srt101fan

I don't really see an ethical issue. And the term "real photography" is meaningless.

More important to me is that most sky replacements I've seen aren't done very well. People seem to want "drama" in a sky not realizing that a "dramatic sky" might detract from, overpower or compete with what might otherwise be a worthwhile subject.

srt101fan

Agree on all counts! 😊

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

What is the target of your photography? Art or commerce or documentation or journalism? If journalism or documentation, sky replacement may not be appropriate. If commerce, you may be misrepresenting the scene (depending, of course, on what the purpose of the image is in the commercial process). Anything goes in art.

My photography was event documentation and PR. Touching up an image to clarify it was not a problem. Adding or subtracting things was frowned upon. Now that I'm retired, my images are only there to please me. I don't have to answer to anyone else (except maybe my wife). I gave up exhibiting my images decades ago. They now get sent to family and/or friends, whether or not they have been transmogrified.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

I learned about this many years ago in a history of photography college course. You could do your own research - Google their names with "sky replacement".

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

That I could. However, you are the one who brought these two photographers into the discussion. Thus, as with any research material, you should provide the "foot notes" citing the source and examples.

However, since you are reluctant to do so, I'll assist. https://placesjournal.org/article/eadweard-muybridges-secret-cloud-collection/?cn-reloaded=1
--Bob

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

That is the link I was about to post to get you started.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Beauty is not in the eye, but in the mind, and knowing that others can't tell if PhotoShop was used.

Quixdraw Loc: x

Some of the time, in expert hands - most of the time fairly obvious.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Yes, it takes a lot of practice and skill, but with 10,000+ hours of free detailed training and visual demonstration, the only one failing to become an expert is someone who doesn't want to try. The software does it for everyone the same.

Quixdraw Loc: x

Actually, not. The last four years before retirement I was involved in building and teaching business software. There is enormous variation in ability to understand and apply software successfully. Though I retired some years ago, I do not believe that will have changed.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Paul Diamond Loc: Atlanta, GA, USA

The issues about sky replacement, to me, are the 'ethics' of replacing a sky that is illuminated the same way as the image where it will be used. Or, if you are A) using your own 'skies' or you are B) 'stealing them' from other images, even if the image creator implies that their sky can be used on any picture.

I shoot my own sky pictures. I keep a portfolio of sky photos so I have different pictures for different lighting angles and clouds, etc. I keep shooting sky shots whenever I see an interesting sky that I think I might be able to use in the future. And I own the sky image as well as the 'foreground' shot it will be joined with.

If you use a sky that has the sun at the far right of the image, casting long shadows, your picture needs to have light coming from the same general or specific direction to look the best. The image must look like it is a natural sky and part of the original picture, even if it was not what you shot at the time.

Ansel might have had days or weeks to wait for the perfect lighting, perfect sky/clouds/etc. or the image to match what he saw in his mind. And, the photographers of Nat Geo and other top purchasers of images will spend months on site to get the best possible photo, forgetting the time it took to make the picture. (It looks like the photographer did a great job of investing the time to get the 'ultimate' picture.)

Reality, for almost all of us is that we don't have infinite time to get everything 'perfect'. We often have only a limited amount of time for the pictures we make. (I did take about 1.5 hours at the Yosemite Valley overlook, waiting for the clouds/lighting/shadows/etc. to help give me the picture I knew I wanted to keep. Getting a bird flying in the sky and waterfalls everywhere from early May snow melt were bonuses of the day. - But, I couldn't spend a day or two there without upsetting my wife!)

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

So you can practice and research and try, and become an expert in Photography, but not editing software? Doesn't sound accurate. What else remains beyond the average human capacity of desire and effort and initiative?

Quixdraw Loc: x

No, based on my last years in business and the time I spent on computers, I find it uninteresting, even unpleasant. I prefer to apply the photographic skills I learned over the largest part of a lifetime. What little post I may do takes moments. If it takes more, a bad photo on my part and discarded.

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

This has been discussed in detail many many times here, you may want to look it up.
Sky replacement is up to the photographer, artists have been replacing skies for centuries, now it is our turn.
Sky replacement is up to the photographer, no one else need apply. IMHO