How many times I wanted a better sky than the one I was photographing because the weather did not allow for something better. When properly done sky replacement is a great tool to enhance our photography. I call it art and fortunately today we have the tools to do those changes.
If the sky is replaced I am in total agreement that the photographer should say so. Not doing so is cheating.

Burning in, removing unwanted objects, dodging, increasing contrast, saturating colors are some of the many tools we have available today in software. We all use them often but it seems as if sky replacement is the exception when indeed it is another tool.
Remember when we did not want an exposure meter incorporated into our camera body?

Hi Lorvey,
There have been many days when I had the chance to get the shot I wanted/needed, but on that particular day the sky just didn't cooperate. Overcast and plain sky can take away from an otherwise good shot in my opinion, so the 'sky replacement' feature is a great assist in completing the shot.

It doesn't alter the primary shot... I still got the picture of the building, group, bridge, etc. that I was after but hopefully the added sky will serve to enhance the shot. I've use that feature as far back as when it was added to early versions of PS Elements. Now it apprears they have made it more convenient and available in '21.

Of course, one isn't compelled to use it if they prefer not to. Just my opinion, but whatever can be done to enhance or improve your photo... why not? Is it still a 'photo'? Of course it is.
God Bless,
Papa Joe

Re: Commercial Photography.

I too, get up early in the morning to capture a great skyscape at sunrise or wait around in cold weather for the "magic hour" to occur at twilight. I'll even stop my car and get off the road to capture an odd skyscape due to fog or pollution. All of that is for my own personal work and done at my leisure.

Most COMMERCIAL photographers, like me, don't get up every morning and do our best to create FAKERY or misrepresent, people, products or places. Most of our customer rare "SELLING STUFF"- products, services or "selling" themselves and want all of this to be shown in the best light.

Think about this- if you were selling something, would you not want ti to be appealing to the potential customer. If you were selling your photography as "art" who'd you not want to present it well- properly matted or framed. Would you publish a brochure or have a business card with an unattractive portrait of yourself? Would you place it on your website?

Oftentimes commercial assignments of exterior subjects come with deadlines. Some industrial scenes can not be staged- you have to make do with the weather as it is. Murphies law- the client will select the image with a dead sky for the cover of his annual report and the AD want's to strip in the copy overone the "blue sky"!!
Sometimes we need to follow layouts and instructions, sometimes we are given a concept, sometimes we can
create an image to interpret some else's concept. In all cases, we try to create something that is believable and not misrepresentative of anything.

Someof y'all should visit a museum or an art gallery more often. You will notice that some of the artists use saturated colours, some prefer muted colours, some works are realistic, others are impressionistic, and some are abstract. Some works are extremely realistic- almost documentary and others are pure fantasy. Imagine how dull it would be if all the art was the SAME!

Re: Commercial Photography.


Most COMMERCIAL photographers, like me, don't get up every morning and do our best to create FAKERY or misrepresent, people, products or places. Most of our customer rare "SELLING STUFF"- products, services or "selling" themselves and want all of this to be shown in the best light.

I do agree with most of what you wrote. There is however quite a bit of "Fakery" going on in the advertising field. When I buy some Cherry Vanilla ice cream, I generally buy the brand that has the most tempting photo on the container (that's why it's there). I see luscious vanilla with cherries ... when i get home and open the container I see vanilla and flakes of cherries.
IF I were king: I'd pass a law that would still allow a seller to make claims about a product BUT if a photo was included in the advertising, the product MUST look like the photo.

I agree with you - commercial photographers MAKE a picture, its their job and good luck to them. When an amateur takes a photo he takes what he sees and sometimes things like skies are often blown out. I also agree that to replace that sky with one of your own makes that picture better, why wouldn't you. Sometimes even using an internet sky is acceptable to make your print look more acceptable is definitely not a bad thing. As you say artists (painters etc) do this all the time so what they are creating is more
pleasing to the eye.

Even if you are using that photo for a competition there is nothing to say that there is anything wrong with enhancing a photo, I do this myself. My only argument is that there should be a separate part of competitions for doing composite work of great proportions. I admire these people who can spend hours and hours MAKING a composite look great. Jealous, in fact, but please let us lesser mortals get somewhere in the comps with our more simple remedies and lovely photos that we have taken.

Luminar and PS 21 can now do sky replacement. Don't get me wrong, I sometimes massage my photos a lot by cropping, using spot repair, cloning out small unwanted bits, adjust exposure, and sometimes add a little saturation. But sky replacement to me seems like too much. Do you still call it a photo after you replace the sky? Do you enter it in a contest without saying anything. Do you accept compliments without saying anything? Not trying to be a purist, but when you start adding and replacing items in a photo, it seems to me it is no longer a photo. It's probably photo art. Not trying to start a fight, just interested in your perspective.

Re: Commercial Photography.


Most COMMERCIAL photographers, like me, don't get up every morning and do our best to create FAKERY or misrepresent, people, products or places. Most of our customer rare "SELLING STUFF"- products, services or "selling" themselves and want all of this to be shown in the best light.

I do agree with most of what you wrote. There is however quite a bit of "Fakery" going on in the advertising field. When I buy some Cherry Vanilla ice cream, I generally buy the brand that has the most tempting photo on the container (that's why it's there). I see luscious vanilla with cherries ... when i get home and open the container I see vanilla and flakes of cherries.
IF I were king: I'd pass a law that would still allow a seller to make claims about a product BUT if a photo was included in the advertising, the product MUST look like the photo.

This all depends on the purpose of taking the photo.
For some it is "art"; for some it has other purposes.

When the photo is taken as "art" in general, it depends on taste of the artist.
When the photo is taken for a contest, it does depend on the contest's rules as well as the artist's taste.
When the photo is taken as documentation, the answer is a big "NO" {see Nick Ut's photo of 'Napalm Girl"}.

A guy took a photo of my wife and another woman for our church, and then produced two versions: as taken, and at a beach. Obviously they used the as taken version, and considered the other one as being "silly".

Luminar and PS 21 can now do sky replacement. Don't get me wrong, I sometimes massage my photos a lot by cropping, using spot repair, cloning out small unwanted bits, adjust exposure, and sometimes add a little saturation. But sky replacement to me seems like too much. Do you still call it a photo after you replace the sky? Do you enter it in a contest without saying anything. Do you accept compliments without saying anything? Not trying to be a purist, but when you start adding and replacing items in a photo, it seems to me it is no longer a photo. It's probably photo art. Not trying to start a fight, just interested in your perspective.

Luminar and PS 21 can now do sky replacement. Don't get me wrong, I sometimes massage my photos a lot by cropping, using spot repair, cloning out small unwanted bits, adjust exposure, and sometimes add a little saturation. But sky replacement to me seems like too much. Do you still call it a photo after you replace the sky? Do you enter it in a contest without saying anything. Do you accept compliments without saying anything? Not trying to be a purist, but when you start adding and replacing items in a photo, it seems to me it is no longer a photo. It's probably photo art. Not trying to start a fight, just interested in your perspective.