srt101fan

There have been many topics and posts addressing sky replacements in photographs. I do not want to regurgitate old arguments regarding the legitimacy and ethical correctness of doing that. Neither do I want to revive the debates about the validity of photo manipulation in general. I'm looking for a different perspective.

Many if not most photos with sky replacements posted here just don't look that good to me. I question the value added, the commonly accepted premise that a photo with a "boring" sky will be made much better with a different sky. And the result is too often an image with overly dramatic clouds that compete with and take away from the main subject. I know that people like dramatic skies and that these types of images sell better. But why?

Does anyone out there agree with me, or am I just out of synch with the rest of the world?

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Any technique in photography can be done well or done poorly, and will probably be done poorly more often than done well. And I don't see anything wrong with doing something to a photograph that will make it sell better. I find non-photographers are more accepting of things like very dramatic skies or enhanced saturation than photographers.

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

Remember most people, other than the pro's, take pictures for themselves, to display to an audience is of secondary concern. I am a hunter, I wonder around with a 70-300 kit lens looking for birds, bugs and animals. I have only two concerns: Get as close as I can; Get a clear, sharp image of my subject. I can fix anything else, at least to my satisfaction. Background replacement, including skies, are part of my Post Processing skill set and I use them shamelessly.

Imagine I have a shot of a bird that I have never seen before but taking up most of the background is an old building covered with with graffiti and above that is a bright blue sky. Am I not going to take the picture? Of course not. I am going to use my Post Processing skills to the best of my ability to get a result I'm happy with.

All people who take pictures should remember it's their picture and the only one they have to satisfy is themselves.

srt101fan

I am NOT saying there is somthing wrong with replacing skies!! I'm simply saying that, for me, many of the images I've seen here were fine before sky replacement and were actually degraded by it. I wonder if I'm the "lone ranger" in this or if there are others that share that view....

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Any editing done to any photo has great potential to make the picture worse, or make it better. Which way it goes is solely dependent on the skill of those doing the editing. I can screw up a picture 9 ways from Sunday with little effort, and I've been doing this stuff as a hobby for around a quarter century. Part of the skill is how to use the editing tools, but, at least for me, that's the easy part. For sky's choosing the right image that goes with your image is tougher than actually doing the work. Then there is the whole lighting thing an all sorts of artsy fartsy issues that give many techs migraines. Would be a great learning experience if everyone could freely point out why they don't like the work, but alas, too much sensitivity going on around here for that.

Leitz Loc: Solms

The independent thinker will not be influenced by the opinion of others.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

If it's done well the result will be a better image. Not only is there a lot to get wrong, it's possible to overdo it as well. The focal length and angle of tilt have to match, the colour cast of the foreground needs to reflect the colour cast of the light coming from the sky (and that also applies to the general quality of the lighting). Using software doesn't guarantee that all of those things are going to be done well by the software, and if it's being done manually the results depend on the skills of the person doing the editing.

If the starting point was a bland sky, any step up from that should be an improvement as long as it's not glaringly obvious that the sky has been replaced. Generally speaking, editing usually works best when it doesn't look like editing.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Peter, your reaction is no different than thinking a pic is "over-saturated" or "over-sharpened" etc. To each his own tastes.

Many folks on UHH are just learning this "trick" of sky replacement and may (or may not) change their output as they learn more about considerations that have been mentioned already in this thread.

- I do not agree that there is a "commonly accepted premise..." Where are you getting your data that supports this statement? Keep in mind that UHH is not the real world 🤭

- I happen to love big blue cloudless skies - because that's what we often have in central Washington State (similar to the southwestern U.S.). I would not replace a cloudless sky "just because" it's cloudless. As with most of my editing, I would try to think about what mood and story I want to tell.

- I agree that overly dramatic skies can take away from the subject, whether the sky is real or unreal. Again, it is simply personal taste for both the photographer and the viewer.

Here's an older shot that I recently merged with a new sky (my own photo).
, on Flickr

And here's a photo from spring with part of another spring sky (my own photo) added.
, on Flickr

JRiepe Loc: Southern Illinois

I take pictures of blue skies with interesting looking cloud formations to use as sky replacements. I want my skies to look so natural that no one would suspect it's a replacement. So no, I'm not fond of dramatic looking skies that are crying out "Fake". I'm only expressing what I like and would not try to dictate to others what they should do.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I have come to believe that one of the big problems here is that many are looking for a "magic bullet," or a "magic potion," or a "magic powder" that will let them capture the "ultimate inage" without having to learn the craft or do the work or suffer the disappointments that are a natural part of doing so. Common knowledge says that it's the kids and young people that see life this way, but I see a lot of it here among us older folks. To me, sky replacement CAN fall into that category.

Many forget that if you replace the sky, you most likely need to replace some reflections. You are most certainly going to have to replace background shadows...and maybe even foreground shadows.

