yssirk123 Loc: New Jersey

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

Papa Joe Loc: Midwest U.S.

I wonder Del, is a man's wife no longer his true wife because she puts make-up on?
God Bless,
Papa Joe

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I guess we can see who falls into the category of Fauxtographer.
--Bob

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Depends whether she dyes her hair first.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Now that I like! I guess Fauxtographers would display fauxtographs.

fergmark Loc: norwalk connecticut

Now you are on to something.

Angel Star Photography Loc: Tacoma, WA

To expand upon your comment, no artist or creative individual ever sees the world as others would. If they did, creativity would not exist nor would progress be had.

sandykreit

Everyone has they're own opinion, name calling makes you a very small person. You're entitled to be any kind of photographer you want and so do I, it doesn't make me less than you..

Angel Star Photography Loc: Tacoma, WA

It's all a matter of creativity. While I am not a big fan of sky replacement, there have been moments where I have captured a scene in which the sky was intriguing but the rest of the image was not. On a later shoot of the same area, the surroundings were intriguing but the sky not. I would consider the possibility of sky replacement from my own images to craft an image of the area as I imagined it could have been or would be on a day I am not there. To do so with stock images of skies from others would not be so appealing to me as I would tend to always feel that the image was not totally mine containing elements from other photographers. Likewise, I would be less likely to attempt sky replacement for an image that was shot on one location while the sky was shot at a different geographical location.

The two criteria I place upon myself is that if I were to do sky replacement or any other similar replacements are that 1) all objects of the image must come from my own images, and 2) content must come from images taken of the same area. I would not take a sky from Athens, Greece and place it over Seattle, Washington even though I have shot at both locations.

However, overall, I typically watch the weather patterns, the clouds, the positions of the sun and moon---astronomy and other sciences are hobbies, too---to make a determination as to whether an area will present itself with the beauty I anticipate and try to capture it.

Charles

Charles

sandykreit

And that is your prerogative, no question about it!! And I'm entitled to mine!

wds0410 Loc: Nunya

wds0410 Loc: Nunya

If you compare the SOOC and the final result of that Ansel Adams image -- for all intents and purposes that is what he did though. The sky from SOOC looks nothing like the final product.

I understand your argument but I think there is something called artistic license that gives anyone leeway.

Well all is said and done, agree to disagree.

repleo Loc: Boston

I think the 'what the eyes saw" standard is all balderdash. The eye doesn't see in black and white. The eye doesn't see sharp to the corners. The eye doesn't see through a 24 mm lens, nor a 400 mm lens. PP is about controlling the image. Photography is about the minds eye, not the optic nerve, nor the limitations of the equipment, nor the weather.

However, PP adjustments are one thing, but introducing elements that were not in the original scene is in a different realm and can quickly become, what I would consider to be an exercise in graphics rather than a photograph. Still perfectly legitimate if that is what the vision calls for.

xt2 Loc: British Columbia, Canada

L4 allows for as many skies as you wish. I have about 500 "skies" available and can take as many more photos of interesting skies to add to my collection.

Cheers & stay well.

xt2 Loc: British Columbia, Canada

Linda!!!