Sky replacement

justinminns

justinminns

Messages
956
Name
Justin
Edit My Images
No
Have you ever replaced the sky in a photo? I've been playing with the new sky replacement feature in Photoshop, read my thoughts in my latest blog post.

www.justinminns.co.uk

The sky is the limit — Justin Minns Photography

A review of the new sky replacement feature in Photoshop... is it the beginning of the end?
www.justinminns.co.uk www.justinminns.co.uk
 
My general rule is, there are no rules. But there must be honesty about the taking (did you re-arrange anything?) and the processing of a photo. Personally I will never, ever, for any reason, change a sky, and will have little respect for any photo with a changed sky. This is my ethic, it need not be yours; my ethic is rooted in the natural world and attempts to interpret it for what it is, not for what it might have been.
 
Something I only did once and that was with a sky from very close by about an hour later (i.e. if I had stayed in the same place for an hour I would have got that sky) and then only for a "52" image on here so more of an exercise than something I would print.

As with so many of these debates it depends so much on what "type" of photography it is, why it is being done, in what context? A commercial advertising photo, why not, whatever pulls in the views. For most of us on here though as John said it really is about personal ethics and whilst it is not something I would normally do I don't see much wrong with it as long as the result is not implausible (e.g the sun setting in the south/north).
 
I can't say it is for me - and the reason is and I quote from the text from the link

"Personally though, I think many of these advancements in technology take away the challenge of landscape photography. For me it is all about being outdoors, enjoying the beauty of the natural world, witnessing its moments of perfection and trying to capture that atmosphere in a photo. I don’t want it to be too easy, if we no longer need to worry about being out in the best light and conditions because we can just change things later then it’s going to rob us of the excitement of those few magical minutes when everything comes together and we witness something special… and where’s the fun in that?"

100,000 times this.
 
JohnFar said:
My general rule is, there are no rules. But there must be honesty about the taking (did you re-arrange anything?) and the processing of a photo. Personally I will never, ever, for any reason, change a sky, and will have little respect for any photo with a changed sky. This is my ethic, it need not be yours; my ethic is rooted in the natural world and attempts to interpret it for what it is, not for what it might have been.
Click to expand...

Very similar to my own thoughts although I'd never say never
 
justinminns said:
Anyone want to hazard a guess at which (if any) of the photos have had the sky replaced?
Click to expand...

No - both are spookily good and natural looking. But that misses the point for me.

It's getting it all to come together at the same time - light, sky, (reflections in my case and lack of movement of things like grasses) along with the right composition etc. That's the joy. Not every trip will be a success but some are and when they are there is no high like it.
 
As a landscape photographer (Artistic)

I've had a play with it in Luminar just for the fun of it. Personally, not something I would do to pass off a legit photograph. Part of the enjoyment of photography is getting out into the outdoors at the right time, in the right light and creating a great image. Anybody can sit at home at midday and cobble something together with software.

For commercial purposes

I can certainly see the benefits for certain photographers like architectural photographers or real estate photographers where you simply don't have the time to wait for the perfect sky/light and time is money.
 
Last edited:
I'm firmly in the "never replace a sky" camp. It might be simplistic but I can't think of a better way of describing sky replacement as "cheating", I fully agree with most of the comments above. I doubt I would ever buy software that would make it possible (just in case I was tempted....... :naughty: ).

One of the comments in your blog suggested one possible use for a sky replacement might be to avoid fuzzy moving clouds in long exposures of moving water. I'm OK with fuzzy moving water but dislike fuzzy moving clouds, so I could maybe accept a combination of a short exposure sky taken at rughly the same time as a long exposre flowing water shot.

Did you do that at Durdle Door? Otherwise I can't tell which if any has had a new sky dropped in. They're both great photographs, BTW.
 
I like moving clouds in LE images.

I've done it a couple of times to learn but otherwise never felt the need. As for the idea that someone can do it (well) in a few minutes at home.....
 
I did it back in the film days. Just to prove that I could.
Now I will often work on the sky that I captured, but not actually replace it.. I will some times add a hint of colour to a white sky.
 
Let me just say that I feel it's completley legitimate, provided the scene isn't deliberately misrepresented as being natural (.i.e for a landscaping competition). No-one asks a painter if the sky in a picture is exactly how it was at the time.
 
ancient_mariner said:
I like moving clouds in LE images.

