Jump to content

Sky Replacement


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

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

 

 

Edited by fotografr
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...