ImageCreator Loc: Northern California

Its a new tool. I'm learning. I ain't perfect.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Good man! good attitude! Disregard the nasty folks, listen to the "teachers" and hone your craft!

Ourspolair

I have the same technical issues with the finished image as 10M Player, and pretty much the same suggestions to make it more life-like.

Essentially, the lighting has to match your chosen sky.
You would not have blue sea, bright sun-bathed grass, and a brightly-lit lighthouse with a contrasty shadow with a sky like this, so, if you want the image to be "photorealistic", or at least credible, you have to tone down the foreground, the sea and the shadows to reflect the lighting you would have had with that ominous cloud cover.

The lightning bolt would be better placed to the left side of the lighthouse and seen to terminate in the sea. Right now it seems to be aimed at the building in front of the lighthouse and creates more questions than it answers visually.

To be super technical meteorologically, I don't even think that this looks like the base of a cumulonimbus cloud, their tops are at about 40,000 feet and they usually don't have bottoms as low as the stratocumulus you have in the picture, but if you place the lightning in the middle as suggested, you could get away with it.

If you are just having fun, you have proved that you got a bunch of people fired up about "real vs. fake". I don't get the sense that this was your intention. The image is not all bad, you have everything you need in there and plenty of useful advice as to how to make the scene more realistic. So the ball is now back in your court and I look forward to your comments/reaction/new rendering.

Please stay well and keep on posting challenging work!

Ourspolair

Arf, arf!

hoola

Surprised no one critiqued horizon line tilt . My only critique is that image although dramatic is too dark .

ImageCreator Loc: Northern California

thank you for your helpful instruction. i'll use all the suggestions on my next creative project. this image has recieved enough attention. time to move on and try to apply what i've learned

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

I'm glad you are enjoying this new Photoshop tool, but I'm afraid the sky you chose doesn't work with the rest of the image. The color of the sea, other colors and tones, and the shadows are not consistent with what you would see with that sky. Also, be aware that white halos around sharp edges are an indication of over sharpening. But, keep working at it. It takes time to master a new tool.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

The sky is the most inconsistent and ever-changing aspect of our environment. That would make the term "fake sky" pretty meaningless.

User ID

In the composite, the sky is the main dramatic element. Result is that what ends up looking fake is the foreground, not the sky. The sky is quite real.

Find a proper foreground and then you can make much better use of such an impressive sky !

R.G. Loc: Scotland

In landscape photos the sky and sun between them determine the ambient light. The colour cast of the foreground needs to reflect (literally) the colour of the ambient light coming from the sky. If it doesn't, something is going to look fake. Typically the sun is yellow and the sky is blue, making the highlights yellow and the shadows blue. But there are all sorts of variations, including grey skies.

User ID

Thaz the point. The sky (with or without a sun) is the active controlling element. The foreground is the acted-upon or passive element. Thaz why the posted photo has not a fake sky but a fake foreground.

Turns the whole “fake sky” hubbub on its head ! Perfect case of a bad example serving a good purpose.

LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

How do?

There are only two actual possibilities.

1 - The sky is the actual sky observed by the film/sensor.

2 - The sky is not the actual sky observed by the film/sensor.

How can that be ‘meaningless’

sodapop Loc: Bel Air, MD

Noticed that the new sky did not fill out the top of the lighthouse

LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

I saw that.

I don’t know if it was left by accident or intent, but it lends the look of a man made light being inside.

Fiddlingbill Loc: Mass.

I watched a video comparing lightroom to photoshop. They basically said that lightroom was inferior to photoshop. They were comparing two images that had been post processed. And they were both portraits. The lightroom to me was a better image. With the photoshop image of the face being kind of waxy. And very unnatural. The lightroom image showed the natural beauty of the person. I have decided to get into portrait photography and I took an image processed it in lightroom and it looked very natural for what it was. I do not know if it was just over processed in photoshop. But in my eyes lightroom was the clear winner. Not only in image quality, but ease of use. Photoshop just seems a bit more difficult to use.