A dilemma (Page 9): Ach so!

Sinewsworn Loc: Port Orchard, WA

Triplets wrote:

I did. My main reason for the sky replacement

Ach so!

Terkat

Good morning Dennis,

Regardless of your resources / methods you created this beautiful image. I don't feel there is any need whatsoever to to explain (essentially apologizing for) your techniques to anyone. Again, beautiful image,

All the best to you and yours,

Terry

Triplets Loc: Reading, MA

Terkat wrote:

Good morning Dennis,

Regardless of your resources / methods you created this beautiful image. I don't feel there is any need whatsoever to to explain (essentially apologizing for) your techniques to anyone. Again, beautiful image,

All the best to you and yours,

Terry

Thank you Terry

Triplets Loc: Reading, MA

I would like to thank all who responded to my dilemma and for offering your opinions. As always, this forum provides a wide range of information and ideas. I appreciate the time you all have taken to weigh in on my post.

Thanks again,

Dennis (aka Triplets)

Jeffcs Loc: Myrtle Beach South Carolina

Assuming the sky in photo 2 is yours
Why would you need to disclose,
For whom do you feel the need to disclose,
What purpose would disclosure do

NewEnglandPhotoguy Loc: Chelmsford, MA

Triplets wrote:

The attached photos were taken by me. In #1, I did some minor editing to enhance the visual. In #2 I did a sky replacement in Photoshop. My question is, if I post #2 on any social media platforms am I obligated to disclose the editing and sky replacement?

Thanks,

Dennis

You only have to disclose the sky swap if you are entering the picture in a photocontest. Most contests do not allow sky swapped images as the entire presentation is not your photo. Exception is if you took the sky image that you used in the swap.

Toment Loc: FL, IL

Triplets wrote:

The attached photos were taken by me. In #1, I did some minor editing to enhance the visual. In #2 I did a sky replacement in Photoshop. My question is, if I post #2 on any social media platforms am I obligated to disclose the editing and sky replacement?

Thanks,

Dennis

No

rlynes Loc: Wisconsin

Well, based on some of the severely (and sometimes stupidly) doctored images I've seen posted, I'd say let 'er ride with something like Thomas902's description.

rlv567 Loc: Baguio City, Philippines

Triplets wrote:

The attached photos were taken by me. In #1, I did some minor editing to enhance the visual. In #2 I did a sky replacement in Photoshop. My question is, if I post #2 on any social media platforms am I obligated to disclose the editing and sky replacement?

Thanks,

Dennis

I see no need for you to say anything about the sky replacement. However, as pictures, I very much prefer the first, as the arch really stands out, but in the second, not so at all! -- and you're there for the arch.

Loren - in Beautiful Baguio City

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Triplets wrote:

The attached photos were taken by me. In #1, I did some minor editing to enhance the visual. In #2 I did a sky replacement in Photoshop. My question is, if I post #2 on any social media platforms am I obligated to disclose the editing and sky replacement?

Thanks,

Dennis

Well, that certainly explains the incongruous lighting in the second shot. The sun is low in the sky, and judging by the light off the clouds, the sun is ON THE LEFT of the image, while the mountains in the distance, and to a lesser degree, the arch on the lower right, are clearly showing light coming the RIGHT of the image. But the EXIF data shows a capture time of just before 5:00 AM on 11/1/21. Very disorienting.

As far as the image is concerned, it could make sense to reverse the sky so the light appears to come from the right. I do like the choice and it eliminates the halo around the arch in the first image.

Typically there are two main categories of photographers - documentarians who merely record and artists who create. Enhancing an image to your vision doesn't make you a liar - if done correctly and tastefully, as you mostly have done, it makes you a visual storyteller. I find the creatives far more interesting that documentarians . . . Just sayin'

topcat Loc: Alameda, CA

As with most sky replacements, the images don't really match. But it is close enough to be a good image.
Even in photo clubs, sky replacement is permitted, as long as both images were taken by the photographer.
So you don't have to tell anything to anyone unless you want to get approval of your skills.
You did a good job, so congratulations.

btbg

Triplets wrote:

The attached photos were taken by me. In #1, I did some minor editing to enhance the visual. In #2 I did a sky replacement in Photoshop. My question is, if I post #2 on any social media platforms am I obligated to disclose the editing and sky replacement?

Thanks,

Dennis

On social media do whatever you want. If it were for a magazine you would be obligated to disclose what you have done. Journalists have been fired for smaller edits then that.

I personally would disclose what I did, but only because I am a journalist and want to make sure that anything I post is clear as to what was done as it could impact my credibility as a journalist.

Since you do not have the same consideration you can either post without disclosing or disclose to show what the process was whichever better fits your reason for posting in the first place.

Sidwalkastronomy Loc: New Jersey Shore

I like #1 better. The arch stans out. The sky replacement in #2 I think is distracting

lightyear

No reason to say anything. Ansel Adams manipulated nearly all of his famous images in the Darkroom and never reported it with any image. In some of his presentations, which I attended, he said that his darkroom manipulations were simply part of his overall art and he had no reason to specifically reveal anything. I agree.
Stan

RodeoMan Loc: St Joseph, Missouri

One matter to consider is whether the alteration of the image for the purpose of enhancement or for deception. There was the famous case in the early 1950's when the staff of Senator Joseph McCarthy combined images of Mayland senator Millard Tydings with that of Earl Browder, head of the American Communist Party. At the time, Tydings had not yet met Browder, although he later would during Senate investigative hearings. For most of the images we see on this forum all most all edits and enhancements would not have to be reported. Perhaps the question to be addressed is when should edits, enhancements and alterations be disclosed.