CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

A good photograph has the most pixels.
A good photographer has a mirrorless camera.
A great photographer masters PhotoShop.

scubadoc Loc: Sarasota, FL

And the greatest photographers have mastered SOOC.

wide2tele Loc: Australia

It's one of the reasons I want to shoot film again, the challenge.
Skies were also a debate with myself. Should I use my old Cokin filters or just do things later in post.
Nope, not cutting any corners, I'm going to use Cokin filters at the shooting stage to either block out light or create additional color.
Will this method be as dramatic as I could do in post, nope, but it will be more rewarding.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

If you do photography strictly as art, for your own personal edification. fun, enjoyment or even for sale- YOU are the artists and/or the craftsperson and YOU make the decisions. There is no law or ethic pertaining to self-expression or creativity. You can manipulate any image, add or remove elements as per your interpretation- real, abstract, whatever.

Here are the caveats:

If you are a "purist" photographically speaking and insist on creating every image straight out of the camera with little or no post-processing have at it and don't bother about special effects including sky replacement.

If you are into post-processing manipulation ad special effects, sky replacement can be a useful and effective method of image enhancement, especially it is well crafted where the landscape and the sky match as to mood, the colour, direction of lighting, and reflections that mirror the sky.

If you are a commercial photograher, sky replacement can be an enhancement, for certain architectural exteriors and other illustrations, especially where water and sky conditions are not compatible with deadlines. Again, an expert application where the sky does not look like an affectation is best.

Photojournalism. Publications that conform and adhere to ethical and truthful journalism would obviously have policies against any image manipulation that alter the truthfulness of the story. I can't think of any situation in photojournalism or spot-news coverage where sky replaces would be necessary or applicable. I suppose it can change the mood or impression of an image. Unless the publication is into "yellow" tabloid fakery- not authentic journalism, it would be a NO-NO!

Certain photographic contests and competitions mu have rules prohibiting certain special effects. Check the rules when entering.

The only way you are gonna find out if you like the effect and learn how to master it, is by trying it out and practicing its aplication.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

And you can have a “mastered” SOOC image that would still benefit from some PP.

CliffMcKenzie Loc: Lake Athens Texas

I have a slightly different take on sky replacement. I believe, especially in contest, the image must be 100% yours. I have built and continue to build a library of shots I have taken of skies. I do not see an ethics issue if all parts of the image are yours. The object is to produce the very best image as possible.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Every master knows the surest way to corrupt a novice is to explain the importance SOOC.

frangeo Loc: Texas

I have on many occasions said that Ansel Adams did more post processing than 90% of we photographers do. What is the difference between dodging with your hands or your hand on a mouse?????? Give it up!!! It's the final product that counts.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Sky manipulation is not the same as outright replacement. With a replaced sky you end up with a composite image. I have nothing against replacing a sky. But I do have something against replacing a sky with somebody else's photo of one and calling the final result your own. Additionally, despite the effectiveness of the current set of tools, used in the hands of a unskilled person the final results are often poor and sometimes laughable.

In the 19th century the emulsion used by photographers often left the sky a featureless white. Various photographers during that time replaced skies where they thought it was appropriate. One of them was Eadweard Muybridge, the famous 19th century photographer who did studies of people and animals in motion. But at least they replaced the skies with their own photographs. Even then, Ansel Adams noted in his book The Negative, that it was surprising seeing the same sky in multiple photographs.

The bottom line is that sky replacement technology which is now available in a number of image enhancement programs, while occasionally an extremely useful tool, is often overused by less skilled photographers who make poor replacement sky choices. Those replacement skies often are inappropriate and don't take lighting, shadows, and the subject matter into account which detracts from, instead of enhancing, an image. And the ease of replacing skies certainly does not promote novice photographers learning how to get the best from the sky they've got when they capture an image.

srt101fan

Well said!