mensch wrote:
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.
I don't use any sky replacement options. If it is ... (
show quote)
Thank. I agree that many edit to where it is not a real situation. If on the other you want to make it art then that would be different.
I not into making it art but showing the place as I remember. Just a bland sky may need a cloud