1. shows the original stitched pano image--183 mb size. The lake is lake Helen in Lassen Volcanic national park. Normal PP but no saturation. Lest one thinks its over saturated this is the way it came from the camera.
2. image 2 shows the addition of a sky--my sky--using Luminar 4 and then trying to bring the cloud reflections down into the lake. In hindsight I should have lightened this final image.
3. image 3 is a sky replacement using the new PS tool. Again, using the same sky as in the Luminar image--a sky I captured myself, not a preset sky. I then tried to copy the sky and move it into the lake for cloud reflections.
Is it perfect. Probably not as some will point out. But it does give a comparison of the two methods. One item of note. Due to the size of the original pano stitched image, processing in Luminar took a long time. Both methods took about the same amount of time to complete, except for the long processing time in Luminar. I thought it was easier in Luminar to bring the sky reflection into the lake.
If no reflections are needed in water I'd probably use the new PS tool.

1. shows the original stitched pano image--183 mb size. The lake is lake Helen in Lassen Volcanic national park. Normal PP but no saturation. Lest one thinks its over saturated this is the way it came from the camera.
2. image 2 shows the addition of a sky--my sky--using Luminar 4 and then trying to bring the cloud reflections down into the lake. In hindsight I should have lightened this final image.
3. image 3 is a sky replacement using the new PS tool. Again, using the same sky as in the Luminar image--a sky I captured myself, not a preset sky. I then tried to copy the sky and move it into the lake for cloud reflections.
Is it perfect. Probably not as some will point out. But it does give a comparison of the two methods. One item of note. Due to the size of the original pano stitched image, processing in Luminar took a long time. Both methods took about the same amount of time to complete, except for the long processing time in Luminar. I thought it was easier in Luminar to bring the sky reflection into the lake.
If no reflections are needed in water I'd probably use the new PS tool.

1. shows the original stitched pano image--183 mb size. The lake is lake Helen in Lassen Volcanic national park. Normal PP but no saturation. Lest one thinks its over saturated this is the way it came from the camera.
2. image 2 shows the addition of a sky--my sky--using Luminar 4 and then trying to bring the cloud reflections down into the lake. In hindsight I should have lightened this final image.
3. image 3 is a sky replacement using the new PS tool. Again, using the same sky as in the Luminar image--a sky I captured myself, not a preset sky. I then tried to copy the sky and move it into the lake for cloud reflections.
Is it perfect. Probably not as some will point out. But it does give a comparison of the two methods. One item of note. Due to the size of the original pano stitched image, processing in Luminar took a long time. Both methods took about the same amount of time to complete, except for the long processing time in Luminar. I thought it was easier in Luminar to bring the sky reflection into the lake.
If no reflections are needed in water I'd probably use the new PS tool.