I've done it a couple of times to learn but otherwise never felt the need. As for the idea that someone can do it (well) in a few minutes at home.....
Click to expand...

Me too.

I replaced the sky in one of the shots in my blog in a few minutes, it's not something I'll use but it does work very well which is why I wondered if people could tell which image?
 
justinminns said:
Me too.

I replaced the sky in one of the shots in my blog in a few minutes, it's not something I'll use but it does work very well which is why I wondered if people could tell which image?
Click to expand...

The cliffs needed to be lit as if reflecting the bright section of sky on the LHS, and although you did a good job letting the colour bleed into the sea, I think there should be a shadow behing the 'door'. Assuming that WAS the one of course (it's BOUND to be the boat shot now, with created highlights carefully placed to look natural!)
 
ancient_mariner said:
The cliffs needed to be lit as if reflecting the bright section of sky on the LHS, and although you did a good job letting the colour bleed into the sea, I think there should be a shadow behing the 'door'. Assuming that WAS the one of course (it's BOUND to be the boat shot now, with created highlights carefully placed to look natural!)
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right... it was the boat shot, no created highlights just a carefully chosen sky (snapped from the end of the garden!) and a carefully chosen Durdle Door image with unusual light to tempt people into thinking it was fake! You weren't alone, everybody I've asked chose that one, It goes to show how hard it is to tell what's real and what isn't.


ecoleman said:
The second image.
Click to expand...

Nope

155312569_10158251966317933_219530747246332262_o.jpg
 
Last edited:
I did it once to see how to do it, it was many years ago and it didn't go well :D

With newer tech its obviously a much easier thing to do and with the right sky, blending etc. it can make a good image look awesome

Would I do it though? Probably not, though if you're creating an advert then maybe

I've not shot a sky ever for a possible replacement, so I have no 'library' of them to call upon

The most likely I'd do is blend shots taken from the exact same position (tripod-based) where the sun dances over different areas. So in a series of images taken over 30 mins I can imagine using some foreground light from one to add to the perfect sky from another (or vice versa) but that's it really

Dave
 
justinminns said:
Anyone want to hazard a guess at which (if any) of the photos have had the sky replaced?
Click to expand...
The first shot seems consistent with the light source whereas the second looks like it should have a flat, grey sky based on the light on the foreground.
I can be a bit of a purist so I rarely add or remove anything from an image unless I think the image is really worth it. So, replacing a sky would be a no from me - if the light isn't there I try and make the most of what is :).
 
HelenC said:
The first shot seems consistent with the light source whereas the second looks like it should have a flat, grey sky based on the light on the foreground.
I can be a bit of a purist so I rarely add or remove anything from an image unless I think the image is really worth it. So, replacing a sky would be a no from me - if the light isn't there I try and make the most of what is :).
Click to expand...

I have a similar outlook Helen. I was sneaky, I deliberately chose that Durdle Door shot with unusual lighting to trick people into thinking that was the one that had the sky replaced. It was in fact the first shot that has been tinkerered with, the second one was totally natural! Goes to show how effective it is and how hard it is to tell what is real sometimes.
 
justinminns said:
I have a similar outlook Helen. I was sneaky, I deliberately chose that Durdle Door shot with unusual lighting to trick people into thinking that was the one that had the sky replaced. It was in fact the first shot that has been tinkerered with, the second one was totally natural! Goes to show how effective it is and how hard it is to tell what is real sometimes.
Click to expand...
Got me on that one ;)
 
I played with it when it first became available in PS . Even had springwatch use one as photo of the week LOL .. but more recently due to lockdown boredom ( the rules are stricter in wales) I have been playing around with other background layer replacements . Not something I have ever bothered with before .. now when I replace a sky I always post that’s it’s been done ... but now I have started using other background replacements and seen what can be done and what it looks like asa finished image ..
I have come to realise that a lot of folks especially in the wildlife side of things are manipulating there images and keeping quiet about it , I now look twice at a lot of perfect shots
 
I initially thought the boat shot, purely down to that one bit of grass sticking up into the sky looks a bit fuzzy....but then I would have put money on it being the Durdle Door image! Just shows you how good it can be when done right.

