mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

I shoot raw 100% all the time and post process every image. The technology behind sky replacement is very interesting but I would probably use it rarely, if ever, myself. The first reason I would not use sky replacement is because I am not interested in creating composite images. While I may remove distracting objects from images, I have no interest in adding people or objects or skies that were not in the original scene. However, I have no problem with composite images if others wish to create them.

Replacement skies have their uses and I am not against the concept itself, but I am disturbed by how they're used. I have seen many a good photo ruined by a poorly implemented replacement sky. I have often seen good skies replaced with ridiculously dramatic ones.

Too often these overly dramatic skies draw attention away from the main subject of the original image. In fact overly dramatic replacement skies often become the new main subject of an image. What makes this additionally concerning is that those sky replacement images used are in general rarely captured by the person using them. The result is that the most exciting part of the image wasn't actually captured by the person claiming ownership

In the hands of somebody who is skilled and using good quality software, sky replacements can be applied seamlessly. Unfortunately most people using sky replacements don't seem to possess that skill or a strong understanding of the use of light, reflection, and shadows. As a result the skies chosen are often inappropriate to the subject and don't match the image properly. In the worst cases they stick out like a sore thumb.

Some sky replacement software like Luminar attempts to compensate for lighting, shadows, and reflection, and often the results can be quite pleasing, but I've also seen sky replacement images processed by Luminar which were absolutely horrid.

I believe the overuse of easily available and dramatic stock replacement skies does not enhance the art of photography. Worse, when used often as an easy fix for problematic images, it can prevent novice photographers from improving their skills.

martinfisherphoto Loc: Lake Placid Florida

I'm having fun learning how to replace skies with the different softwares but it's the masking and layers that are the real benefits. I used NIK software for the longest time to help target areas of concern on my images, but too improve my editing skills I chose ON 1 Raw to learn editing and that came with sky replacements. At first it was fun, but since I take my photography pretty serious it soon lost it's charm for me, but I learned all about masking and layering in the process. To date I've only posted two images with any sky replacements. That said I recently did a graduation photo shoot on the beach and found the sky replacements the Perfect addition to finish out the images. They looked great, sand, water, sea oats, the subject, a few clouds, and everyone was happy. If it can earn me money and make clients happy I'm all for it. I take images for myself. I like to share on occasion but it's the hunt that keeps me going back for more. I have yet been able to take a bad image and make it great with any software, but I have taken a few good ones and made them great with a little help. I'm assuming some time in the near future they will be no need for a camera. You'll have a program on the computer that will create the perfect image to your liking with just a few key strokes. Personally I like keeping it as real as possible for my personal images.....But we are All Different......

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Which is fine as long as the photographer admits upon presentation it is a composite.

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

Sorry, that just will not ever happen to any of my images. But thanks for your personal opinion. And make sure you do so if you feel strongly about it.
It is a personal choice. Not the viewers.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

So presenting fake, made up photos as what was there?
Fine, just keep on lying then.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Only if you assume all photos are meant to be exact reproductions of the scene. That hasn't been true from the beginnings of photography. Sky replacement started when photographers were still using glass plates.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Fine, Still fake in the most complete sense.

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

If I followed your lead, all of my images are fake. Wow, I am a faker. Wait until my over 600 brides hear about this, boy am I in trouble. Good thing I didn't break any laws, they would have put me away for life, along most all of the artists and photographers that ever lived. WOW.
You know the reason they no longer can use digital images in some trials, most all of them have been faked in favor of the accused.
Salvador Dalí and Ansel Adams along with thousands of others are also in deep dodo, they just don't know it yet, I wonder when the public is going to catch on? I guess we need to but next to our names,
"liar liar paints on fire".

mflowe Loc: Port Deposit, MD

I'm afraid you're fighting a lost cause here. Most of the people on this forum will defend to the death their right to take a sky bought from somebody on the internet, put it in one of their photos, and call it their own work of art rivaling anything created by Piccaso, Monet, etc. It's sad.

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

Let me explain my self this way.
Let me start with the definition of Photography, this is from Webster.
"The word Photography literally means 'drawing with light', which derives from the Greek photo, meaning light and graph, meaning to draw."
And I prefer to draw with light.
It does not get more basic than this.
Good luck and keep on shooting until the end.

yssirk123 Loc: New Jersey

Arguments about sky replacement are irrelevant. When the 800 pound gorilla included it in Photoshop, the genie was out of the bottle for good and no one can put it back in.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

You are absolutely correct. Unfortunately sky replacement regardless of its validity, is very often poorly done and does not improve the image it was intended to enhance.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

The examples of it being poorly done are very noticeable, but if it is well done, you don't notice it.

chasgroh Loc: Buena Park, CA

...so, what if I use my own sky? It needn't be as dire as you propound, maybe it's art! Maybe we "...defenders to the death" (what wonderful hyperbole!) are not concerned with presenting "reality" but, instead, something that looks really good? Even reality that looks better! Haha...life's short, you need to relax, dude...

chasgroh Loc: Buena Park, CA

Bill, your stuff is so good there is absolutely no need to justify to *anyone!*