Do you often sky-swap?

Markk

Markk

Messages
728
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm trying out editors/organizers as I'm searching for a LR alternative. The alternatives I've tried so far have really been showcasing their 'sky-swap' feature.

Is this really that popular? I was curious how often people are swapping out skies? (instead of, for example, using gradient filters or HDR or other techniques)
 
Something I think I have only ever done once, grads and HDR don't make flat grey into blue with fluffy white clouds.

It depends what you are doing with the photo, if it's for something like advertising then I can see why someone would.
 
I never have and probably never would.

To me it would be cheating and changing the nature of photography.

I'm with Andy - that's digital art and although I can admire some of it, mostly it does nothing for me as it nearly always looks false
 
I’m all for keeping the original skies and ‘going back another time’ but this isn’t always possible for people like me that work 5 days a week and only have a limited amount of time for photography. So I have used it, but only a few times, and always with skies I’ve shot myself. If I try it and it doesn’t look realistic, then the shot is abandoned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TG.
I wouldn't swap them either, but I know folk who do, not my thing but it's the way things are going.
 
Andy Into The Wild said:
In my opinion sky swapping crosses a line from photography editing into digital art creation. The furthest I'd go would be cloning out distractions.

Of course if it floats your boat go for it.
Click to expand...
At what percentage of the overall image is cloning acceptable?
 
Sky replacement in ordinary photography smacks somewhat of desperation to me. And a bit of a cheap get-out, along with its falsehood aspect. Do you really want to go around conning people? Even if not held to be unethical, it strikes me as rather shallow in most circumstances. We're already surrounded by fakery in media & marketing - why add to the pile?

When we take a photograph, it's well to pay attention to the parameters involved, and make certain judgements before the shutterbutton is pressed. It's a craft, after all. If you don't like the sky, why did you take the photograph? Couldn't you be bothered to check it out at the time?
 
I will admit, I tried it out in Luminar and in ON1 and, well, I felt very weird, lol. Like opening a box of trickery and curious to see the results yet wary of the falsehood of it all.

...and the vibe that those two programs gave, the "Instagram'mer" sort of feel also put me off. But maybe I'm not open-minded enough about this...
 
Having spent the last 4 months looking for a property, its been evident lots of estate agents use an alternative sky to improve the appearance of their sales items.

I would never consider doing it in my own pictures.
 
It's not for me. I've never done it on a standard style image. I only swap or blend in skies with astrophotography but that's more of an exposure/tracked blend anyway as the sky is shot on the same night.
 
droj said:
Sky replacement in ordinary photography smacks somewhat of desperation to me. And a bit of a cheap get-out, along with its falsehood aspect. Do you really want to go around conning people? Even if not held to be unethical, it strikes me as rather shallow in most circumstances. We're already surrounded by fakery in media & marketing - why add to the pile?

When we take a photograph, it's well to pay attention to the parameters involved, and make certain judgements before the shutterbutton is pressed. It's a craft, after all. If you don't like the sky, why did you take the photograph? Couldn't you be bothered to check it out at the time?
Click to expand...
Presume you just export the standard profile image then, zero editing. Anything else is altering the image surely, ergo fake.
 
I agree that replacing a sky is not photography. Im well aware that techniques to adapt an photo have occured in film days but feel that photography should be what was seen. I dont have an issue with cloning out small distractions or focus staking/bracketing but if you are calling it/publishing it as a photograph it should be predominantly as shot.

If you want to change the sky call it art as its not a photo its 2 seperate photos and the skill/art is in the use of a computer.

Out of interest what editors have you trialled and rejected @Markk ? Im toying with moving to lightroom as my current solution - capture one/Affinity combo is causing me more headaches than I need.
 
AgentOrange76 said:
I agree that replacing a sky is not photography. Im well aware that techniques to adapt an photo have occured in film days but feel that photography should be what was seen. I dont have an issue with cloning out small distractions or focus staking/bracketing but if you are calling it/publishing it as a photograph it should be predominantly as shot.

If you want to change the sky call it art as its not a photo its 2 seperate photos and the skill/art is in the use of a computer.

