Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Landscape & Nature Photography => Topic started by: MGH on April 24, 2011, 12:34:04 pm
-
Hi...I would like to know what you think of changing the sky in landscape photos. I´m not talking about when it´s badly done,but when no one can tell except you know it´s fake. I´ve never done it until today and then just to see how it´s done ( I´m leaning Photoshop) but somehow I don´t feel good about it.
So my question is if you have a strong composition but a boreing sky of a place that you couldn´t come back to, would you not take the shot or would you take it and swop the sky in PP
-
I never replace skies, it always looks fake. However, I don't hesitate to apply about the same amount of post processing to my captured skies as my brain did at the scene.
The problem is, my perception's on-the-scene, real-time, in-brain Photoshop filters manipulate skies in ways the camera does not share. Poor camera, it doesn't have a visual cortex! So work is required. That usually takes the form of reprocessing my HDR bracketed sets to create a "sky-only" version that is then layered into the "ground-only" version. The transparency slider on the sky-only version is often invoked on these occasions, and the sky-only version usually gets its own dedicated Curves control layer.
But don't hesitate to tweak those skies to make them feel in the image the same way as you perceived at the scene. It's OK, really. But be subtle, nothing worth than a heavy looking, opaque sky. Transparency is everything when it comes to skies.
(OK, once in a great while I have stretched the real sky a bit to the left or right to create a better composition. That's my worst sky offense.)
-
I would never replace the sky with a sky from another shot, but I will manipulate the original sky to make it look better.
-
I'll come clean. If an image can be substantially improved with a sky replacement, I'll unhesitatingly do it. These images are for me. I don't sell them. It's not an ethical question for me, just an aesthetic one.
Note, I said "improved". If it's detectable or "fake" as others have said, then by definition it's not improved.
-
Hi!
I'd say it is OK, but it is not easily done. If you have the real Photoshop (not Elements) you may check out this article:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/46-fixing-sky-with-luminosity-mask
That method may also work if you use sky from a different image.
Best regards
Erik
Hi...I would like to know what you think of changing the sky in landscape photos. I´m not talking about when it´s badly done,but when no one can tell except you know it´s fake. I´ve never done it until today and then just to see how it´s done ( I´m leaning Photoshop) but somehow I don´t feel good about it.
So my question is if you have a strong composition but a boreing sky of a place that you couldn´t come back to, would you not take the shot or would you take it and swop the sky in PP
-
You should do what you think is right for you. It is your image. If as you say someone doesn't notice then where is the problem? If done wrongly then you take the blame. What would you think if you didn't think you shouldn't do it and someone suggested you should have? And worse if you didn't do it and someone said it looks as if you had. Then again there are the ones who state that your image shouldn't be anywhere near Photoshop, and to rub it in by confessing to burning and dodging in the darkroom. You only have to answer to your own conscience. ;)
-
I would never replace the sky with a sky from another shot, but I will manipulate the original sky to make it look better.
This. If you have no objection to putting a filter on you camera to alter the scene in front of you then using tools like built in gradients etc should be acceptable weather it be physical (with a filter etc) or with software.
Combine multiple images (HDR or replacement skies) is sort of over the line for me personally, although some are ok with that.
You are the artist, it's your pallet.
This image popped up on earthshot's a month or so ago. Everyone raved about it. I thought it looked a little weird and did a little snooping. Turns out it's a replacement sky.
(http://img.earthshots.org/2011/600/068.jpg)
http://www.earthshots.org/2011/03/lightning-at-delicate-arch-by-robert-beideman/
Is that a cool thing or are you misleading the viewer? Is it still a photograph or has it moved to the realm of digital art? You can answer those questions on your own...
-
> So my question is if you have a strong composition but a boreing sky of a place that you couldn´t come back to, would you not take the shot or would you take it and swop the sky in PP
You should always get the shot. I don’t know what PP is but with tools such as PS, as long as you are willing to take the time to produce a flawless end result, there is no reason not to. But it is not easy to blend in a sky, so be prepared to spend a fair amount of time and to try some different techniques. Mr Google will help you find everything you will need. In the end your efforts will help you become a much more capable technician.
-
The fundamental problem with sky swops is that it rarely looks right, especially when it's a clearsky <> cloudysky swop. Cloudy skies and clear skies light the ground differently. Even distant clouds subtly change shadow color, shadow hardness, surface diffusion, specular quality, highlights, you name it. This is pretty clear in the desert lightning shot.
