Ethics about replacing the sky in your photos?

[Mike Buckley]

someone else might point out that the lighting does not match my subject.

I do look for that kind of mismatch. However, the upcoming Photoshop capability is supposed to deal with that at least in terms of how cool or warm the substituted sky is. I don't know if it also changes shadow hardness and softness to match what the substituted sky would have created. I only read the article and didn't review the video.

 

[Louis Champan]

I've been playing around with Luminar 4 and sky replacement, haven't posted any images from my experimenting yet. I've been using my own skies in my playing around and even though Luminar does a pretty decent job I find I still have to do a lot of further adjustments to take care of the color cast that is over the image and assuring the lighting matches between sky and subject . If the lighting doesn't match between sky and subject, it's a dead give away that the sky has been replaced. Fun to play with and it can make a significant difference in an image.

 

[Pa]

I'm just an old fogey I guess, but I would never change a sky and even frown on others doing it.

I think the photographer should explicitly own up to it if it is done.

 

[rhynetc]

Ethics about replacing the sky in your photos?

Just another wrinkle in the age-old conundrum of "Is photography art?"

Answer "yes" and make all the changes (additions and subtractions) you wish.

Answer "no" and don't touch anything, not even exposure or color cast, and present your work SOOC.

Just as in arguing politics, no one is convinced to change their point of view. . .

 

[Louis Champan]

I'm just an old fogey I guess, but I would never change a sky and even frown on others doing it.

I think the photographer should explicitly own up to it if it is done.

Appreciating your opinion Jim, but then why wouldn't you want the photographer to implicitly state all of the other adjustments that have been made to the image? Why just the sky?

 

[Mike Buckley]

no one is convinced to change their point of view

Just to be clear, when I started the thread I had no thoughts about whether anybody's view would or should be changed. Convincing is not remotely the point of the thread; discussion is.

 

[Louis Champan]

Thanks for starting this thread Mike, good conversation and a subject that many of us have probably given thought to.

 

[Mike Buckley]

I've now watched the video. It doesn't mention anything about automatically changing either the quality or the direction of the shadows when the sky is changed. I carefully watched for those changes when the sky was being changed in the video and there were no such changes to the shadows. I'm willing to bet that we're going to see a lot of shadows going to the left when the sun in the substituted sky would have made them go to the right. When that happens, nobody will ever have to explain to the astute observer that the sky was changed.

 

[Pa]

Appreciating your opinion Jim, but then why wouldn't you want the photographer to implicitly state all of the other adjustments that have been made to the image? Why just the sky?

Because the camera cannot capture completely what a viewer would see in a scene. The eye adapts to shadows and colors in a very different way from the camera. In processing, I try to recreate a scene as my eyes perceived it. That doesn't include replacing the sky.

 

[Deleted member 4116]

Because the camera cannot capture completely what a viewer would see in a scene. The eye adapts to shadows and colors in a very different way from the human eye. In processing, I try to recreate a scene as my eyes perceived it. That doesn't include replacing the sky.

I'd argue "why does that matter?" Unless you entered a realism photography contest where you pass an unrealistic photo as "realism", I don't see the issue. Tons of photos out there are manipulated to make the scene more pleasing and still be somewhat realistic even if the scene can't be replicated in real life. I fail to see the issue if a photography feels the need to give the sky more clouds, or add a tree as context to the subject.

Basically if I created an image using 2 photographs i've taken (one of a subject, one of a sky/skyline) and decided to put them together, anyone viewing it can go kick rocks if they feel I need to "disclose" that I manipulated it to include a different sky.

 

[Mike Buckley]

I try to recreate a scene as my eyes perceived it.

In contrast to that, I try to recreate a scene as how I want to present it regardless of how close my presentation is to the physical scene that I photographed. Sometimes I want my presentation to be very similar to the physical scene but only because I really liked how the physical scene appeared, not because of any desire to make the image in a documentary style. Other times I know long before releasing the shutter that I want my final image to look very different from the physical scene I'm photographing. Similarly, that's not because of any desire to make it different for the sake of doing so, but rather to make the image as I envisioned it in my mind's eye.

Understanding all of that, the only questions then for me are when and why I disclose that the image is so very different from the physical scene I photographed.

 

[gryphon1911]

Appreciating your opinion Jim, but then why wouldn't you want the photographer to implicitly state all of the other adjustments that have been made to the image? Why just the sky?

For that matter, if you shoot JPG, do you need to then start listing all the in camera settings you used? technically, they are not yours, they are an algorithm determined by some engineer at Nikon, Canon, Sony, Olympus, Fuji, Pentax, Ricoh....yadayadyada.

