Sky replacement tools: There are a number of different programs that offer this, and I wonder what UHH members think about this. Is this really photography? Should the images be...

fjustus

There are a number of different programs that offer this, and I wonder what UHH members think about this. Is this really photography? Should the images be entered in competitions? Can they be used for journalistic purposes? I have seen mixed results from the images I have seen. Opinions?

scallihan Loc: Tigard, OR

fjustus wrote:

There are a number of different programs that offer this, and I wonder what UHH members think about this. Is this really photography? Should the images be entered in competitions? Can they be used for journalistic purposes? I have seen mixed results from the images I have seen. Opinions?

Even Ansel Adams did sky manipulation.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

fjustus wrote:

There are a number of different programs that offer this, and I wonder what UHH members think about this. Is this really photography? Should the images be entered in competitions? Can they be used for journalistic purposes? I have seen mixed results from the images I have seen. Opinions?

Sky replacement has been done since the beginnings of photography, because the orthochromatic films of the day rendered blank white skies, so skies shot at a different exposure were added in the darkroom. Now that sky replacement can be done digitally people question if they are really photography? Whether they are appropriate for competitions depend on the rules of the individual competition. They are not appropriate for photojournalism, but for personal or artistic photography, I don't see a problem. Like any other technique, they can be done well or poorly.

FreddB Loc: PA - Delaware County

scallihan wrote:

Even Ansel Adams did sky manipulation.

But, wouldn’t you consider replacement to be just a tad more than manipulation?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

If Ansel Adams was the photographer worthy of that name, he'd do a better job Straight Out Of Camera like a Real Photographer.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

IMO, I think it is disingenuous and fake. It is completely forbidden in journalistic work.

The only time I resorted to replacing a sky was some 30-40 years ago and that was for a client who sold real estate. Client work is quite a bit different than my personal work. One provides what the client is paying to have done.
--Bob

fjustus wrote:

There are a number of different programs that offer this, and I wonder what UHH members think about this. Is this really photography? Should the images be entered in competitions? Can they be used for journalistic purposes? I have seen mixed results from the images I have seen. Opinions?

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Burning and dodging is a great deal different than replacement.
--Bob

scallihan wrote:

Even Ansel Adams did sky manipulation.

scallihan Loc: Tigard, OR

CHG_CANON wrote:

If Ansel Adams was the photographer worthy of that name, he'd do a better job Straight Out Of Camera like a Real Photographer.

Ansel was a wizard at post processing. I doubt if any of his published works were straight out of the camera. Whether it's sky replacement or subtle lighting/contrast/color adjustments, manipulation is manipulation.

FreddB Loc: PA - Delaware County

JohnSwanda wrote:

Whether they are appropriate for competitions depend on the rules of the individual competition. They are not appropriate for photojournalism, but for personal or artistic photography, I don't see a problem.

👍👍

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The surest way to corrupt a novice is to explain the importance SOOC.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Absolutely none of his work was SOOC. Nor was it post processed. It was processed.
--Bob

scallihan wrote:

Ansel was a wizard at post processing. I doubt if any of his published works were straight out of the camera. Whether it's sky replacement or subtle lighting/contrast/color adjustments, manipulation is manipulation.

Quixdraw Loc: x

It is a personal choice, my choice is not to do it. Like so many things in photography, the conversation always slips into doctrine that must be observed, or binary decision points. Will I ever replace a sky? Who knows, but if I do, I'd be sure it was done well before I post any. Saint Ansel - heck of a photographer, but not in my pantheon of Saints! I hope wherever he is, he is amused by hearing himself invoked!

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

scallihan wrote:

Even Ansel Adams did sky manipulation.

Ansel Adam's "sky manipulation" is not the same thing as replacing a sky altogether with a stock one taken by another photographer from a different time and place. I have no problem with someone replacing a sky, preferably with one they captured themselves. However, forgetting, for the moment, the potential ethical issue of using someone else's sky and calling the image your own, the results are often way overdone with overly dramatic skies that effectively become the main subject of the image. Often the results don't look natural. Sometimes, sky replacement is done really well, depending on the software and skill of the person doing it, but far too often the replacement is obvious and ruins an otherwise nice image.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Ansel Adams never replaced a sky, but he is not the be all and end all about which photography techniques are appropriate. Eadweard Muybridge and Carleton Watkins replaced skies, and that's good enough for me.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

John, perhaps you can cite specific examples of works by Eadweard Muybridge and Carleton Watkins where they documented sky replacement.

I know that Eadweard Muybridge was most widely known for his animal locomotion photographs but he did some very nice landscapes. So, which of these involved sky replacement? The same question is directed to the works of Carleton Watkins
--Bob

JohnSwanda wrote:

Ansel Adams never replaced a sky, but he is not the be all and end all about which photography techniques are appropriate. Eadweard Muybridge and Carleton Watkins replaced skies, and that's good enough for me.