Ethics about replacing the sky in your photos?

[Hylander]

Are we translating the same way? "The more things change, the more things stay the same?"

Yes.

 

[Mike Buckley]

How will anyone know a photo is real?

I can't tell you how many times I've been told by photographers on this and other websites that the way I lit a particular tabletop scene made the objects appear unreal. My typical response is that if you had ever seen them lit as I lit them, you would know they look that way. The corollary is that if you've never seen them lit as I lit them, how do you know how they should look when lit that way?

 

[Palouse]

I can't tell you how many times I've been told by photographers on this and other websites that the way I lit a particular tabletop scene made the objects appear unreal. My typical response is that if you had ever seen them lit as I lit them, you would know they look that way. The corollary is that if you've never seen them lit as I lit them, how do you know how they should look when lit that way?

Coming soon, "Adobe—Replace your hot chocolate/wine/fish/octopus/cake/crab cake/and other foods"

 

[Mike Buckley]

Coming soon, "Adobe—Replace your hot chocolate/wine/fish/octopus/cake/crab cake/and other foods"

I'm sure you realize that capability has been around a long time.

 

[Palouse]

I'm sure you realize that capability has been around a long time.

Yes, but this time, Adobe will give you 500 free foods, etc. It will no longer be your work.

 

[West]

This thread is old news ....
https://www.businessinsider.com/fake-photos-history-2011-8#these-photos-helped-conceal-history-15

 

[Mike Buckley]

It will no longer be your work.

Even when all aspects of a composite photo were captured by me using my camera and post-processed by me using software I licensed, some people say it's not photography. I really don't get that.

 

[Palouse]

Even when all aspects of a composite photo were captured by me using my camera and post-processed by me using software I licensed, some people say it's not photography. I really don't get that.

That's not what I am alluding to.
Making a composite with your own work, fine by me, even if the images were made at different times. Removing minor elements, OK by me.

Adding elements (sky, animals, people, trees, houses, cars, etc.) from a universal library of someone else's work—not photography as I want to know it. You are free to call it what you want.

Taking a picture, badly exposed and composed on Auto-everything mode, and them correcting for exposure, color, white balance, focus, long-exposure blur, bokeh etc, and/or replacing the sky with an external sky, adding reflection and elements that did not exist at any time in your original work, sliming down a human figure, changing skin color, et., etc., is not the work of a skilled photographer—but of a software tech.

 

[Palouse]

Over on BCG Forums, our the following phrase, inspired by our own frdjohns, was entered in the lexicon, " . . "automated composite with stock sky photography."

 

[West]

Taking a picture, badly exposed and composed on Auto-everything mode, and them correcting for exposure, color, white balance, focus, long-exposure blur, bokeh etc, and/or replacing the sky with an external sky, adding reflection and elements that did not exist at any time in your original work, sliming down a human figure, changing skin color, et., etc., is not the work of a skilled photographer—but of a software tech.

All the great photos we see here and other places have been manipulated in that exact way and through software. Not sure any photographer has skills capable of producing what we call: beautiful/perfect or excellent photos with in-camera settings alone. I guess the fundamental difference is that some see photography as an evolving art form and others do not.
https://digitalapplejuice.com/review-art-photography-approach/

 

[Palouse]

All the great photos we see here and other places have been manipulated in that exact way and through software. Not sure any photographer has skills capable of producing what we call: beautiful/perfect or excellent photos with in-camera settings alone. I guess the fundamental difference is that some see photography as an evolving art form and others do not.
https://digitalapplejuice.com/review-art-photography-approach/

ALL? Really? Proof?

 

[West]

ALL? Really? Proof?

Pick out one of the "great" photos here and ask the photog if there was any post added. Start with Glen or Louie

 

[Palouse]

Pick out one of the "great" photos here and ask the photog if there was any post added.

Please, don't insult me. I did NOT say all post processing is bad. I did NOT. I am talking about adding in significant elements that did not exist in the original!

 

[Palouse]

some see photography as an evolving art form and others do not.

Photography has been evolving from the moment the first photo was taken. Not all of its evolution has been good; some of it has been parasitic; some has been self-destructive (in my opinion).

 

[Lucky Duck]

I can't tell you how many times I've been told by photographers on this and other websites that the way I lit a particular tabletop scene made the objects appear unreal. My typical response is that if you had ever seen them lit as I lit them, you would know they look that way. The corollary is that if you've never seen them lit as I lit them, how do you know how they should look when lit that way?

Do you care what anyone else thinks of your work if you're pleased with it?

 

[Mike Buckley]

Do you care what anyone else thinks of your work if you're pleased with it?

That's a completely different subject.

Even so, the answer to your question is that it depends on how informed the person is and the reasoning explained by that person. That's also true if I'm not pleased with my work.

 

[kilofoxtrott]

Gentlemen...
The other problem is that you don't know how the camera and lens software influences the data file.

And all in all it's - art.

Klaus

 

[Mike Buckley]

And all in all it's - art.

I believe the vast majority of photography is craft and only a relatively small amount of it is art.

 

[Palouse]

I apologize for not adding this earlier, but Mike is probably the most consistently careful and honest artist here—he notes early in his many posts who took the picture, who processed it and how, and what if anything was added/removed in post processing. I have no problem, and every admiration with that.

 

[Palouse]

I believe the vast majority of photography is craft and only a relatively small amount of it is art.

Most pictures are a reflex action, taken on a cell phone and viewed as 1" x 2" images in bad light on a dirty screen. Neither craft nor art—merely a stimulus-response act.

Now, to go make my morning coffee!