And, if you shoot RAW and put it into an editing software and just pick the default software rendering, do you then need to state which one? Did they use in camera setting switches in the RAW file to render or one from CaptureOne, Skylum, Adobe, etc?

If we look at film, do we not need to then state which film stock, how the film was processed, what paper was used to print or which negative scanner was used?

If you want to get to the nth degree you most certainly could. A photograph is a means to capture a moment in time and then share that with the world. Sometimes the camera does not accurately portray said feeling of photographer at the time and then use post processing techniques to elicit that response (or attempt) from the viewer.

My take is that whatever image you take, it is your art and display it to the world however you see fit. If you are using the image to share a truth (journalism) it needs to portray that truth. Even given that parameter, there is only so much one can fit into a frame and that person just outside the frame or the building that only shows the doorway could alter the truth for those with specific knowledge.

This is an age old argument that generally excites the excitable and goes really no where.

 

[GonzoBernelli]

I have taken many a landscape shot with a featureless blue sky, but will only replace the as-shot sky with another (currently Landscape Pro) when the replacement clouds have sunlight and shadows on them is consistent with the sunlight and shadows of the non sky parts of the original image. The clouds and such must also scale to be consistent with the scale oof the landscape. I have seen a pro selling images and in his gallery where the illumination of the clouds is way different from the the illumination of the land. That was back in the early 2000's - some guy in Moab.

These are the only 2 I have done (only ones that meet conditions above)

 

[Mike Buckley]

This is an age old argument

I see no argument; I see only considerations. It's a given that each of us gets to decide for ourselves when and why to disclose particular details about our images. We've already seen in the thread that there is a wide variety of thought about that. My takeaway is that we all will draw the line at one of the two extremes or somewhere in between, so it's well worth at least to me to consider everyone's thinking about that.

 

[Mike Buckley]

A friendly reminder to everyone: The purpose of the thread isn't to discuss whether we would replace the sky; the purpose is to discuss whether we would disclose that the sky has been replaced if indeed that has happened.

 

[Growltiger]

Future software will provide far more options, something like this:
1. Select latitude, season and time of day, number size and type of clouds etc.
2. List of birds, choose any species, number of birds, flocks of birds etc.
3. Moon. Choose which phase, size, how many.
4. Sun. Sunrise or sunset?
5. Aircraft. Choose model, number of aircraft, size, do you want contrails?
6. Hot air balloons. Choose design, size, number.

There will be no ethical requirement to mention that you have used the software, as it will be glaringly obvious.

 

[Palouse]

Future software will provide far more options, something like this:
1. Select latitude, season and time of day, number size and type of clouds etc.
2. List of birds, choose any species, number of birds, flocks of birds etc.
3. Moon. Choose which phase, size, how many.
4. Sun. Sunrise or sunset?
5. Aircraft. Choose model, number of aircraft, size, do you want contrails?
6. Hot air balloons. Choose design, size, number.

There will be no ethical requirement to mention that you have used the software, as it will be glaringly obvious.

and all this, and more, while you snore contentedly in your warm bed.

 

[7006]

Personally, photography is just a hobby, I do not post process much if at all unless absolutely required (astrophotography).
I don’t enjoy it.
I don’t like it.
I will not like a visibly heavily edited photo.
However if I am fooled and do not see the edits, I will run with it.
But I would expect the artist to indicate what level of alterations have been applied, without necessarily giving all the details.

 

[Palouse]

Personally, photography is just a hobby, I do not post process much if at all unless absolutely required (astrophotography).
I don’t enjoy it.
I don’t like it.
I will not like a visibly heavily edited photo.
However if I am fooled and do not see the edits, I will run with it.
But I would expect the artist to indicate what level of alterations have been applied, without necessarily giving all the details.

YUP.

 

[acnomad]

I was playing around with the Photoshop Camera app on my phone yesterday. I believe this app is included in my PS subscription. Just picked the photo I shot of my daughter and the app replaced my white background with sky. Pretty impressive job masking around her including spaces in between her hair. This would have taken me a long time and I doubt I could have come close to this result with my selection.

There is nothing new here — it has just been made easier so that anyone (even with little skill) can change a sky now.

I take it that Mitch's example photo of his daughter is to show how easily the task can be accomplished more than whether in that particular case it is an improvement to the original photo.

Although I have never changed the sky background in a portrait or daytime landscape, I have routinely done so in compositing nightcapes (with limited success when compare to those who really know what they are doing). I would add this: to the keen eye (or even the casual observer), it is pretty obvious when you mismatch a background lit one way with a subject lit in another. When you are able to combine these two elements from two different circumstances without obvious discrepancies in lighting, I would say congratulations are in order.