larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I have a good friend who is an artist. A real one. All media. She is working on her MFA right now, with a focus on illustration. She has shown me quite a bit of her work. She has allowed me to watch her create some of it.

Everything she creates is identifiable. No cubism or impressionism or relativism or any other "ism." All are depictions of the original subject. None are perfect images. Not even her illustrations. And not a word in her Artist's Statements about what has been altered....adjusted skies, modified perspectives, altered colors.

If you are doing journalistic photography, or medical photography, or forensic photography, or scientific photography, or other documentary photography, the rules are different. But if you are doing artistic photography or decorative photography, there's no reason your rules should be any different from hers.

mr1492 Loc: Newport News, VA

That’s incorrect. Even if you post them you retain copyright for the rest of your life and your heirs retain it for an additional 75 years. Please don’t post incorrect legal information.

The OP can consult an IP attorney for more information.

Phil

TucsonDave Loc: Tucson, Arizona

Why don't you think of your final image as a painting. The result could be what you would like to see the scene or how the blend of colors make you feel an emotion, etc. That, in fact, is what you created. There is no misrepresentation. If you put it out for others to see, give it a title, say, "My sky" or "My world as I see it".

You could always not post process the photograph. You should feel could about your images. So, do what makes you feel good. Have a great time doing that.

Just Shoot Me Loc: Ithaca, NY

I was there in six million BC. That arch was a mountain!

andrew d

Hi Dennis,

1. Its your image, especially so if its your sky and not someone else's

2. To my eye, the subject is the rock formation in the foreground, right?
I think the red sunlit sky takes away too much contrast from your subject, sky and mountains.

I would leave it as original, or use a much less busy sky. I like the deep blue.
How about just some interesting clouds?

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Edit?
Define edit.
Does that mean adding things that are not really there?
Or just taking the raw file and adjusting contrast, exposure etc?
This adding sky routine is cute but just because it is so easily done now does not mean that it should be without saying that the photo is not real as to what was present but is a composit of 2 or more photos.
Fine to do and it looks fine but is disingenuous to pretend that is what was really there.
I enjoy composits as much as anyone but when I see these amazing sky shots in places where they are unlikely or are wrong or over done looking I figure they are not anything more than a composit and someone was having fun with photoshop.
I will enjoy, say it looks nice and move on. I I were judging such a composit I would ask if it were and judge with that in mind.

Triplets Loc: Reading, MA

I'm agreeing with you. I believe it is a composite. Like when I post star trails or Milky Way photos I will say this is "x" number of images blended together.

Dennis

Miamark Loc: Florida

You are under no obligation to disclose it. It is up to you.

JFCoupe Loc: Kent, Washington

If #2 were a painting in oils, acrylic or water colors, would anyone ask, "was that the actual sky when you painted the scene?"

So unless you are producing a documentary of the area, I am okay without any explanation of the sky replacement.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Drawing is your imagination.
Draw whatever you feel.
Your drawing lacks a myriad of details and accuracy so everyone knows that it is pure fantasy of your mind.

no12mo

I've been out there and the clouds seem out of place. I go with #1. I agree photographically with you, the clouds compete with the arch.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

The problem with landscapes as photographic art is that all (or certainly most) have been photographed before, and in all likelihood will be photographed again. So the temptation is for each "artist" to do something new or different, to avoid being "trite" or a cliche. Eventually, the list of seasonal differences, or lighting differences, or whatever other distinctions you can think of, simply runs out. It's a disadvantage that we all face because there are so many more "public photographers" than there are "public painters," or " public watercolorists." When someone does find a way to be different, it's natural to want to talk about it.

For me, for instance, the thought for this subject would be to find a way to compose it without the two horizons cutting through the arch. That may have been done, but I don’t recall having seen it. It would be a better difference (to me) than a more exciting sky. If I accomplished it, you can be sure that I'd talk about it.

Of course, this is a different question. It would not contain any ethical elements, unless I had to walk or shoot from some off-limits area or spot, and did so without proper permission. Or if I was detailing how I got that permission.

So no, I do not believe there is a dilemma here at all.

PAR4DCR Loc: A Sunny Place

When you post an image do you say it was cropped, highlights down 5, shadow up 8, expose up .30, etc.
So why would you bring sky replacement into it?
Just my 2 cents.

Don

Sinewsworn Loc: Port Orchard, WA

No. Artist's choose. Did you notice the halo around the subject?

Triplets Loc: Reading, MA

I did. My main reason for the sky replacement