Out of interest what editors have you trialled and rejected @Markk ? Im toying with moving to lightroom as my current solution - capture one/Affinity combo is causing me more headaches than I need.
Click to expand...
Using multiple shots and blending for either bracketing or focus stacking also rely heavily on the use of the computer, do they not?

To be honest, my feelings on the subject aren't as strong as some others here, and if I take a shot (at some point in the spare hour I had that particular Month) that truly benefits from replacing a sky, and it can be done in such a way as to still look realistic, then its just another tool to use (or not) in the ever evolving technology that is digital art/photography.

Can it be tacky? Hell yes! Done properly and with consideration to the rest of the image, I can't see a problem with it. Im willing to bet that there are a large number of shots posted to this forum that are not as 'legit' as would appear.
 
Last edited:
The level of hypocrisy by some in here is astounding.
Swapping a sky is two photos so isn't allowed but cloning, and stacked shots, editing colours, bracketing is fine under some nonsense BS rules.

Photography is what the person taking/making the photo decides it is.
Editing is as much apart of photography as pressing the shutter.

The difference between photography and art is also very easy to understand, photos are made from light, art is made by drawing.
If you swap in one photo of sky to another photo is still a photo, it would only become art of you drew the sky.
 
robj20 said:
The level of hypocrisy by some in here is astounding.
Swapping a sky is two photos so isn't allowed but cloning, and stacked shots, editing colours, bracketing is fine under some nonsense BS rules.

Photography is what the person taking/making the photo decides it is.
Editing is as much apart of photography as pressing the shutter.

The difference between photography and art is also very easy to understand, photos are made from light, art is made by drawing.
If you swap in one photo of sky to another photo is still a photo, it would only become art of you drew the sky.
Click to expand...
This is pretty much, my take on it, if your combining 2 photos, I repeat 2 photos, not drawings or paintings, they are still 2 photos, hence photography, some people choose to do for enhancement purposes, also a lot of creativity, comes into it, and as we all know, photography is subjective, one person's artistic creativity, is totally different to another person's, I would agree though, it has to be done right, I have seen some awful composites, but I've also seen some brilliant ones. At the end of the day, if you do it and you love it, that's fine, if you don't like it, don't criticize those who do, anyone who shoots raw, alters there photos, from when they first clicked that shutter button, so nothing new !
 
Last edited:
Horses fo courses. If you make photos for you, do what makes you happy. If you do it for a job, do what makes your client happy. Personally I've never swapped in skies or the likes, as then I haven't captured the moment that is there in front of my eyes that made me press the shutter button in the first place.

I say to each their own, too many people get their knickers in a twist over something that has nothing to do with them, and at the end of the day, why? To run their mouths, or keyboard, on a public forum? Meh.
 
AgentOrange76 said:
Out of interest what editors have you trialled and rejected @Markk ? Im toying with moving to lightroom as my current solution - capture one/Affinity combo is causing me more headaches than I need.
Click to expand...

Luminar
ON1

Currently playing with Exposure X7 (out of the three, it's the closest to LR in my opinion for now)

Looking to try out Affinity.

DxO - haven't tried. Out of my price range.
 
robj20 said:
The level of hypocrisy by some in here is astounding.
Swapping a sky is two photos so isn't allowed but cloning, and stacked shots, editing colours, bracketing is fine under some nonsense BS rules.

Photography is what the person taking/making the photo decides it is.
Editing is as much apart of photography as pressing the shutter.

The difference between photography and art is also very easy to understand, photos are made from light, art is made by drawing.
If you swap in one photo of sky to another photo is still a photo, it would only become art of you drew the sky.
Click to expand...

What about adding in an object, like a car to a parking lot? Not necessarily from that parking lot but at a different time. Like, a car from parking lot A to parking B?
 
Markk said:
What about adding in an object, like a car to a parking lot? Not necessarily from that parking lot but at a different time. Like, a car from parking lot A to parking B?
Click to expand...
This is another variation of composting, no? Certainly has a place. I’ve only used sky swaps my astro landscapes. If I was making a living from real estate photography I probably would use it a lot.
 
Sky swapping has it's place. There are times when it enhances a photo, especially if the lighting conditions are not ideal. Of the two photos below, the one with the sky swapped is more appealing. Photography is both an art and a science, and depending our objective, how we manipulate the photo is important, imho.

