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.

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.

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.

Sky replacement is perfectly COOL for me. I do it when a "blah" sky spoils an otherwise perfectly good scene. I only have one caveat- the enhanced skyscape has to match the actual lighting on the scene as to direction, colour, and quality (hardness of softness) of the existing lighting on the subject. Of course, the special effect has to be well crafted.

A scene or subject will look "artificial" if there is a disunity of lighting where the light seems to be striking the subject from one direction with a specific charismatics BUT the sky is telling the viewer something else.

If you are shooting on a gray day and you insert a blue sky with puffy white clouds and there are no discernable shadows on the ground that usually appear on a bright sunny day, there is an incompatibility. Perhaps a slight tint to a few wispy clouds would be a better choice of sky replacement.

This is a technical point, however, the final decision is up to the "artist". Unless you are shooting for meteorological purposes, there's no ethic attached- you can have the moon appear at high noon if that's the story you want t to tell. The only time it would be a breach of contest rules is if the is a prohibition of manipulation or special effects of any kind stated as a prerequisite for entry.

If someone offers you a compliment on one of you manipulated images- say "thank you"- if you care to elaborate on your method, that's up to you.

So many photographers superimpose what I call "false ethics" on their own work. You are not counterfeiting anythg or operating under false pretenses. As an artist, you have the right to photograph things as they are, as the ain't, as you wish they were, and how YOU prefer to interpret whatever or whoever it is. This applies UNLESS you are a photojournalist or charged with a completely documentary assignment.

I do lots of portrait work and I always tell my clenits that I will photograh themas they are, as the would like to present themselves, at their best, and as they would like to be remembered.