I'm not opposed to adjusting images. Sometimes it's the only way to end up with anything useful. But I learned a long time ago that just because you can do a thing does not mean that you should do it.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Most sky replacements look obvious to me as well, although I have seen some with seamless integration. Many of the people who replace skies with alternatives don't seem to be sufficiently skilled in using the tools available and/or in choosing the an appropriate sky replacement for their images. Additionally these new tools are still a work in progress and will improve as time goes on. There was a recent thread where the author replaced the original pale featureless sky with an ominous dark grey angry clouded sky with lightening for an image with gentle blue seas and obvious sun shadows on a lighthouse. The choice of sky was completely inappropriate for that image. Yet, in addition to the few criticisms of the combination the poster received there were several complements. This led me to wonder whether some of the posters here can differentiate good from bad.

I have nothing against anyone using a sky replacement for a featureless sky if that is their preference. However, I have found that seemingly pale featureless skies often have much more detail and color than obvious at first glance, and these details can be recovered in post processing. While detail is not always available, especially when the sky has been blown out, I think it is worth investigating before deciding on a sky replacement. In the before/after image below, I used local adjustments in DXO PhotoLab Elite 4 to extract sky detail that was not obvious in the original image. The first image shows what seems to be a pale featureless sky. The second image brings out the details that were already there and is not a replacement sky.

Original sky

(Download)

Sky detail extracted in post processing - NOT A REPLACEMENT

(Download)

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

I've seen some good replacements and some really bad replacements but if the photographer is happy with the end result that is what counts. All levels of photographers and all levels of skills on this forum, not too many are at the top end. You might see better results on other forums.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

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

The problem is folks, that many of these opinions start with "I don't believe in...:" All of these "controversial' concepts are not a religion, a political ideology or, a philosophical approach to life. Most of the stuff that folks around here get all riled up about are merely TOOLS at everyone's disposal to use or decline as they please.

It like my saying "I don't believe in HAMMERS"! Well, I don't believe a sledgehammer should be used for fine cabinetry, or a ball-peen hammer be used to extract nails, or a jackhammer to be used for dentistry! There a time, place and usage for every tool.

There is no law, ethic, moral covenant, or rule that says every time you pick up and camera and make a photograph it has to be pure and exactly as the eye sees the subject. If you want to work this way, that's alright and perhaps commendable but not everyone is of the same mind nor does everyone who does photography professionally have that luxury. Some folks like to experiment and try various methods and not every experiment will yield perfect results. As others here have alluded to, every method can be perfectly executed or poorly crafted and it is everything in between.

As for sky replacement- There are instances where improving the skyscape in a landscape, architectural or commercial image may serve as an improvement. Some of the software has pre-sets with a wide variety of clouds, sky, weather, night and day, stars, meteor showers, sunsets and moonrises, northern lights, and light-direction alternatives. It's up to the operator to find a compatible one with compatible actual lighting on the ground. Someof the software has a land-lighting option to alter the colour or effect on the ground so there is a unity of light as to quality and direction. There are also horrizion and feather edge adjustments. Using all of the theses controls effectively, and producing a more accurate and believable rendition requires skill and knowledge of light dynamics and aesthetics you are gonna end up with a "patch job". If you are gonna mess with Mother Nature, you better learn her ways or folks in the know are gonna scrutinize and criticize your work- OR NOT! You can ignore them and just have fun or consider their suggestions and improve your technique. But it ain't religion, politics or life and death!

It's the same in portrait lighting- folks defy nature every day. They use 2 kicker lights from opposite directions, light a portrait with 2 equidistant 45-degree lights- that would be realistic if there were 2 suns in the sky. They "clamshell" light a subject- that would be accurate of one of the 2- suns were coming up out of the ground. Yet, these have become acceptable stylizations.

Many of the protracted and repetitive arguments are GEAR-driven- filters, software platforms, lens shades, flash. and all the other photographic headwear. There is little discussion of light dynamics that apply across the board to artificial and natural lighting aesthetics that have to do with the sky, the clouds, the weather the time of day, the hour, the atmosphere, reflectivity, the direction from where the light is coming from, and the way it strikes any given subject.

For years the folks who design and manufacture lighting equipment have been trying to figure out how to stimulate the light that comes down from the sky. Think about the names- Sunpack, Megalume, Skylighter. Starlighter, Hazylight, Ultrablitz, White Lightning- I'm sure there are more. All you have in many cases is a sophisticated ligh bulb in some kind of housing and YOU have to figure out how to use it in order to achieve the results you want.

My favourite is Photogenic's names for its flash gear, Flashmaster and Studiomaster. I once joked with the sales rep from that company at a convention. I said that this "Master" equipment is extremely bare-bones- no automation, just basically a power supply and a flash tube in a plain parabolic reflector, so if I buy this stuff, will I become "Master". He said no, it's basic TOOLS, you need to be a "Master" to maximize the results you get out of it.

srt101fan

Many thanks to all of you looking in and participating in this discussion. Lots of interesting comments.

Still, most of you seem to judge the success of a sky replacement photo by how well it has been executed technically, including things like direction of light, shadows, reflections, etc. Little has been said about the effect of sky replacements on a photo’s subject, content and composition. To me, an aggressively busy or colored sky, unless it is intended to be the main point of interest, can easily out-muscle the main subject. Anybody else think that way?