Before
dec21202101 by Jeff Ashman, on Flickr

After
dec21202103 by Jeff Ashman, on Flickr
 
Markk said:
Is this really that popular?
Click to expand...
I suspect, that will depend on the kind of photographic circles you move in. Gradient filters and HDR are at their most useful for different things, and easy sky swapping is just another tool in a photographers toolkit. Even, though it's very unlikely it will ever become very popular with me.

Having said that, I understand that with some, maybe all, you can use the sky replacement technology (without replacing anything) to accurately select the sky for manual dodging and burning, and I might find that useful.

For advertising and real estate photographers, I can see it having some obvious uses, and I get the impression that for many "playing" with processing software and trying out different things, is part of the fun they get from their photography. And some photographers specialise in taking photographs specifically to make composite images, and it may be useful to them.

People are interested in photography for many different reasons.
 
TimHughes said:
This is another variation of composting, no? Certainly has a place. I’ve only used sky swaps my astro landscapes. If I was making a living from real estate photography I probably would use it a lot.
Click to expand...

Real estate? Of course! In fact, I expect it to be there!...ya can't trust the agents that don't sky swap, lol
 
robj20 said:
Presume you just export the standard profile image then, zero editing. Anything else is altering the image surely, ergo fake.
Click to expand...



This is the argument that's regularly trotted out by those who don't really understand the nature and value of photography. Can the proponents of swapping skies not to see the quantum difference between what they do and, for example, changing contrast , black or white points, colour temperature or even removing someone in a red cagoule in the far distance of a landscape shot?
 
Last edited:
How is removing a person from a landscape shot any different to adding a different sky? In both examples you are changing the reality of what was in front of your camera?
 
A friend I worked with a few decades ago, used to sell images to travel magazines. He would often combine/composite slides to produce the final image and would shoot interesting skies specifically to add to his library for such purposes. He said at the time that it was common practice in that line of work.

Never sat comfortably with me though. Always felt that the final image by definition, misrepresented the reality of the location.

On the other hand; taking two exposures (one exposed for the subject and one exposed for the sky) at the location and at the same time, and combining those in post, would be acceptable to me. Not that I do this very often at all.
 
Nikon_Nick said:
How is removing a person from a landscape shot any different to adding a different sky? In both examples you are changing the reality of what was in front of your camera?
Click to expand...
I could have not mentioned the red cagoule. The reason I did was to show how far I would go in altering the reality in front of my camera. A few seconds, or a minute, later the guy in the red cagoule would have moved out of shot. I may have slipped up in not noticing he was there at the second I pressed the shutter.

Of course there are grey areas when it comes to cloning elements out of images. But there is a whole world of difference between swapping skies willy-nilly and the common processing functions that every digital photographer uses.
 
Nikon_Nick said:
How is removing a person from a landscape shot any different to adding a different sky?
Click to expand...

I think it's totally different. In the first case you are removing a temporary item, and the second you are adding something completely new.

To go a step further...where did the sky replacement come from? If its from the same time/location, just a different angle to capture an interesting cloud formation, no problem at all. If it's from somewhere else completely, and the image blends two different places and time.......that changes the vibe of the image for me.
 
robj20 said:
The level of hypocrisy by some in here is astounding.
Swapping a sky is two photos so isn't allowed but cloning, and stacked shots, editing colours, bracketing is fine under some nonsense BS rules.

Photography is what the person taking/making the photo decides it is.
Editing is as much apart of photography as pressing the shutter.

The difference between photography and art is also very easy to understand, photos are made from light, art is made by drawing.
If you swap in one photo of sky to another photo is still a photo, it would only become art of you drew the sky.
Click to expand...
Not sure why you're so mad...I don't care what you or anyone else thinks or does with their photography. I have my own standards which I work to and that is all I care about. If you don't understand my reasons or think it's hyppocritical then that's your choice.
 
jerry12953 said:
I could have not mentioned the red cagoule. The reason I did was to show how far I would go in altering the reality in front of my camera. A few seconds, or a minute, later the guy in the red cagoule would have moved out of shot. I may have slipped up in not noticing he was there at the second I pressed the shutter.

