Sky Replacement
Interesting to see what others think - With the advent of AI and more digital tools, sky replacements have become easier and much better looking, a great tool to use, however there are a few photos on this site clearly sky replacements (I have the same skies) yet the photographer is adamant they took it.
Clearly odd, (I use sky replace occasionally, but always put it in the description)
This makes a mockery of this site, they're not taken images, they are created, nothing wrong, but I think the photographer should be upfront about it.
Interested to see what others think.
John
Clearly odd, (I use sky replace occasionally, but always put it in the description)
This makes a mockery of this site, they're not taken images, they are created, nothing wrong, but I think the photographer should be upfront about it.
Interested to see what others think.
John
I have replaced a sky a couple of times (not on here before you look 
). Not sure whether you need to publish the fact but neither should you deny it. I wish people would check the lighting angles and direction before doing it though, shadows tend to be a dead giveaway.
). Not sure whether you need to publish the fact but neither should you deny it. I wish people would check the lighting angles and direction before doing it though, shadows tend to be a dead giveaway.
I did play with this for a while.
I took a series of sky images of my own to use to avoid the commonality of stock supplied jpeg.
Editing the library ones also helps this.
However they rarely looked 100% natural, although one or two I really liked even given this, and I haven't used this approach for a couple of years now.
I would tend to mention, as digitally manipulated, but if not would certainly fess up if asked.
I took a series of sky images of my own to use to avoid the commonality of stock supplied jpeg.
Editing the library ones also helps this.
However they rarely looked 100% natural, although one or two I really liked even given this, and I haven't used this approach for a couple of years now.
I would tend to mention, as digitally manipulated, but if not would certainly fess up if asked.
Replacing the sky is surely your Credit and your skill in post processing, there is nothing wrong...but if you left any clue for the others to think it otherwise is your discredit and your lack of skill that still you have to achieve...
I have replaced skies on a few occasions so I can't complain.
However, they were all my own skies and I haven't taken many for my library.
But, and it's a very big but, many of the results I've seen, not jut on here, just look wrong. Just because some 'clever' AI program can do a seamless job is notmenough.
Angle of light on the foreround and sky need to match, that's such a giveaway. Unless you've access to intergalactic travel and have found an earth-like planet in a binary star system (some may take a while to work that out). Colour matching is another. Focal lenght used to take the sky and foreground need to be as close as possible.
If you're into surrealism, go for it. If you want to deceive, fake and fraud, deny what is obvious, tcarry on, but you'll need to up your game.
However, they were all my own skies and I haven't taken many for my library.
But, and it's a very big but, many of the results I've seen, not jut on here, just look wrong. Just because some 'clever' AI program can do a seamless job is notmenough.
Angle of light on the foreround and sky need to match, that's such a giveaway. Unless you've access to intergalactic travel and have found an earth-like planet in a binary star system (some may take a while to work that out). Colour matching is another. Focal lenght used to take the sky and foreground need to be as close as possible.
If you're into surrealism, go for it. If you want to deceive, fake and fraud, deny what is obvious, tcarry on, but you'll need to up your game.
I ended up with a pile of miserable shots from an air show a couple of years ago at which it rained.
Although I'd only ever changed skies the old way; pre-AI and then only rarely, I already had a few hundred skies of my own stashed away.
Consequently, I ended up changing dozens of skies and although I say it myself, most of them turned out pretty well.
I reckon that it's incorrect to say that "some 'clever' AI program can do a seamless job" as in reality, neither of the two that I was armed with can, one was a clear winner but neither of them are really all that good.
Skies with plenty of cloud worked best for aircraft in flight, as I was able to position the aircraft, in most cases, on a white bit which alleviated the bleed that occurred, particularly using Luminar.
Skies behind stationary aircraft (and the same would apply to anything on the ground) were best selected and replaced by using Photoshop's 'select' tool to select the sky only, then to use the sky replacement tool to replace it without affecting the foreground..
Obviously, that only works if your software allows you to select the sky independently.
Although there was quite a bit more to it than just pressing a button or two, Photoshop did the best job by some margin.
Although I'd only ever changed skies the old way; pre-AI and then only rarely, I already had a few hundred skies of my own stashed away.
Consequently, I ended up changing dozens of skies and although I say it myself, most of them turned out pretty well.
I reckon that it's incorrect to say that "some 'clever' AI program can do a seamless job" as in reality, neither of the two that I was armed with can, one was a clear winner but neither of them are really all that good.
Skies with plenty of cloud worked best for aircraft in flight, as I was able to position the aircraft, in most cases, on a white bit which alleviated the bleed that occurred, particularly using Luminar.