Replacements leave bloody clues to the crime, and the witness is the very suspicious human visual system. Of course surrealists may use this to their advantage. But casual replacementeurs will find themselves unwittingly recast as Dali disciples.
Of course the guy with the lighting shot probably sells dozens of them, sigh. I know at least one highly regarded landscape professional who does pretty well with his obviously bogus Grand Canyon lighting shot, sigh again. Surrealism seems to sell.
-
I try to limit what I do in the digital dark room to what I could do in the real dark room...
-
I try to limit what I do in the digital dark room to what I could do in the real dark room...
Fair enough!
But what if Jerry Uelsmann said that?
(http://static.flickr.com/91/266369610_0c959c70ba.jpg)
-
Fair enough!
But what if Jerry Uelsmann said that?
As noted, my original statement opens a pretty wide door.
I used to do double exposures all the time when I was a kid in by B&W darkroom (most of them looked awful, but hey, I was a kid! :) )
-
I used to do double exposures all the time when I was a kid in by B&W darkroom (most of them looked awful, but hey, I was a kid! :) )
With that background, you have earned a carte blanche in the post processing deptartment!
-
Painters have been changing skies, trees, lakes, moons, etc. forever. In a few years the same will be said of photography. The images stands or falls on its own merits. I swap elements all the time. To me it's a vision thing. Luckily I have a good memory for images buried deep in my hard disk. Often a scene will present itself that I can match an older shot with. I've got a huge folder with nothing but skies. Happy skies. Troubled skies. Angry skies. Lots of skies looking for a home.
Warning -- shameless biased opinion based upon my personal experience:
The days of a photographer getting by with the claim of "traditional" darkroom prints are numbered--at least at art shows where the saleability of landscapes are increasingly dependent upon how perfect they are and how cheaply they can be purchased. Most shoppers eyes glaze over when technical matters are discussed.
I have an art gallery that asked me to remove houses from a large (84" panorama) canvas mountain landscape that had been a best seller. I did so. It now outsells the version with houses. But they both are still selling great...side by side no less. They were smart to listen to customers. And I put more money in the bank too. Love it.
-
art gallery that asked me to remove houses from a large (84" panorama) canvas mountain landscape that had been a best seller. I did so. It now outsells the version with houses. But they both are still selling great...side by side no less. They were smart to listen to customers. And I put more money in the bank too. Love it.
LOL! My usual fall back position when people start to get aggressive about the post processing thing is to use the painter card. If painters can alter scenes with impunity, why the heck can't I!
This is my all-time best seller photo. I lose maybe 1 sale in 20 because of the buildings at upper right, but I have held my ground on this one.
But don't give me too much moral credit. In almost every other panorama with houses, I have stomped them out like cockroaches. Not to mention phones lines, power lines, cars, contrails, fences, posts, surveying flags, beer bottles, tires, Slurpee cups, disposable diapers, plastic bags, and occasional non-indigenous nearby plants.
(http://unit16.net/Adobe%20Web%20Gallery/content/bin/images/large/Tondreau_Sandia_Fantasia.jpg)
-
Bill, I like the house you left in because it really helps with the scale without distracting from the overall effect. Great shot.
-
I attended a camera club presentation a few years ago. There was a slide show. First slide was a person in a small boat sailing across a lake in Asia with hills and a sky in the background. The presenter explained that it was two slides sandwiched together. One for the sky and one for the foreground with the boat. Nobody complained. :)
-
Painters have been changing skies, trees, lakes, moons, etc. forever. In a few years the same will be said of photography.
Photographers have been using Cloud Negatives since the late 1800's. The only difference between then and now is some people use PS and do it really quickly and really badly. I think it's a personal choice anyway.
-
But what's here now that wasn't there in ye olden times is the widely held public concept of Devious Image Manipulation. It's turned into a meme, or if you wish an urban legend. Those darned photographers are tricking us! It's something our tight-lipped forefathers didn't have to face with their cloud negatives hidden in the back of the bottom drawer.
But we have to deal with it. At art fairs and openings I get asked if I "used Photoshop" by at least every third person I talk to. They don't even view Photoshop as what it is, but more as an soul-withering invention of The Devil. Maybe the next time I get one of those, I will tell them there's even a Photoshop trick that can make them not look so fat.
