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.
I wonder Del, is a man's wife no longer his true wife because she puts make-up on?
God Bless,
Papa Joe
I guess we can see who falls into the category of Fauxtographer.
--Bob
Papa Joe wrote:
I wonder Del, is a man's wife no longer his true wife because she puts make-up on?
God Bless,
Papa Joe
Depends whether she dyes her hair first.
rmalarz wrote:
I guess we can see who falls into the category of Fauxtographer.
--Bob
Now that I like! I guess Fauxtographers would display fauxtographs.
Delderby wrote:
Now that I like! I guess Fauxtographers would display fauxtographs.
Now you are on to something.
CHG_CANON wrote:
No artist ever sees things only as the camera would. If he did, he would cease to be an artist.
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.
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..
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?
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
And that is your prerogative, no question about it!! And I'm entitled to mine!
mflowe wrote:
I love how everytime these discusussions about photo manipulation come up, we get the great Ansel Adam's quotes. I'll tell you one thing Ansel didn't do. He didn't take a sky from one of Eliot Porter's photos and composit into one of his foregrounds.
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.
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?
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
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...
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.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.