Luminar - Replace sky?
Apr 23, 2020 13:15:22 #
xt2
Loc: British Columbia, Canada
rmalarz wrote:
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
Not sure how changing a sky or dodging & burning a telephone pole out of or into a photo is unethical or, lacks integrity, unless the photographer states that the photo is an exact replication (and it is not) of a scene or event as might be required by a court of law?
Cheers & stay well.
Apr 23, 2020 13:16:15 #
Burning and dodging are one thing. At least that was being done using the original negative exposed by the photographer and processed by the photographer.
If one wants to lean on the artistic license approach, fine. At least possess enough skills to have accomplished the photograph if the elements were there at the time of taking the photograph. Don't simply and randomly poke on buttons and selections until that "oh wow look what I just did" moment and call that an artistic accomplishment.
--Bob
If one wants to lean on the artistic license approach, fine. At least possess enough skills to have accomplished the photograph if the elements were there at the time of taking the photograph. Don't simply and randomly poke on buttons and selections until that "oh wow look what I just did" moment and call that an artistic accomplishment.
--Bob
wds0410 wrote:
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.
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.
Apr 23, 2020 13:16:28 #
xt2
Loc: British Columbia, Canada
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.
It's a shame we cannot ask AA what he did...
RIP
Apr 23, 2020 13:17:30 #
mflowe
Loc: Port Deposit, MD
wds0410 wrote:
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.
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.
And I understand your argument as well. Like I said I'm probably a little hypocritical because I'm certainly not a SOOC purist. I clone things out of my images and do tonal and contrast and color adjustments. As said by others, art is art and people are free to do what they want, but there's just something inside me that draws the limit at sky replacement at least insofar as using someone else's sky.
Apr 23, 2020 13:17:41 #
xt2
Loc: British Columbia, Canada
mflowe wrote:
And I'll repeat myself. What Ansel didn't do was take a sky from say Eliot Porter and put it into "Moonrise"
What did AA actually say to you about his photos mflowe?
Cheers & stay well.
Apr 23, 2020 13:18:39 #
xt2
Loc: British Columbia, Canada
BebuLamar wrote:
mflowe brought up a valid point though. He said Adams wouldn't use Porter's sky in his photograph so whose sky are you using when luminar replacing the sky?
That is up to you...either one you purchase or one you take on your own. The options are limitless.
Apr 23, 2020 13:19:01 #
xt2
Loc: British Columbia, Canada
sandykreit wrote:
I have no problem replacing a sky to improve a photograph, this is art not documentary. If you have a problem with it you can take pictures of skies and use you're own photograph to replace in your photograph.
Apr 23, 2020 13:21:00 #
xt2
Loc: British Columbia, Canada
mflowe wrote:
I guess I respectfully disagree with most here on this issue. Maybe I'm logically inconsistent and a hypocrite. I don't know. But I just don't see how anyone can take any pride in taking someone else's work and combining it with their own. I'll admit I don't believe in sky replacement at all, but at least you can use one of your own.
Fair comment mflowe...you are entitled to feel that way, even if you are in the minority. That is what makes our countries so great!
Cheers & stay well.
Apr 23, 2020 13:21:32 #
Apr 23, 2020 13:24:26 #
wds0410
Loc: Nunya
rmalarz wrote:
Burning and dodging are one thing. At least that w... (show quote)
Why not? That seems at best, arbitrary and at its worst, sanctimonious. It is the end result that matters not how you got there.
Honestly don't get that view point at all.
Apr 23, 2020 13:30:33 #
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...
With Luminar 4 you can do anything including changing the sky to any image you have in your library. You can do that in PS too but not as easily.
Apr 23, 2020 13:37:20 #
Many times, we visit a place for the only time. If there were cloudless skies on that day, why not "improve" the photo with a more interesting sky? What's the harm?
Apr 23, 2020 13:49:10 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
No artist ever sees things only as the camera would. If he did, he would cease to be an artist.
Apr 23, 2020 13:55:38 #
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? 
The difference between art and photography...
bwa
Apr 23, 2020 13:58:12 #
Linda From Maine wrote:
😀 😀
AT times, they do it. so its not wrong hahahaha
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.