outside of that, worrying about labels seems like nothing more than semantics.

bobmcculloch Loc: NYC, NY

I understand and agree with your realist approach, it's what I like to do, but, I do have shots where the sky could be more interesting, if I shot anything today, locally, I'd have to avoid including the sky, just too gray and bland.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Most likely.

mountainhigh Loc: San Diego Ca

Your absolutely correct. it becomes a form of digital art.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I posed the same question, in a way. https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-669947-1.html It's gone on for 12 or so pages now. There are a number of opinions expressed. Under certain circumstances, putting things into photographs that weren't there can be suitable for advertising or commercial work.

Personally, I have no issue with folks who want to put stuff in a photograph that wasn't there at the time of taking the photograph. I have an integrity issue with people who do so and want others to think that's what they captured initially and through some incredible amount of talent, which isn't existent in reality, they produced an incredible photograph. Sure, create a category of "creative spaces" and let folks replace whatever they want. Just be honest about it.

In my own photography, I alter the processing times to suit the tonal range. I use burning and dodging techniques to make slight additional adjustments to tonal ranges, but I don't put stuff in there that wasn't in the original scene. That is disingenuous. It's a matter of personal integrity.

From the viewpoint of the software manufacturers, it's a marketing strategy. We'll give you the tools to accomplish that which you couldn't do on your own. That's my perspective.
--Bob

lorvey Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

Yes, I think photography is an art. Most photo contests have rules, so they need to be followed. If the contest has not limits, so be it. Other than that, I would feel uncomfortable if I posted an image as a photo on this website or on Facebook, and I then accepted a bunch of compliments even though half of the photo was from my computer.

lorvey Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

Sorry. I'll review the post that generated 12 pages.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

This all depends on the purpose of taking the photo.
For some it is "art"; for some it has other purposes.

When the photo is taken as "art" in general, it depends on taste of the artist.
When the photo is taken for a contest, it does depend on the contest's rules as well as the artist's taste.
When the photo is taken as documentation, the answer is a big "NO" {see Nick Ut's photo of 'Napalm Girl"}.

A guy took a photo of my wife and another woman for our church, and then produced two versions: as taken, and at a beach. Obviously they used the as taken version, and considered the other one as being "silly".

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Follow the contest rules. What if there is no contest?
A print for the wall, I see no problem.

Should filter use be declared? Telephoto vs. wide angle? Camera model? Flipped left-right?
I look at images on their own merit, not how or with what they were created.

aellman Loc: Boston MA

Sky replacement would be a bridge too far for me, but it's a matter of personal taste. I admit to being a purist. Eventually Photoshop will have Full Photo Replacement. With the FPR feature enabled, your crappy backyard snapshot will morph into a jaw-droppingly gorgeous image of your family created by an algorithm duplicating the style and talent of Arnold Newman or 20 other legendary portrait photographers.

Creative Sky Replacement. Westport MA.

(Download)


(Download)