Sky Replacement

[fotografr]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The images below demonstrate Photoshop's new Sky Replacement tool. It raises the question whether using it turns a photograph into a photo illustration. The first image is the real sky. The other is a Photoshop "sky replacement." 

If we start replacing skies, what about foreground replacement?

M10R/50 APO Summicron

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

Edited April 27, 2022 by fotografr

[stuny]

As the ancient Greeks said, "Everything in moderation."

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[fotografr]

18 minutes ago, stuny said:

As the ancient Greeks said, "Everything in moderation."

Good advice, but we all know how closely the ancient Greeks adhered to that philosophy. 

Edited April 27, 2022 by fotografr

[stuny]

I've done some sky replacement for color photos with blank skies.  I usually look for the least obtrusive sky, and usually crank back its impact.

[Anbaric]

I would leave the sky alone, but replace that small bridge with the Golden Gate Bridge, which will make your image much more dramatic.

[pgk]

Now you need to balance the sky colour in the water ..... probably a tad trickier.

[fotografr]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, pgk said:

Now you need to balance the sky colour in the water ..... probably a tad trickier.

I think I'll stick with the original version.

[fotografr]

10 hours ago, Anbaric said:

I would leave the sky alone, but replace that small bridge with the Golden Gate Bridge, which will make your image much more dramatic.

Personally, I'd prefer the Brooklyn Bridge.

[HuntingSand]

I've done some sky replacement, and am quite happy with having the option. It has nothing to do with moderation, but everything to do with the direction of impact and "spin" you wish the final image to have. The above example I find quite acceptable. The orange could be toned down a tad so that the bridge's red railing isn't overpowered by it (that's where the moderation element comes back in, post facto), but that's easily done. Photoshop's new neural filters are worth a visit, too. The background blur tool is evolving and getting better all the time for example.

[war]

Less is More

Just sayin.

[Simone_DF]

I think it looks a bit unnatural. The water should be more impacted by the red sunset colors, or not? Maybe toning down the sky will make the two photos merge in a more natural way?

Anyway, I think it's another useful tool. Not everyone has the possibility to go to the same spot every day and wait for the perfect sunset / sunrise / whatever it is you're looking for.

[pgk]

The problem with all this sort of stuff is that you end up with digital fantasies not photographs. The abiity to use software is not photography.

[M.RB]

I've always liked the notion of taking the light that I'm given. I can live with that personally. 

[frame-it]

 

[pgk]

I didn't bother to watch it all because there is clearly no concept of understanding underlying requirements of lighting. Where are the shadows produced from the introduced light source? Well, there aren't any, so the images produced look unreal because, they ARE unreal. Why don't perpetrators of such modifications get this?

[Lelmer]

On 4/27/2022 at 12:51 AM, fotografr said:

The images below demonstrate Photoshop's new Sky Replacement tool. It raises the question whether using it turns a photograph into a photo illustration. The first image is the real sky. The other is a Photoshop "sky replacement." 

If we start replacing skies, what about foreground replacement?

....

Why not?...but as you say, it is illustration, or artificial image making. I much prefer untouched photography.

[albert]

Oh, who cares?  I think sky replacement is cool. Can’t wait to see what’s next. 

[jaapv]

On 4/29/2022 at 12:06 PM, pgk said:

I didn't bother to watch it all because there is clearly no concept of understanding underlying requirements of lighting. Where are the shadows produced from the introduced light source? Well, there aren't any, so the images produced look unreal because, they ARE unreal. Why don't perpetrators of such modifications get this?

Because the tool is not used to the full extent or poorly. It is up to the user to ensure that  the light is correct by using the correct sky, if needed shooting his own and blending different parts of the image together. Just hitting a button is only half the job. Matching the replacement sky to the rest of the image or, creatively, creating a sense of surrealism by using contradictory light - a favourite trick of Magic Realism painters- is the real challenge.

It is really funny: in one thread photography gets lambasted for not being "Art" because it "only depicts reality without creative input", in this one a tool that alters reality and creates a scene that never existed by the input of the photographer gets hammered for producing images that look unreal...

Why don't people get that a photograph is not an illustration but an expression of the interpretation in the mind of the photographer ?  Of course there is a place for keeping as close as possible to the original subject - journalism, scientific records, holiday snaps, and so on. But why limit yourself and not use a photograph as a vehicle of your. imagination?

[pgk]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

Why don't people get that a photograph is not an illustration but an expression of the interpretation in the mind of the photographer? But why limit yourself and not use a photograph as a vehicle of your. imagination?

But photography is, by definition of its name, an image 'drawn with light'. Images changed by adding infomation from other photographs are 'digitally created' imges and are no longer photographs because they are created using computers (although their content may be photographically derived). I have no problem with these at all, other than that people still refer to them as photographs, which they most certainly are not. Many photographers become digtal creatives and even take photographs specifically because these or part of them will fit into their imagined digitally created images. Creative, certainly. Photographs, no, I think not.

There will always be a blurred edge between different artistic mechanisms but photography has always been about capturing an image produced from the subject in front of the camera (which provides exceptional creativity in itself), but photography is now becoming confused with digital imagery. I have even been to an event where a digital creative produced a 'photograph' from scratch using Photoshop and with no photographic input whatsoever. I fail to see how such output can be regarded as 'photographic' even if it looks as though it was created using a camera.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jaapv]

But since when has the medium defined art ?  Why not light when sound is allowed? A symphony is created using sound waves created by mechanical instruments and can be recorded-and manipulated on a digital medium. I think it is typical for photographers, to fixate on the process and to forget to look at the resulting content As for your example:  the image is created by light emitted by the monitor….  Nowhere in the definition of photography is stated at which point of the process light must be involved.