It's not for me though, I love the outdoors, it's why I take photos, to capture moments, not to take something that I can cobble together at a later date. I have no issues with it if it's not trying to be passed off as one capture, but then it just goes to show how good it can be, and will we ever really know if it's not said?
 
justinminns said:
Have you ever replaced the sky in a photo? I've been playing with the new sky replacement feature in Photoshop, read my thoughts in my latest blog post.
Click to expand...

I just see it as another tool in the photographers toolbox.

Photography means different things to different people. If a sky replacement tool, or any technology, lets you better express what you (or client) want to say, show and share with a photograph, then use it. And, other than the obvious constraints of documentary and reportage photography, I don't have a problem with replacing a sky, if it still "works" as a photograph and the replacement isn't noticeable.

However, like others, the experience of the moment and the ritual of taking the photograph are key to my enjoyment of being a photographer, and while I think expressive photographs are "made" in the darkroom (or digital processing software) I'm not sure how a sky that wasn't part of the original visual and emotional experience would help expressive photographers capture and share this experience.

But not everyone is a "from subject to print" expressive photographer, and to use Ansel Adams score and performance concept, some, I assume will allow the score itself to drive the performance, without ever referring back to the reasons and emotions behind why the score was written.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Let me just say that I feel it's completley legitimate, provided the scene isn't deliberately misrepresented as being natural (.i.e for a landscaping competition). No-one asks a painter if the sky in a picture is exactly how it was at the time.
Click to expand...


And hence the difference between photography and painting...... you nailed it!
 
jerry12953 said:
And hence the difference between photography and painting...... you nailed it!
Click to expand...
There have been some vehement statements about not replacing skies. I used to make similar about using digital when they first became common - then I realised how much I was limiting myself. As long as you can work with integrity I think it's all good. [emoji846]
 
ancient_mariner said:
There have been some vehement statements about not replacing skies. I used to make similar about using digital when they first became common - then I realised how much I was limiting myself. As long as you can work with integrity I think it's all good. [emoji846]
Click to expand...


I think you're confusing the tool with the integrity of the finished result! :)
 
jerry12953 said:
I think you're confusing the tool with the integrity of the finished result! :)
Click to expand...
My view at the time was that digital wasn't creating an 'authentic' photograph because it wasn't recording in the right way. I'd see this as a similar situation.
 
I don't really like it in its current form and could do a far better job in most cases by hand.... However for a dirty real estate shot it saves time and has a good chance to look OK. The best advice is to only replace like for like, ie. same tones, light from the same direction and so on. It did a reasonable job replacing night (late blue hour) sky for a milky way in just a few clicks for an old client. Last time it I did it took me quite a bit longer. Nobody pixel peeps these images so its fine and don't ask me why they want it this way. They just do and they pay £££.
 
I used to play about with changing sky's in PS Elements 2 (2002) and still have a folder of my own sky images.
Always thought is was simply a game and have never taken it seriously! ;)
 
All we need now (and I'm sure it's coming) is software to change the foreground aswell . That way we will not even have to leave the house
 
stumac said:
All we need now (and I'm sure it's coming) is software to change the foreground aswell . That way we will not even have to leave the house
Click to expand...
Already exists:

See my post here:

www.talkphotography.co.uk

Does location matter to you?

Excellent. But on the first photo I would clone out the few leaves top left of the frame I should have cropped a little more aggressively.:( It's surprising where you can 'go' on Google. ;)
www.talkphotography.co.uk www.talkphotography.co.uk

And Ed Suttons first dabble in the same thread.
 
I don't really like the idea of it. As said much earlier in the thread, a good part of landscape photography is the challenge of being out there time and time again trying to capture the perfect scene. Experiencing it. Feeling it.

To fake a sky is faking the experience. That's only cheating yourself ;)
 
myotis said:
Already exists:

See my post here:

www.talkphotography.co.uk

Does location matter to you?

Excellent. But on the first photo I would clone out the few leaves top left of the frame I should have cropped a little more aggressively.:( It's surprising where you can 'go' on Google. ;)
www.talkphotography.co.uk www.talkphotography.co.uk

And Ed Suttons first dabble in the same thread.
Click to expand...
Sad times
 
stumac said:
Sad times
Click to expand...
I think it's rather exciting.

Not a tool for photographers, but for digital artists who want to start with digital images and then use them to create something out of their imagination, it seems rather good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top