I even remember some those old photo books covering how to drop a sky into another image! Was it Lutens or Lootens, or something? Mortensen? I though it was cool. Cardboard masks, a little dodging, piece o'cake!
(http://www.joseflebovicgallery.com/Catalogue/Archive/Cat-126-2007/Large/0140.jpg)
-
Well thanks for all your replys. I´m still not sure how I feel about it, I seem to agree with nearly everything thats been said. It seems to come down to where does photography end and image creation start. Or is that just a personal thing ?
this is the ofending image
-
Very dramatic image, looks great. A sky and landscape that were made for each other.
To get really picky, perhaps the lighting direction is different on the cirrus and the ground, and perhaps the shadow edges are a little to hard for slightly diffused sunlight. But honestly if I just happened across this image on the wall I would be impressed enough not to go looking for those things...unless of course I didn't like the photographer at a personal level. :)
-
phones lines, power lines, cars, contrails, fences, posts, surveying flags, beer bottles, tires, Slurpee cups, disposable diapers, plastic bags, and occasional non-indigenous nearby plants.
LMAO!
I agree, Bill. The residence gives the (superb!) image a lot more meaning.
I cloned out one of my friends once for a magazine article pix. He never forgave me. : )
-
Ah, the "do you use Photoshop" question at art shows, that's a tough one. I think I have given a different answer every time I've been asked that, and each time there is this small sense of panic in the back of my mind as I struggle to compose something sensible. I'd love to hear other opinions on how to answer this question.
--Milt--
-
Ah, the "do you use Photoshop" question at art shows, that's a tough one. I think I have given a different answer every time I've been asked that, and each time there is this small sense of panic in the back of my mind as I struggle to compose something sensible. I'd love to hear other opinions on how to answer this question.
--Milt--
I just say “yes... of course”.
Even if I can't remember if the file went to PS or not.
So that means for one in ten or twenty shots there is a small gap between reality and what I'm saying. I call this gap “artistic licence”. That is, it would have gone to PS if I'd thought of it.
If someone wants to debate the matter further I say that Photoshop was created to help us realise our artistic vision.
Never had anyone come up with an objection to that.
David
-
In all likelihood, a strong reply like that will cause them to express their objection by simply turning away and not buying anything. I'd prefer something that would at least be likely to engage them in discussion.
--Milt--
-
I get 10x more "What camera do you use?" than the Photoshop question at art shows. To the first I answer that I use Canon's largest digital camera. To the second I answer Yes. It's been my experience that those and similar questions are just ways to initiate a conversation than to question the "purity" of my art.
The only negative response to the yes I use Photoshop was from a particularly snooty photographer who bragged that she only used "natural" film photography, "natural" light, and didn't own a computer. To say her work labeled "never manipulated" suffered in quality with her Costco prints goes without saying.
-
But the "do you use Photoshop" question really means "are you deceiving me with a contrived, lying image?"
The general public now uses "Photoshopped" to refer to photos that misrepresent the original subject in some substantial way. I think it all started when a guy at the Iranian Information Service decided to (badly) rubber stamp a few extra rockets into a press release photo. And all those skinny, unblemished models don't help us much either.
Searching "photoshop liquify" on youtube returns 907 examples of how fix overabundant fannies. And you get 322,000 hits on Google. And "photoshop manipulation" returns 4,360,000 googlehits.
Bottom line...the public doesn't trust us anymore. Photographs ALWAYS lie.
Yes, and of course "what camera do you use" is King of the Questions. I answer, "a 21 or 12 mp digital camera." People then stick their noses right up to those 200+ megapixel panoramic stitches and say "wow!". Then sometimes I explain about stitches, and sometimes I don't.
-
this is the ofending image
It's a dramatic sky which looks good with the rest of the scene. However, I can see a very thin, bright white line along the mountaintops, partcularly towards the right, which looks unnatural.
Jeremy
-
Hi Jeremy....Thanks for looking and thanks for your coment. I also saw that thin white line and thought that my selecting tecnique wasn´t up to much, which is very posible as I´ve only been useing Photoshop for a month. But that line is there in the RAW file, it´s a cornice which is overhanging snow formed by the wind just like you see in the forground. If the sun is from behind the light shines through and so you see a white line. Something to lookout for in the mountains as it´s a sign of avalanche danger. I went far too close to the edge to take this shot, I hope you think it was worth it.
