goldenyears Loc: Lake Osewgo

I routinely edit my photographs, but adding an entire new sky that someone else photographed? For me it's a bit too much, but I know I will eventually do it too, and enjoy the result greatly.

JRiepe Loc: Southern Illinois

You can photograph your own skies to use.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

What, "Luminar and PS 21 can now do..."? I have manually changed skies with Ps CS5 seven years or more ago using layers. Both the main subject and the sky were taken by me, so I would consider the resultant image my own composite photograph. In the ancient days such tricks could and were done in the darkroom by more talented printers. And the sky I used was believable for the location, nothing crazy or fancifull.

ChrisRL

People edit photos because:

1) they need to add something they want;
2) they need to remove something they don't want, or
3) because they can.

Or 4) because someone else did it. Which amounts to the same thing, egos aside.

Usually it starts because of 1 or 2. Then they show their work to others and usually it's those other people who then think of 3), or 4).


Also
Photos are

A)taken (subtractive, starting from the entire universe and then framing out what is not required as the subject(s), or

B)made (additive, starting from a white studio background paper, for instance, and adding in the required subject(s).

In other media, we have the same kind of distinction - there is the documentary film (starting from the world) or the fiction film (starting from the script), the fiction or non-fiction book, the representative or impressionist painting, etc.

Both forms are valid.

Note those are also the base types of intellectual/technical ("neck-up") as well as the more artistic/emotional/visceral ("neck-down") forms of communication.


Most pros need to show competence in all four forms and types in order to get hired.


Also,
"Creativity" is usually arrived at by the fresh and thus unusual combination of two or more known aspects of form, content, etc.

So little wonder that the ideas of the "made" photo (additive composition and compositing) get mixed in with the "taken" photo (i.e. the "purist" subject-only concept) and get called "creative" and thus desirable, innovative, etc.

But these are, well, just facets of the same diamond. Always changing, depending on how you look at it.

Which facet is right? Better? More correct? Too much? Too little?
Ah, there's much food for thought indeed!

I say that we, all of us, all need to be at least familiar with all of these approaches, to a greater or lesser degree.

Then it's up to our own personal taste (or the taste of our client), to determine which approach, or blend, to use, for what kind of work we are going to make.

Linda Ewing Loc: Lincolnshire,UK

I do apologise to all if i have offended in any way, I wasn't trying to say an amateur is rubbish at photography, of course, that is entirely rubbish, I have seen many, many excellent amateurs win all sorts of awards and produce marvellous work. I do know sometimes (for me) I find it difficult to get the whole range of sky and landscape range into one photo. I hold my hand out to those of you who can achieve this with your skills in photography,if this happens I would happily replace the sky with one of my own taken at a different time. I was merely pointing out that I think some composites take hours and hours of work, the results are wonderful and I think they have a place of their own in comps.

User ID

Amen. I’m With you. My hobbies are composting and proof reading ;-)

DWU2 Loc: Phoenix Arizona area

There's one aspect of this topic that I don't think has come up yet. When you visit a place, you may arrive at noon with the stark sun overhead. Maybe you can't come back in the morning, and don't expect to return in the future. So, your photos may have cloudless skies, or totally overcast skies. What harm can come from "improving" the sky to provide a more presentable photo?

epd1947

There will always be differing perspectives on this - but I see no issue with sky replacment - and I don't see it as fundamentally different from other actions like cloning out unwanted parts of a scene to enhance the presentation of the scene. Such tools should not be used to alter photos that require photojournalistic integrity - but for general photography (which is first and foremost an art form) I really don't see the issue. Should a painter be restricted from adding in a dramatic sky to a landscape he or she is painting that presently has a bland sky?

User ID

Yes. No reason, just yes. There were no puffy clouds when the depicted event occurred. I know because it does not say so in any first person accounts.

User ID

But it’s not fake. It’s of a real sky.

User ID

DISGUSTING !!!

User ID

Word ! Every word !

Who could argue with that ?!?!?

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

Photography is DEFINITELY an art form!

bwa

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

So a photo is not art until one modifies it?