mflowe Loc: Port Deposit, MD

As long as it pleases you and your customers, that's all that matters. It doesn't have to please me. I'm happy for your success in selling the image.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I have used none of those. I rarely do sky replacements, but when I do I use Photoshop.

You might want to check out "Elements +". That's a plug-in that extends Elements capabilities. It only costs $20 and does quite a bit. It doesn't appear to have a "sky replacement" feature, per se.... but much of what it does add might make using Elements for sky replacements a lot easier. Exactly how much Elements + adds sort of depends upon what version of it you're using.

More info at: https://elementsplus.net/

Roe Cole

FYI, Photoshop now has a sky edit feature. (not PS sky replacement) The edit feature allows quick isolation of the sky then apply the typical edits you desire. Search for Sky Editing on YouTube.

Photec

I use this one also, and there is a new update coming out this month that has even the already updated version of this. It's worth a look.

mensch Loc: SF Bay Area

I don't use any sky replacement options. If it is a cloudy/bland looking sky/day, I'll focus on other subjects, or "parts" of a landscape. In many ways it is ideal as the sky becomes a giant "soft box" and opens up all kinds of possibilities.

Richard Avedon said "There is no such thing as inaccuracy in a photograph. All photographs are accurate, none of them is the truth." Unfortunately the general public don't understand this. I feel that photographs, by their very nature, become (admittedly a bit naive on my part, especially in the digital age) the last bastion of honesty and integrity in art and particularly the media.

The general public has lost trust in what they see everywhere. I feel that we, as photographers, should do our part in upholding the veracity of our images. I advocate that a good way to begin would be to label any photograph that purports to be an honest and accurate representation of a scene when the shutter was pushed, but uses any kind of replacement (or elimination) as a "Photo Illustration".

The National Press Photographer's Association has written extensively on this subject and in a nutshell, they state that nothing should be done towards altering an image that couldn't be done in a wet darkroom, that is, dodging, burning, exposure, saturation (within reason), and contrast. Sharpening is a technical given. these might be good guidelines to consider.

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

Magnificent

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

Spectacular results

chasgroh Loc: Buena Park, CA

...sure; journalistically. For my art I don't give a hoot. <shrug> ...and nobody knows but me. ;0)

BadPhoto Loc: Maryland

It is "velvet Elvis" syndrome.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

You have to differentiate between photojournalism/documentary photography and personal or fine art photography. The former doesn't allow for manipulation that would change the "truth" of the photo. Even then, the meaning of a photograph can change just by the selection of the viewpoint, what to include/exclude in the image, the timing of the exposure, the field of view of the lens, etc.

Evidently the NPPA isn't aware that composite photographs, including sky replacement, have been done in the darkroom since photographers were still using glass plates. Photographs have never been reliable as representing the "truth", and personal or fine art photography has never had an obligation to show the scene as the eye saw it.

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

Thanks, as an artist, I view sky replacement as a tool, just as I view any of the sliders I use in Photoshop.
Most of my wildlife photography is straight forward, I do little manipulation of the image.
But I also love to take an image of something folks see every day and change it in such a way as to make it different from what they see every day.
My photography instructor used to tell us if the image causes an emotional response in the viewer, we have done our job.
So, I get those emotional results using a minimum of manipulation all the way up to using a LOT of manipulation.
For artists, it is called artistic expression, and it is our job, rather our calling, to use that expression in what ever way we see fit to express ourselves.

mensch Loc: SF Bay Area

Sure, Jerry Uelsmann was turning out wonderful work in the darkroom in the 60's, however there was never any attempt to "fool" anybody...

I understand the goal to impart a sense to the viewer of what it "felt" like to be there while taking the photograph and we should all, ideally, strive to invoke some sort of emotion from the viewer from whatever we capture in the instant of exposure, but to create an image with "replacements" after the fact, and passing it off as the reality of the moment of exposure without labeling it as such still seems less than ethical.

cahale Loc: San Angelo, TX

Landscape Pro works for me. I like that after loading an image and selecting the elements I want to edit, I can zoom as much as necessary to insure no overlap in editing zones. And it is reasonably priced.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Merely presenting a photograph without comment is not passing it off as anything.

mensch Loc: SF Bay Area

I think that might depend on the viewer, and the possible naive assumptions he is making about the veracity of the image he is looking at. It feels to me like the "presenter" is holding back the truth, and obviously, that really bothers me...