Sky replacement tools (Page 4): I think if someone wants to replace the sky or remove a distraction in a photo or do any manipulation that they want, that's fine, as long as they don't...

reguli Loc: Uruguay

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?

I think if someone wants to replace the sky or remove a distraction in a photo or do any manipulation that they want, that's fine, as long as they don't commit a fault. I do not substitute sky and not because I consider it to be something wrong, it is only because it is very difficult to adjust a photo to make it look real. Retouching the sky or another part of a photo in post editing is normal and has always been done from the beginning of the photography. The best sky for a photo is the sky in the photo because that sky is what you are seeing. If you don't want the sky as it is, bracketing your photos, wait until the light is better, do a better job in post-processing, because a sky replacement always shows.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

AzPicLady wrote:

I don't have the capability of replacing a sky. N... (show quote)

I agree with everything you say, especially the deification of AA.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

lsimpkins wrote:

I've never replaced a sky, but I have a couple of images where it might make an improvement if done subtly.
As far as film and paper processing goes, dodge and burn is leagues away from sky replacement as far as photographic "honesty" is concerned, IMHO.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Real Photographers use Polaroid.

Old Coot

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?

It depends what exactly is the definition of Photography

Paul Diamond Loc: Atlanta, GA, USA

DirtFarmer wrote:

Once again, it all depends on what the end use of your photos is. Your ‘ethics’ are mot necessarily my ‘ethics’.

And ethics may not really be the right word to use here. It implies that you are discussing things that have importance to large numbers of people. My photos may be important to me and possibly my family but that’s a fairly small group.

I guess it is 'ethics' to me. But, I live a 'simple life'. I don't cheat. I don't lie. And I don't steal. - I try to tell the honest truth, to the best of my knowledge and ability. - Turns out, it helps keep my life simple, consistent, etc. I never have to worry about what lie I told someone in the past, because I don't do it.

I tired of shooting/printing images for my professors in college. They were the sole judges of the selection committee and 'prize awards'. I won some, in spite of them. And, when I didn't, it never ate me up for not pleasing this prof or another one.

If you are pleasing yourself or a limited group of friends, that's fine. If you shoot for an exhibition, competition or publication marketplace, they will set their own 'rules' for judging all images. Sometimes, they insist on seeing a cc of the original image before any retouching or other pp. Most of the time, not.

Hip Coyote

depends on the rules...in my camera club, and some other competitions I have seen, there are various categories...some where complete manipulation is allowed and others where only slight enhancements. So long as everyone knows the rules and follows them, its good with me.

Paul Diamond Loc: Atlanta, GA, USA

AzPicLady wrote:

I don't have the capability of replacing a sky. N... (show quote)

Like you, I am most happy to discover the 'found moment' of the subject, situation, lighting, etc. to make the image. Not to create it in a studio or PP. So, I see many leaves in a stream and one or more things/aspects are not 'right.' If the lighting is what I want, but the leaf/leaves in the water are, I walk away. I don't want to 'set up' a picture by adding or removing some element. And, if I do get this kind of picture, I am much happier than when I manipulated some aspect of the image.

Technology gives us 'opportunities' to expand our vision. I shoot with a 45.6 MP images and top resolution lenses that allow me to crop a small part of the original, as I saw and wanted it. I could not do this with any 35mm film camera and roll of film. The 'classic' solution for most of the history of image making was a larger piece of higher resolution film with the best camera lens you could afford. Carrying a 4x5 view camera, lenses, sheet film holders and tripod was never fun.

tommystrat Loc: Bigfork, Montana

Someone else's sky? Absolutely not!
Your sky image? Why not!

Digital artistry is just that - the manipulation, warp, replacement, burning, dodging, saturating, dehazing, etc. of elements of an image to obtain a desired artistic expression. Ethics? Only in stealing someone else's work and calling it your own... everything else is fair game to express what is in the photographer's mind and eye...

DonVA Loc: British Columbia and New Mexico

mwsilvers wrote:

replacing a sky altogether with a stock one taken by another photographer

There's the issue. If you're not doing journalism you're doing art and in art anything goes except passing off someone else's work as your own. I will replace a sky but only with one I myself have shot.

zonedoc

My best images are those that I”saw”when the scene triggered an emotional response. The resulting image represents my emotional response not the exact scene. Notice, I say image not photograph. Photography is a tool to create an image imho.
AA was an Artist who developed total command of the photographic medium.His comment: “the negative is the score the image is the performance.” His early training was as a concert pianist.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

rmalarz wrote:

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

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

scubadoc wrote:

I’ve known several of his dark room assistants, photographers in their own right, who have told me that when Adams was unhappy with a SOOC image he would say to his assistants “Fix It”.

He was a real pain. He’d bring his film to the Photomat and if it took one minute longer than an hour he’d threaten to sue.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

DonVA wrote:

There's the issue. If you're not doing journalism you're doing art and in art anything goes except passing off someone else's work as your own. I will replace a sky but only with one I myself have shot.

"...anything goes except passing off someone else's work as your own."

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

Paul Diamond wrote:

I guess it is 'ethics' to me. But, I live a 'simple life'. I don't cheat. I don't lie. And I don't steal. - I try to tell the honest truth, to the best of my knowledge and ability...

If you're happy with it it's all good.

I cheat and lie with a few photos, but honestly. I let people know they are transmogrified. It's fun for me and hopefully for the people I send it to. I use my own images (or occasionally free clipart) so it doesn't involve stealing.

(The sky below could use replacement but this was before I got somewhat proficient at things like that).