Replacing skies?

Vegan.Hiker

Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2014
Messages
2,099
So I've been reading a few books on digital photography, and in a few places I've read about the concept of replacing skies. I'm not here to judge. I know everyone has the right to enjoy photography the way they want and art is subjective. I get that. There's just something about replacing a sky though that I'm not comfortable with personally. Again, I won't judge others that do it. I speak only for myself.

I know that when we convert a photo to black and white, bracket, use a long exposure, etc., we're essentially altering what our "eyes" may have seen, but that feels more like artistic "interpretation" whereas replacing a sky feels more like "misrepresentation" to me. I began tinkering with photography because reading all the trip reports on BCP made me realize I should archive my experiences to look back on later in life. I guess I want to remember things the way they really were.

I'm new to photography and everything I've been learning about thus far has been "technical" sort of stuff. This is the first time I've been compelled to think of photography in more of a philosophical way.

I'm wondering how all the photographers on here feel about the idea of replacing a sky in a photo?
 
Last edited:
I'm wondering how all the photographers on here feel about the idea of replacing a sky in a photo?

I've done it. I don't like doing it.

My personal opinion is that when you start blending multiple images (excluding bracketed sequences), you're in the realm of digital art and not straight photography.

That said, I routinely process photos to give skies already in the shot a little more oomph. This consists of using a graduated filter and/or saturation and luminance controls in Lightroom to increase contrast.
 
I don't do sky replacements. Like Dave said, it's definitely then in the realm of digital art and not photography. Which if it's displayed as such, I guess it's not so bad. I'm particularly annoyed by the 'pros' that post up some crazy shot with a night sky replacement where someone puts a new moon milky way shot over a moonlit landscape. And the cherry on top, the moon that is half the size of the sky. Unicorns would be much better.

riding-unicorn-jpg.8187
 
My personal opinion is that when you start blending multiple images (excluding bracketed sequences), you're in the realm of digital art and not straight photography.

Ahh this makes a lot of sense. Clears things up for me to think of it as 2 totally separate things.
 
Over 10 years ago I took a cloudless sky photo and added a sky with clouds and showed some friends and told them what I did. I then got questioned on other photos about adding skies, or rainbows when I didn't. So I personally do not do that myself anymore.

Bringing this topic up I was watching this new popular Zion video that is pretty nice and the very first scene caught my eye. I have not been to that exact spot yet, but I believe that the sky was not shot at the same time as the foreground. I found the location of the rock formation and the scene is facing North, however the sky would not be turning in the direction it is. However I might be wrong and I am going to explore this spot in the next couple months anyway.
Here is the video.
You can be the judge of that. It is still pretty sweet,
 
I'm particularly annoyed by the 'pros' that post up some crazy shot with a night sky replacement where someone puts a new moon milky way shot over a moonlit landscape. And the cherry on top, the moon that is half the size of the sky.

I have not been to that exact spot yet, but I believe that the sky was not shot at the same time as the foreground.

I think this type of photography is the biggest offender right now. I follow a couple of outdoors/adventure accounts on Instagram and they're chock full of night sky landscape shots that are obviously blended.
 
Bringing this topic up I was watching this new popular Zion video that is pretty nice

Ugh.. i'm a bit devastated. I've been working on a video on and off for months now with my own footage from the past 2 years that uses the very same song by Lights and Motion. I guess I should change it now, especially since this video is about a million times better than mine, but it'll be like starting over from scratch. This sucks.
 
Ugh.. i'm a bit devastated. I've been working on a video on and off for months now with my own footage from the past 2 years that uses the very same song by Lights and Motion. I guess I should change it now, especially since this video is about a million times better than mine, but it'll be like starting over from scratch. This sucks.

I ran into this video after I posted a Zion one I made a couple weeks ago on Vimeo and this was posted a few hours before. It made me feel a little depressed since mine is way more basic. However I am going to just try and grow from that and work to get better, without changing skies :)
 
Ugh.. i'm a bit devastated. I've been working on a video on and off for months now with my own footage from the past 2 years that uses the very same song by Lights and Motion. I guess I should change it now, especially since this video is about a million times better than mine, but it'll be like starting over from scratch. This sucks.

Why change it? That's a ton of work to just start over. Videos, unfortunately, are quickly forgotten. No one is going to be think less of it because they heard that song in another video once upon a time that they can't even remember now.
 
Why change it? That's a ton of work to just start over. Videos, unfortunately, are quickly forgotten. No one is going to be think less of it because they heard that song in another video once upon a time that they can't even remember now.

I guess I just wanted the video to be my own unique creation and this makes it feel less unique I guess. I may still keep it if I can't find something else that feels right, but something tells me I'll end up wanting to switch it now.
 
Jerry Uelsmann achieved amazing prints, and still does I think, using an enlarger in a darkroom, no photoshop:


I0000X.LFLLcsic4.jpg


It took a true artist to achieve this, a master at his craft.
Is it a photograph?
If someone made this today in about a half an hour in Photoshop, would it be a photograph?
But to answer the original question I think sky replacement is despicable and should be outlawed.
 
That is incredibly impressive to achieve in a dark room. It's also takes skill to do in Photoshop although not nearly as much. I think the key difference is that his photos were obviously not a depiction of an actual scene.
 
Ugh.. i'm a bit devastated. I've been working on a video on and off for months now with my own footage from the past 2 years that uses the very same song by Lights and Motion. I guess I should change it now, especially since this video is about a million times better than mine, but it'll be like starting over from scratch. This sucks.

Who cares if Lights and Motion did one using the same song. They are not the same video and you two are definitely not going to be the only ones to use that song to make a video. What matters, is do you like your video? I go can take a picture of exact same spot as some of these awesome photographers do and my photo is never going to be as amazing as what they produce. I don't care. I am happy with what I create and more importantly the memory I have of getting that picture.

@Nick i LOVE the unicorn. Hahaha that is brilliant. Better than a replaced sky any day of the week.
 
It's a big no no in my book, but you will of course find other who feel differently. I almost always blend in a different exposure for the sky, but that is almost always taken within a matter of seconds from the main exposure. In that case you are really just compensating for the technical limitations of a camera, not creating something new.
 
Nick, maybe this does not belong in the Scariest Things Encountered thread but seriously, this belongs in some thread on here as a serious point of discussion. Why have you not talked about this before???

riding-unicorn-jpg.8187
[/QUOTE]
 
So I've been reading a few books on digital photography, and in a few places I've read about the concept of replacing skies.

I know that when we convert a photo to black and white, bracket, use a long exposure, etc., we're essentially altering what our "eyes" may have seen, but that feels more like artistic "interpretation" whereas replacing a sky feels more like "misrepresentation" to me.

I did a sky replacement on an image when I first started with digital sensors a long time ago now (a Canon G2). Back then, and even now with the little point and shoots you get little dynamic range so the skies are easily blown (and I never did like looking through anything but a single lens reflex). That is why I did it and while it did make it look okay I felt like a fraud in a way.

I have no problem with evening out the light in various sections of an image and increasing contrast levels along any parts of the scale or at times converting to pure B&W but that is where it stops for me. 95% of an image is composition and light (and like Ansel said, knowing where to stand). But with a RAW file and decent sized sensor you can preserve most of the information that is there. Even the older DSLRs that I use have very good dynamic range. Mine are 10 and 12 years old so I'm less interested in the equipment than comp and light but value equipment with good dynamic range and low noise.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top