Photoshop "Sky Replacement" (Page 2): So you were just being the devil's advocate there?

bleirer

Longshadow wrote:

No, I would use a sky (mine) I had on file. I just... (show quote)

So you were just being the devil's advocate there?

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Longshadow wrote:

Not even if you liked it?

Oxford University definition per Google:
Plagiarism is presenting someone else's work or ideas as your own, with or without their consent, by incorporating it into your work without full acknowledgement. All published and unpublished material, whether in manuscript, printed or electronic form, is covered under this definition.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

tca2267 wrote:

I have read some of the post about the "photo... (show quote)

Mine were in JPEG and on my desktop, I had no issues.

sroc

tca2267 wrote:

I have read some of the post about the "photo... (show quote)

I have RAW files of my skies that I edit in Topaz DeNoise AI. These are TIF files and they appear in the folder along with all of my other Raw files. I select the TIF file and import with no problem.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

bleirer wrote:

So you were just being the devil's advocate there?

Their being someplace else, to which statement are you referring?

Paulco2 Loc: Gettysburg PA

Like any tool, sky replacement has some very effective uses. (e.g.) Pictures with a cloudy (milky) sky can be much more appealing with a different background (say a blue sky with a few clouds). Also it can be over used or used in ways that don't enhance the original image.
The choice should always be with the photographer (or graphic artist) to achieve the desired result.

HRPufnstuf

And I "replace" acne and other blemishes in portraits, whiten eyes and teeth sometimes. I don't see replacing a dull sky as being much different.

bleirer

Longshadow wrote:

Their being someplace else, to which statement are you referring?

You seemed to be saying at first that you would make the image with someone else's sky as replacement so I thought you thought it was ok under all circumstances, but later you said would not sell an image with it. So I think I get the difference you are pointing out.

bleirer

HRPufnstuf wrote:

And I "replace" acne and other blemishes in portraits, whiten eyes and teeth sometimes. I don't see replacing a dull sky as being much different.

You don't replace the acne with a nice picture of skin somebody else took.

leftj Loc: Texas

zug55 wrote:

At some point we have to ask ourselves whether we are photographers or graphic artists. I have a good friend who uses some of my photographs as basis for her computer art. Her work is really cool, and I love how she adds her own vision to my photographs. But replacing the sky and passing this off as an authentic photograph seems ethically challenged to me. Perhaps I could be convinced if Photoshop and Lightroom come out with wife replacement.

I'm guessing you don't have a wife.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

bleirer wrote:

You seemed to be saying at first that you would make the image with someone else's sky as replacement so I thought you thought it was ok under all circumstances, but later you said would not sell an image with it. So I think I get the difference you are pointing out.

No, I'd never use someone else's snippet(s) in my images. If someone else wants to do that to theirs, that's up to them.
Not playing the Devil's Advocate.
(This time...

)

bleirer

Delderby wrote:

Oxford University definition per Google:
Plagiarism is presenting someone else's work or ideas as your own, with or without their consent, by incorporating it into your work without full acknowledgement. All published and unpublished material, whether in manuscript, printed or electronic form, is covered under this definition.

I'd bet Adobe licenses those skies for commercial or personal use, similar to licensing a stock photo or clip art. Anybody know?

richardjkirby601 Loc: Northern VA

I shot a wedding the other day, very overcast, the sky was white - later in the day, the sky turned to broken clouds - I used Luminar to swap the sky to a nicer sky, not bright blue, but broken clouds with some nice highlights. Since I was doing family and friend photos I de-focused the sky to match the background. They loved the picture and no comment that the sky was different.

Most people want pictures that make them look great, and accept color corrections, cropping, a little clone and stamp to clean up the background... If I was a historical photographer, trying to capture accurately an event, yeah I would not change a picture except, maybe color correction...

User ID

bleirer wrote:

Don't worry, I still think you're a real photographer if you use someone else's sky. Andy Warhol comes to mind, where he used parts of other's work to make something unique.

Would you (personally - you) sell a photograph with someone else's sky? I'm not arguing that it is wrong, just asking what you think.

I’d sell it ... but the sky would have been flipped left to right, bit of CYA can’t hurt !

Thaz just my ethos. It has no real world possibilities cuz I don’t shoot that type of “picturesque” scenes anywho.

pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

twosummers wrote:

The solution is simple - switch to Luminar!

Some answers are simply dumb!