Skies behind stationary aircraft (and the same would apply to anything on the ground) were best selected and replaced by using Photoshop's 'select' tool to select the sky only, then to use the sky replacement tool to replace it without affecting the foreground..
Obviously, that only works if your software allows you to select the sky independently.
Although there was quite a bit more to it than just pressing a button or two, Photoshop did the best job by some margin.
I have done it occasionally for donkeys years, long before the sky replacement feature in photoshop.
Now this may be controversial but I think the technology has gone too far as it takes away the skill and vision of the artist. I have completely lost interest in manipulation as a result, 5 years ago I would have never typed this reply.
My thoughts are we will see an upsurge of some returning to film, as the skill then is all with the photographer / printer. It is something I’m very seriously contemplating (lost out a couple of times on eBay) - in fact it was my love of Chemistry that got me interested in photography in the first place.
Now this may be controversial but I think the technology has gone too far as it takes away the skill and vision of the artist. I have completely lost interest in manipulation as a result, 5 years ago I would have never typed this reply.
My thoughts are we will see an upsurge of some returning to film, as the skill then is all with the photographer / printer. It is something I’m very seriously contemplating (lost out a couple of times on eBay) - in fact it was my love of Chemistry that got me interested in photography in the first place.
Quote:My thoughts are we will see an upsurge of some returning to film
I guess anything is possible - like the new found love for vinyl records. But it is very niche.
Over 90% of photos globally are taken with mobile phones, anyway. Not with cameras.
Quote:I guess anything is possible - like the new found love for vinyl records. But it is very niche.
Over 90% of photos globally are taken with mobile phones, anyway. Not with cameras.
That is part of my thinking, anyway will buy one as it will be used in a display unit, and used in a still life project even if I get bored.
I've been using an Olympus OM10 for about eight years and I've just been gifted another with its 50mm. Zuiko and a Zuiko 135mm. All as good as new.
Unfortunately, since being pressed into service, it now requires a small repair, which I'll carry out myself.
Interestingly, my twenty year old daughter, who has no interest at all in my digital cameras, loves using the Olympuses (Olympi?).
She even took one with a couple of rolls of film, to Athens a couple of weeks ago.
I can see her claiming one of them for good!
Unfortunately, since being pressed into service, it now requires a small repair, which I'll carry out myself.
Interestingly, my twenty year old daughter, who has no interest at all in my digital cameras, loves using the Olympuses (Olympi?).
She even took one with a couple of rolls of film, to Athens a couple of weeks ago.
I can see her claiming one of them for good!
Quote:I've been using an Olympus OM10 for about eight years and I've just been gifted another with its 50mm. Zuiko and a Zuiko 135mm. All as good as new.
Unfortunately, since being pressed into service, it now requires a small repair, which I'll carry out myself.
Interestingly, my twenty year old daughter, who has no interest at all in my digital cameras, loves using the Olympuses (Olympi?).
She even took one with a couple of rolls of film, to Athens a couple of weeks ago.
I can see her claiming one of them for good!
That was my first camera too, still got it somewhere. Just this morning after posting bought a medium format - more for a still life project, but will put a roll in it and give it a whirl. At this stage will get them developed as want to ensure it’, works I will start developing negs then see if I want to expand further into true darkroom
An OM10 wasn't my first ever camera but it was the first 'proper' camera that I owned. I bought it about 1980 and for the life of me, I can't remember what happened to it.
Its replacement, in about 1985, was an OM40 which ate batteries. I used that until about 2000 or so, when I got my first digital camera.
That old OM40 was bulletproof. It was dropped down a flight of concrete steps and once ended up in the sea for the several minutes it took to retrieve it. I wiped it on my T-shirt and carried on. It didn't miss a beat and was still working, years later.
I took it to a charity shop when I got its digital replacement.
Its replacement, in about 1985, was an OM40 which ate batteries. I used that until about 2000 or so, when I got my first digital camera.
That old OM40 was bulletproof. It was dropped down a flight of concrete steps and once ended up in the sea for the several minutes it took to retrieve it. I wiped it on my T-shirt and carried on. It didn't miss a beat and was still working, years later.
I took it to a charity shop when I got its digital replacement.
I had an image where I had replaced a dull sky. It wasn't a landscape shot, the subject was a dancer. I shared it on social media and people made some nice comments. Then somebody said "love the sky". I felt so bad and I very quietly removed the image a few days later.
Quote:I felt so bad and I very quietly removed the image a few days later.
Presumably, the new sky wasn't one that you'd shot yourself?
I can understand your not wanting to claim the credit for one of the software supplied ones; actually, I'd be embarrased to admit to having shot most of them but I wouldn't feel bad about being complimented on of my own.
The implication being that you've done a good jpb.
