Luminar - Replace sky?
Apr 23, 2020 06:21:44 #
Peterfiore wrote:
A picture is not reality...Ever. Reality is real...always.
I guess it must take a wise man to acknowledge that reality is real.
Apr 23, 2020 06:29:30 #
Delderby wrote:
I guess it must take a wise man to acknowledge that reality is real.
All made images lie... : )
Apr 23, 2020 07:09:01 #
Delderby wrote:
Often, in the past, I have read how many photographers defend their PPd pics as being true photographs by saying that they have reproduced what their "eyes saw" rather than what the camera shot. What would they say when the photograph included a replacement sky, which bore no relationship to the true sky as recorded by the camera?
While I rarely PP my images in such a fashion but I do see something in my images that I didn't see when I took the pictures. Sometimes it's a nice surprise but many time it's something I didn't see and wish it's not in the picture.
Apr 23, 2020 07:16:01 #
Lucian wrote:
What would you expect them to say? Obviously that... (show quote)
"That is more to the question, when does it ever matter?
It does matter. If it didn't why use any software that all these companies develop and sell that are bought up and used by people who take pictures?
Apr 23, 2020 07:18:50 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
There is no greater agony than owning a camera that is better than your ability to edit on a computer.
Apr 23, 2020 07:23:35 #
Sound like making the scene vs capturing the scene. I can see a little lightening or cropping but changing the sky is beyond being a photographer. Dodging and burning is one thing, thing kind of thing is beyond that. You have to say I manipulated a certain photo not took it.
Apr 23, 2020 07:40:51 #
Personally, I'm not a fan of this manner of work at all. With today's cameras, that try to think for us and then Luminar's push-button make a photograph, it's great for marketing but it certainly doesn't make a photographer. People who couldn't produce a photograph with a simple manual camera if their life depended on it, can now produce a "wow look what I did". That is after randomly poking at some buttons in a program. There is definitely a lack of integrity somewhere.
--Bob
--Bob
Delderby wrote:
Often, in the past, I have read how many photographers defend their PPd pics as being true photographs by saying that they have reproduced what their "eyes saw" rather than what the camera shot. What would they say when the photograph included a replacement sky, which bore no relationship to the true sky as recorded by the camera?
Apr 23, 2020 07:46:18 #
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
Delderby wrote:
Often, in the past, I have read how many photographers defend their PPd pics as being true photographs by saying that they have reproduced what their "eyes saw" rather than what the camera shot. What would they say when the photograph included a replacement sky, which bore no relationship to the true sky as recorded by the camera?
If it improved the shot I would say, Well Done, after all, artists have been doing it for centuries and we call it fine art.
Apr 23, 2020 07:48:56 #
LarryFitz
Loc: Beacon NY
If the weather man/woman uses sky replacement to show that their forecast was correct, that would be wrong.
Apr 23, 2020 07:51:16 #
LarryFitz wrote:
😀 😀If the weather man/woman uses sky replacement to show that their forecast was correct, that would be wrong.
Apr 23, 2020 07:56:57 #
Rongnongno wrote:
If using luminar the choices are limited...
If using PS CC the sky is the limit...
Best bet is to use what the saw and it sees many things the eye does not. It is just how you pull this information out that makes a difference. If overdone of course it becomes ugly...
If using PS CC the sky is the limit...
Best bet is to use what the saw and it sees many things the eye does not. It is just how you pull this information out that makes a difference. If overdone of course it becomes ugly...
Alas, you are incorrect. Luminar does include a number of skies that you can use but it also allows you to use any sky you want. Having taught Photoshop classes including sky replacement I can definitively state that Luminar 4 does a much better job for most people and it does it quickly.
Apr 23, 2020 07:59:49 #
Luminar offers Luminar 3 for free. I downloaded it, installed it and found that I have to import photo to use it. So I uninstalled it. This is the same thing why I don't use light room.
Apr 23, 2020 08:02:28 #
mwslivers your issue that it doesn't take any effort to replace the sky in Luminar is, to me, rather silly. 1) It doesn't take much effort in Lightroom or Photoshop to move sliders and 2) more importantly, only the final image matters. No one will ask how hard was it to either take or process that picture. Someone either likes it or doesn't, the effort involved is meaningless to the viewer. Use whatever tools you like but do not deride others for using better or more sophisticated tools. Processing with the first version of PhotoShop is more difficult than with CC, why are you using the easier to use version? Same question different software.
Apr 23, 2020 08:03:46 #
And there goes your integrity right out the window, door, or whatever opening is closest.
I might agree that if the shot is for commercial purposes that's a different genre altogether. But for artistic work, nope!
--Bob
I might agree that if the shot is for commercial purposes that's a different genre altogether. But for artistic work, nope!
--Bob
billnikon wrote:
If it improved the shot I would say, Well Done, after all, artists have been doing it for centuries and we call it fine art.
Apr 23, 2020 08:50:42 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.