Your opinion (Page 2): Good answer!

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

wdross wrote:

Photography has always been manipulation. Just loo... (show quote)

Good answer!

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

notnowdarnit wrote:

New software (Luminar 4) has the function to insert or overlay a false sky onto almost any landscape photo.
I am somewhat of a purist and prefer to enhance the landscape as photographed. I had to try the software just for the sake of curiosity. The results were amazing and no one could tell that the landscape was a fake.
What is your opinion about inserting false elements into a landscape ?

Every bit of processing an image gets - starting inside the camera - is false. Don't worry about it. There is documentary photography, and there is fine art photography. If a photo is going to be used in a court case, no processing is allowed. Aside from that, have fun!

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

notnowdarnit wrote:

New software (Luminar 4) has the function to insert or overlay a false sky onto almost any landscape photo.
I am somewhat of a purist and prefer to enhance the landscape as photographed. I had to try the software just for the sake of curiosity. The results were amazing and no one could tell that the landscape was a fake.
What is your opinion about inserting false elements into a landscape ?

Below are two shots, the fist is as photographed, I exposed for the foreground and the sky went overexposed, the second shot I darkened the sky in Photoshop, I prefer the second shot, and I am a purist too, and for me, the second shot was how the scene really looked. So, through Photoshop, I brought it back. And, the second shot is more foreboding, giving the idea that winter is not far away. Again, I am a purist, I try to get the shot right the first time, but, if you can improve the shot and make it better, why not, artists have been doing it for centuries, it's our turn now.

tcthome Loc: NJ

couch coyote wrote:

I think it depends on each photographer's individual preferences. There's really no wrong answer. If I get one that is great right out of the camera, I'm thrilled. But part of the fun (for me) is creating something that doesn't exist in nature. The only limit is my imagination. Wheee! :)

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Linda From Maine wrote:

It's your image, your art. Unless you're trying to... (show quote)

Herbie1924 Loc: Woodbury, MN

Linda's example is an obvious fake - the Sun is in front of the steeple subject.

yssirk123 Loc: New Jersey

I don't really care one way or the other; the only thing that matters to me is whether I like the image. How you arrived at that is no concern of mine.

Bill 45

billnikon wrote:

Below are two shots, the fist is as photographed, ... (show quote)

In your first picture everything is in focus. For some reason your second picture everything is a little out of focus. Pictures have become like everything else today what is real and what is not. For me I would go with the first picture, that is real. Where is the skill of taking a picture when one can change it in a Photoshop?

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

Bill 45 wrote:

In your first picture everything is in focus. For some reason your second picture everything is a little out of focus. Pictures have become like everything else today what is real and what is not. For me I would go with the first picture, that is real. Where is the skill of taking a picture when one can change it in a Photoshop?

The shots are identical.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Herbie1924 wrote:

Linda's example is an obvious fake - the Sun is in front of the steeple subject.

Aren't you just the sweetest thing 🤗 No doubt a middle-of-the-day photographer, not that there's anything wrong with that. Below is the attached raw if anyone would like to take a peek or to edit. Send to me via pm or post in my Landscape topic; don't put in this thread, please.

Panasonic G7 raw
Attached file:
(Download)

Bill 45

billnikon wrote:

The shots are identical.

Maybe it my eyes.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Bill 45 wrote:

Maybe it my eyes.

It is difficult to tell when a pic is only 600 px wide, especially if posted larger. The UHH thumbnail is compressed; the bigger the file, the more it gets squished.

John N Loc: HP14 3QF Stokenchurch, UK

One of the members at our local Camera Club gave a talk on 'how to cheat at photography' just this week. PP has been going on since the since the day after Joseph Nicéphore Niépce took the first photo.

It's just that it has got a lot easier now. A short discussion led us to decide that if you took all elements of the final image then it was your work. If you used one of Luminars stock replacement skies then it was not your own work and therefore not submissable for competition.

The same member replaced a sky for me. I shot a silhouette of a telecommunications tower and he replaced the sky with a milky way sky. Luminar replaced the sky filling in ALL the gaps around the ironwork and I was most impressed.

FotoHog Loc: on Cloud 9

CHG_CANON wrote:

The artist spends years learning to create images no one else could create in a life-time.

Some artists create something that is puzzling to everybody for a lifetime

wds0410 Loc: Nunya

notnowdarnit wrote:

New software (Luminar 4) has the function to insert or overlay a false sky onto almost any landscape photo.
I am somewhat of a purist and prefer to enhance the landscape as photographed. I had to try the software just for the sake of curiosity. The results were amazing and no one could tell that the landscape was a fake.
What is your opinion about inserting false elements into a landscape ?

Rule #1: There are no rules. If you follow any accomplished photographer, you will see they adjust their photos in some way or another, remove distractions, adjust the contrast, add/remove color, darken/brighten areas of the photo etc.