Of course there are grey areas when it comes to cloning elements out of images. But there is a whole world of difference between swapping skies willy-nilly and the common processing functions that every digital photographer uses.
Click to expand...
As mentioned previously, I don’t have strong feelings either way. I only really have a problem with the sky replacement when done, as you say, ‘Willy-nilly’ and in such a way as to look completely fake. People that do this a lot could also say that the sky above their subject when they took the shot was only temporary? :) Looking out of the window at work today I’ve had sunny skies, cloudy skies, a heavy rain shower and snow, all in the last 2 and a half hours!(im kidding of course) The difference I like to keep in mind is the intended audience of the photo. If you are only posting on Instagram highly processed images for ‘likes’, then you will probably have no issues with the fake look of the shots. If I am posting a shot for a website or display for example, I would only use a shot where sky replacement has been used if it was 100% credible. I said before that I would be willing to bet that there are a large number of images on this forum where reality has been substituted for something else.
 
CavGez said:
I think it's totally different. In the first case you are removing a temporary item, and the second you are adding something completely new.

To go a step further...where did the sky replacement come from? If its from the same time/location, just a different angle to capture an interesting cloud formation, no problem at all. If it's from somewhere else completely, and the image blends two different places and time.......that changes the vibe of the image for me.
Click to expand...
In both cases you are distorting reality to varying degrees, but I completely get your point of view. I just think that used correctly it can enhance the viewing experience.
 
I've scanned the Web for images I like, then I download them. I often take the subject from one image and combine it with the sky from another to create a more pleasing result.
I'm thinking of using a portfolio of these composites to apply for my LRPS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dja
yzfmike said:
I've scanned the Web for images I like, then I download them. I often take the subject from one image and combine it with the sky from another to create a more pleasing result.
I'm thinking of using a portfolio of these composites to apply for my LRPS.
Click to expand...

I've no idea how the RPS works, but you will explain your methods, I hope?

Re-reading your post, it looks like you're guilty of copyright theft as well.......
 
Last edited:
Nikon_Nick said:
As mentioned previously, I don’t have strong feelings either way. I only really have a problem with the sky replacement when done, as you say, ‘Willy-nilly’ and in such a way as to look completely fake. People that do this a lot could also say that the sky above their subject when they took the shot was only temporary? :) Looking out of the window at work today I’ve had sunny skies, cloudy skies, a heavy rain shower and snow, all in the last 2 and a half hours!(im kidding of course) The difference I like to keep in mind is the intended audience of the photo. If you are only posting on Instagram highly processed images for ‘likes’, then you will probably have no issues with the fake look of the shots. If I am posting a shot for a website or display for example, I would only use a shot where sky replacement has been used if it was 100% credible. I said before that I would be willing to bet that there are a large number of images on this forum where reality has been substituted for something else.
Click to expand...

As I said there are grey areas around image manipulation. I get your argument about the temporary nature of our skies and it is a slightly difficult one to counter. Why not just wait for a better sky? But I don't agree that it depends on the audience; nor do I agree that it depends on whether a sky has been replaced well or tackily. There is just something fundamental about the relationship between photography and the nature of the world around us. Well, there used to be....:(
 
Last edited:
jerry12953 said:
As I said there are grey areas around image manipulation. I get your argument about the temporary nature of our skies and it is a slightly difficult one to counter. Why not just wait for a better sky? But I don't agree that it depends on the audience; nor do I agree that it depends on whether a sky has been replaced well or tackily. There is just something fundamental about the relationship between photography and the nature of the world around us. Well, there used to be....:(
Click to expand...
Yes, I completely agree with your last sentiment there. Right or wrong, this is now something that photography/art has become.
 
yzfmike said:
I've scanned the Web for images I like, then I download them. I often take the subject from one image and combine it with the sky from another to create a more pleasing result.
I'm thinking of using a portfolio of these composites to apply for my LRPS.
Click to expand...
I'm assuming this is a joke, but if it isn't, you need to read the guidance, and rethink this.

The licentiate is clearly about demonstrating core and fundamental photographic skills, which this wouldn't do.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top