Changing Skies - Opinions

[rgs]

Since it's now become so easy to do, I hope to get some thoughts about changing a sky. Here is a Red-tailed Hawk running away from my car as I pulled up. The one with the bare blue sky is the original. I added the clouded blue sky just to balance the bird and make a better shot. The sunset sky adds a bit of drama but is not so true to the original. I'd like thoughts on the specific images as well as general comments about changing a sky.

[Peter McLennan]

Good job on the sky replacement. I have no reason to oppose such digital interventions. I did my first one many years ago. 
My vote is for the middle one.  The third one incorporates a distracting element with the sunset.  The hawk is the subject, not the sky.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

At first your question made me a bit uncomfortable. A whole-sky replacement seems a bit extreme. But then I realized that I almost never leave an image unchanged, but my usual changes are smaller and thus probably sneakier.

Now, looking at your three images, I feel the original is indeed a  great catch, but the plain blue sky is rather boring. So I would pick the second image, and for the same reason as Peter. The sky livens it up without being distracting in any way, while the colors in the third sky are definitely distracting.

Good work! I'm impressed.

[degrub]

The only thing that strikes me is colour of the light on the feathers doesn't seem to  match up to the light in the sky, particularly in the last frame.

[rabanito]

Since we are not doing scientific research here but "art", IMHO almost anything goes as long as the final picture is good. I use Content Aware or the Clone Stamp Tool every time something unwanted stays in the way without any scruples. Others use photographic tricks to make silky waters where there was none to see in the real world. Etc etc...
This said, I like the second picture most

[Dave (Isle of Skye)]

If it is OK to change out the sky, then surely it must also be OK to change out the foreground, or even the mid-ground, or perhaps the foreground, mid-ground and even the main subject itself? In fact, why don't we just download other peoples images from the internet and call them our own?

I know, I came in with all guns blazing there didn't I? But seriously folks, where do we draw the line with this kind of thing? And if it becomes acceptable to swap bits and pieces around from various other different images that we have either taken previously, or bought as part of a package from the internet and that someone else took, then where is that line? In fact is there even a line at all anymore?

Here is a good video by Nick Carver that discusses this topic and well worth a watch - Is it OK to Manipulate your photos?

I wrote the above with a wry smile on my face and that I am not upset or anything and as there isn't a wry smile emoticon on Lula, I will try to indicate this by using the wink emoticon instead so do not flame me please, as I am only trying to put the opposite side of this argument for the sake of the debate...

Dave

[kers]

I like nr3 best; since it is already on the edge of fake+cliché - too good to be true- nr 3 fits best with the warm colour.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

The original: the best.

The rest: 🤢

Sky changing: 🤮

[rabanito]

I know, I came in with all guns blazing there didn't I? But seriously folks, where do we draw the line with this kind of thing? And if it becomes acceptable to swap bits and pieces around from various other different images that we have either taken previously, or bought as part of a package from the internet and that someone else took, then where is that line? In fact is there even a line at all anymore?


Dave

Hi Dave. Why should it there be a line? Looks like putting limits to creativity to me.
Anyway, why care how others are making their images?
From this forum I usually like most of the pictures. But on my walls I hang only MY fotos.
From other people I learn technicalities, take cues, probably modify inconsciously my way of seeing.
But what I care for is MY photography, even if I like other people's work a lot.
Maybe it is different if one is  thinking in terms of competition and/or being judged by others. Then probably there are rules.
In this forum (and maybe others) or at exhibitions I just show my work. When others like it, I'm happy. If not, then they like something different. That's all.
Nota bene: Personally I try to interpret nature as I saw and felt it when I was there. I don't change skies nor do I use ND filters to make silky waters. But if the effect is good, I enjoy them (from others) too.

[KMRennie]

There is the “purist” viewpoint of “it is there I show it”. There is the “art” viewpoint of anything goes to express their vision. I would like to put forward a slightly different take on this. This is a good image of a hawk shot against a plain blue sky but why do I prefer the 2nd one with the clouds. I have seen that the more successful nature images have a diffuse background and I know that many experienced bird photographers believe that the difference between a so-so image and a good one is the quality of the background as well the type of “stick” that the bird is perched on. I can see that a very busy background can drag the eye away from the main subject but I do not know why I prefer the clouds which must distract, even if only a little, to the plain sky. Is this “learned behaviour” having been told many times that a diffuse background is best? Could the plain sky in a nature shot be a hangover from the landscape photography world where plain blue skies are frowned upon? The harsh, cold light on a blue sky day may explain why landscapes with plain blue skies don’t do well. As an experiment I could always clone in blue skies onto images with beautiful cloudy skies and see the reaction. Ken

[Peter McLennan]

The manipulation begins when the photographer first brings viewfinder to eye.

[Chairman Bill]

The line is between photography & digital compositions. I'm a photographer. YMMV

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

If painters were as puritanically "purist" as some photographers here, they would have to exhibit nothing but blank canvases. After all, each brush stroke is a distortion/corruption of that pure, blank canvas.

Here is a photo I posted in another thread recently. It is, of course, Absolutely Pure, in that I did NOT replace the original sky!
And, since the car had been abandoned many years ago, I was unable to get the owner's permission to photograph it.

[kers]

The original: the best.

The rest: 🤢

Sky changing: 🤮

I can recommend- Bird-changing and Tree-changing software

But i think the photographer/ image-maker just should do what he/she wants. That is their freedom and they should use it.

[Dave (Isle of Skye)]

So as I asked before and which no one has been willing to answer yet - if you are someone who thinks it is quite acceptable to change out the sky, then do you think it is also acceptable to change out the foreground or the mid-ground etc?

And if not, why not?

Dave

[Peter McLennan]

Dave, it seems to me that we’re free to do whatever we like with our images.
Assuming, that is, that we’re not forensic photographers.

[rabanito]

So as I asked before and which no one has been willing to answer yet - if you are someone who thinks it is quite acceptable to change out the sky, then do you think it is also acceptable to change out the foreground or the mid-ground etc?

And if not, why not?

Dave

I don't understand what do you mean exactly with "acceptable" (satisfactory and able to be agreed to or approved of)
Say acceptable to whom? Photographers, artists, general public, press photographers, luminouslandscapers...
A difficult question, at least for me

[KMRennie]

ok Dave I will try and answer but only from my standpoint. In the past I have replaced whole skies, so I must think that is ok although I haven't done it for quite a long time although I sometimes clone in a tiny piece of sky over a blown part, covering up my poor metering. Foregrounds I have removed distracting elements and sometimes nudged a few element around. Replacing the object of the image seems like a total waste. I came here to photograph this tree but decided that this other tree looks better is definitely a step too far. If I can go back and take the image again from a sightly different position that means that I don't have to clone or move distracting elements then I will. My main problem occurs when I capture an image that has a stunning part but is spoiled by something that I didn't notice at the time, do I delete the image or remove the offending elements? Up till now I have removed them but as I improve as a photographer I hope that I will not have to. Ken

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I think it boils down to your intent when taking the original photograph. Did you come out here to photograph this particular tree the best way you could? Or did you come out here with some other idea in mind, and you saw that this tree might fit your idea, but it would require significant tweaks to do so?

Do any of you want to guess why I "produced" the image I posted a few steps back?
Serious "historic" photo? Or just being silly?

Do you find it deeply profound, or terribly evil?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

The difference is simple:

Being a Time Magazine Person of the Year or compositing yourself into the Time Magazine Person of the Year template.