E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Have we gone too far off-topic? Perhaps! The OP asked for a recommendation for a good sky-replacement inclusive software. Many members have offered their opinions as to their favorite software and methodology and some included examples of the application. Then, of course, came the onslaught of "I don't do dat" and all the philosophies and quotations of great iconic photographers and picture editors their ethics pertaining to authenticity in photojournalism, and the obligation of all photographers to interpret everything as is with no embellishment, alteration or abstraction!

Sorry about that last run-on sentence and I do become somewhat hyperbolic when I am mildly aggravated, but y'all get my meaning- I hope?

Obviously, not all photography is photojournalism, and some imagery that is passed off as photojournalism is far from truthful. They depend on the editorial policies and integrity of the publication. There are truthful and ethical media and some are not.

There is much discussion in the and othere forums about the "processing" of images in the camera, let alone post-processing, There is also much discussion of the application and ramifications of post-processing as to what is "acceptable, in terms of authenticity and what is not. What is oftentimes left out of the equation is the fact that the PHOTOGRAPHER is a human being with a brain and perhaps his or her own point of view. H o she might opt to tell the story in various ways. Omitting or including anything in the frame, use of various focal lengths at various distances, or variations in camera position or point of view can easily alter, change or influence a story.

Obviously again, not all photography is photojournalism or needs to be documented in any way. If photography is approached as an art, it is up to the artists as to who they want to interpret any subject- realistically, fantasy-like, altered, unadulterate, or abstracted. In commercial photograhy and traditional professional portraiture, photographers are asked, on a daily basis, to enhance, idealize, and perfect images. This does not mean that photographers are creating fraudulent or misrepresented images but perhaps are showing their subjects or products at their best- it is the best light, so to speak.

A vert talent and successful portraitist and teacher said, "I photograph people as they were, as they are and how they woud like to be remembered". Makes sense.

There are certain effects that have become "acceptable". The selective focus for example. So man professes that we must photograhy everything as the eye see them. So, when is the last time any of y'all saw a bird, or a person, or a lowe what a "bokeh" background wit yo own eyes. If you did, it's time to see an ophthalmologist, either that or you are on some awful powerful wacky-tobacky or some prescription drugs that were not prescribed for you! The camera and lens combination combined with depth-oof field control can produce imagery far beyond what we see with our eyes, Yet, these are valuable techniques to isolate subjects on non-distracting backgrounds, create moods and atmosphere, so we can better appreciate the subject.

Personally, I will not negatively critique a basic concept or technique in and of itself. If folks want a critique, I may negatively criticize a poorly crafted application of the method, application, or technology.
I encourage folks to investigate new and old technologies and see if they can provide more tools and methods for their work. Whether turns out to be useful or not, gaudy, tacky, artificial or perfectly OK- that's all at your option.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Wordy as usual but on target.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Yeah! My elementary school teachers used to complain that I talked too much! Now, I write too much and type too fast! I do 85 WPM but my accuracy is in the toilet!

Fact is, however, I figure that nobody around here actually reads or retains what I write (my grandma used
to say it goes in one ear and to of the other) so my misconception is that if I use lots of words, a few may stick as the rest goes out of the other ear!

This has become an unmitigated waste of time and energy! This online monkey-business is a bad habit I gotta quit!

mensch Loc: SF Bay Area

Don't quit yet, as we are all benefitting from your observations!

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

It is a nice effect, but it is just an effect. In 75 years I have never seen an actual sky that looked anything like that.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

You can put in any sky for which you have a photo.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

I do not know the software.
But if you do this let all viewers know the the photo is a composite and fake.
Also make sure shadows are correct and that the sun is not coming over the north pole to the south pole.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Of course you can. I know that. It's just that too many of the replacement skies I see being used seem way over the top IMHO. Instead of enhancing an image they often draw the eye away from the main subject, effectively making the new sky the main point of interest.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Hmm. At a certain point, why bother even capturing an image at all. Just google the location you want a photo of and download it. That is even easier.

mflowe Loc: Port Deposit, MD

mflowe Loc: Port Deposit, MD

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

And that is exactly why folks like it so much. Just like a painting with a unique never seen before sky.
Photoshop is a photographers color palate.

Walter Stansbury

As I understand ON1 Photo RAW 2021 is coming out with an upgrade with that will make sky replacements very easy. Jim Nix has an intro vedeo on it that you might consider watching.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

"The inept carpenter blames his tools"! A well-known idiom.

So much negativism. Folks continuously bash flash, filters, post-processing, sky replacement, soft focus, various kinds of portrait retouching and more. They do this because they have had or seen bad results from the usage of these accessories, software or techniques.

The disappointing, unacceptable. unrealistic, or just plain bad images result from poor craftsmanship, that is no knowledge of how to apply certain methods with subtly and precision.

As for sky replacement- folks drop in a skyscape that is incompatible with lighting, prevailing weather conditions and atmosphere on the ground. Adding a dramatic sky to an overcast lighted scene creates an artificial effect. A pure white sky may be equally distracting so just a touch of cloud or subtle tomes to add just a touch of colour or tonal mass is sufficient to create a batter balance. Colour temperature? A sunset with rich green foliage is a bad match, the warm lig would desaturate the greens. The angle of incidents at sunset would create long shadows- if those shadows are not present, it gives away the affectation. Think before you replace- you pick the skyscape and control the opacity, contrast and position of the clouds, etc.

As for extremely contrasty skyscapes with wild colours- I have seen that in real life. When the air quality in New York city was poor and there was a temperature inversion that exacerbated the pollution level, sunsets over the East River were incredible. A great time to photograph the bridges and skyline- if you could stand the stench!

martinfisherphoto Loc: Lake Placid Florida

I use both On 1 Raw and Luminar to play with sky replacements. As of date On 1 has the best application when masking around trees and bushes which are in a lot of landscape images, also for around portraits with fly away hair. That said it also takes time to mask around the more difficult scenes. Because it's a layer you can adjust the original and sky replacement separately to give the same lighting affect to look more natural. You can also just add a cloud or two to help improve the sky using their textures, a much more realistic look. Luminar on the other hand is very fast with sky replacements and the AI capabilities are able to blend the two together much faster, But as of date the fine tuning around trees and bushes is almost non existent, either it works or doesn't. Luminar has a New upgrade coming up this fall that looks very promising and they are bringing back layers. If they don't Improve the Masking brushes then it will be a flop, but if improved it will be leaps and bounds above the others. As mentioned they only have a few skies with the software and you need to start your own collection. I personally use ON 1 Raw as my main editor and then use Luminar as a plug in as I can use the best software or both for any one specific image. What I'm finding out is no one specific software does it all, but ON 1 with their new No Noise and continued improvements with layers and brushes is starting to walk away from the pack.