Mark
-
Nature will sometimes present you with a scene that looks either excessively or badly post processed. What's a landscape photographer to do? In this case the horizon line shows gradations that to my eye looks natural. The bad post processing version of that usually just looks like a single toned, sharp-edged line.
I just looked at the "offending" picture again without my techo-glasses on and it's a darned good shot. Really like the way the arc at the bottom and middle is carried on by the sky. It's the kind of picture that worries me when somebody else has it at a show I'm in. :o
-
But the "do you use Photoshop" question really means "are you deceiving me with a contrived, lying image?"
Now that I think about it there is an element of "disbelief" when an art show patron sees landscapes that are really beyond what they can shoot and print themselves. As more of the point and shoot crowd use better cameras each year they still see a world of difference from what their own resulting prints show. They usually use PS Elements or some such software to enhance their images but lack the experience to do a very good job of it. That plus the lack of a color managed work flow including basic printer/paper profiles. So in a way they are wondering if there is some other magic software they could use to get better results. I had a woman voice exactly that at an art show yesterday. She had lots of images she had accumulated over the years but hated her prints no matter what she tried on her computer.
Going way beyond changing skies:
There are also some art show photographers who deliberately push the saturation and contrast controls (and crazy HDR effects) way beyond what most of us would see as prudent. Many art show patrons are drawn to the most garish of images and in many cases that makes the sale. In some shows that may be the best way to stay in business. A shopper who has walked past a garish booth may well be aware of the "deception" and is simply trying to ascertain if you have a better touch with the same tools.
-
Hi Jeremy....Thanks for looking and thanks for your coment. I also saw that thin white line and thought that my selecting tecnique wasn´t up to much, which is very posible as I´ve only been useing Photoshop for a month. But that line is there in the RAW file, it´s a cornice which is overhanging snow formed by the wind just like you see in the forground. If the sun is from behind the light shines through and so you see a white line. Something to lookout for in the mountains as it´s a sign of avalanche danger. I went far too close to the edge to take this shot, I hope you think it was worth it.
Fair enough: I wondered if you had merely demonstrated how difficult it can be to add a sky (I know - I've tried and, more often than not, failed to get it done to my own satisfaction).
Yes, I do think it was worth it - but only because you survived!
Jeremy
-
I like the many nuances of the knife edges and the snow made shadows. It would be a good one for color reproduction.
It looks like really fine back-country alpine, but i can't quite gage the slope. Did you ski the bowl after getting the shot?
-
Hi...Yes I was mountain sking when I took the shot, I went to the top of the mountain and then skied down.
Here´s the color version.
-
Has anyone used the "Blend if sliders" to change a blue sky ? That way there´s no selecting, here´s a video I found today showing how.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJssJWZ2t_Y&feature=feedf
-
> Hi...Yes I was mountain sking when I took the shot, I went to the top of the mountain and then skied down.
I love back country skiing!
> Here´s the color version.
That is truly succulent!. Way nicer than the very good B&W
-
Can we see it with the original sky?
-
Has anyone used the "Blend if sliders" to change a blue sky ? That way there´s no selecting, here´s a video I found today showing how.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJssJWZ2t_Y&feature=feedf
Now that I've watched that video, I'm much more inclined to accept a changed sky as long as
1) the sky is not the primary focus
2) the replacement sky is not changing the narrative of the photo (adding dramatic storm clouds, for example)
This has also helped me understand why I'm OK with removing trash, guard rails, power lines, etc. as well.
Thank you!
-
Hi bfkimball....Yes you can see thee original. This is one reason why I´m loveing Photoshop you can save PSD files with all your layers intact, I can open my PSD turn off the new sky layer and make a copy so easy. If I was a better photographer and took more photos worth editing storage would be a problem, these PSD files are big over 300 MB each.
Let me know if you think I did the right thing changing the sky.
-
I say go for it and enjoy it.
-
The replacement sky works fine for me, and it doesn't distract or detract from the rest of the image.
Congratulations! I've never found separately a scene and a sky that stood a chance of working together.
Eric
-
Let me know if you think I did the right thing changing the sky.
Yes.
And, FWIW, I prefer the black-and-white version.
Jeremy
-
A subjective topic (artist vision) for sure. I just enhance what nature is giving out on that particular day.
If it is not skies, she will be giving out some other amazing wonder.
PS So that would be a vote for "No" to changing out skies.
Take care,
Dwayne Oakes
(http://dwayneoakes.zenfolio.com/img/v25/p334945086-4.jpg)