Luminar and Sky Replacement

[tommui987]

I was looking at some of the demo(s) on sky replacements on Luminar.

And you could add fluffy clouds where none exist or sunsets and the like.

 

What is the "ethics" on doctoring a photograph? Using curves etc on Photoshop seems OK but the total replacement of a sky seems like cheating somehow.

 

Comments?

 

[pierces]

I have spent a lot of time over the years adjusting images to better represent what I saw when I took them. I have spent another big block of time editing out people and other distractions. I have sometimes wished that the sky didn't suck the life out of an otherwise dramatic shot but to me, part of the challenge (and fun) of photography is making an interesting image regardless of whether fate rolls a seven or snake eyes. The technology impresses me but I really don't think I'll be sorting through my library looking for scenes begging for more sky drama. 

 

As for ethics, artists have been painting and drawing views of the world both altered for effect and born of imagination since forever. Photographers have altered reality using time exposures, lighting, props and compositing since there's been photography. Tools like Sky Replacer make creating art easier but it is really just another tool. The ethics lie with the photographer and their claim as to whether an image was captured as is or is digital art. All photo editing tools are guns in a holster and how you use them determines whether your hat is black or white.

 

Dave

 

Edited November 2, 2019 by pierces

[FlyingFlip]

5 hours ago, tommui987 said:

What is the "ethics" on doctoring a photograph? Using curves etc on Photoshop seems OK but the total replacement of a sky seems like cheating somehow.

 

Comments?

 

Coincidentally, I was watching a video discussing this a couple days ago.  (Tony & Chelsea Northrup - Is photo editing cheating?)

 

A lot of it depends on how you're representing your photo.  If you're a photojournalist, representing your photo as evidence of the truth of a story, the rules are very strict.  If you're a fine arts photographer, representing a piece as your artistic creation and not at all representative of reality, anything goes.

 

Many of my favorite photos are travel photos from my vacations.  I'm representing them as such.  In part, they're documenting what I saw.  Therefore, the editing has to be minimal enough to represent what I saw.

 

In general, I'm a lot more relaxed about things being edited out of a photo, rather than being edited in.  For example, I got a nice photo of two barnacle geese dashing across the street, up close, at the geese's eye level.  When I went to process it, there was a pole from a street light sticking out of the gosling's head.  I cloned the pole out of the photo.

 

I'm representing the photo as a travel/wildlife photo.  This is what the animal I saw looked like.  It is not an accurate representation of the (unnamed and out-of-focus) street behind the geese.

 

On the other hand, I could add an element to the photo.  Like a small, yappy dog chasing the geese.  That photo would create a more compelling story.  But if I did that, I should represent the photo as my own artistic expression.  It does not represent what I saw, nor does it accurately represent the behavior of the geese.

 

Regarding the sky,  I've considered editing the sky in some of my oldest photos.  I was inexperienced and using the cheapest digital cameras, so I ended up with a lot of skies that were completely washed out white.  I don't remember what the sky looked like, so it would largely have to be my creation.  If I edit in a sky, I'd go for something normal and representative (so the terrible sky is no longer a distraction from the subject of the photo), not something truly interesting, which would be unrepresentative of the sky at that time.  However, that choice is still based out of my desire to keep the photo as documentation of my travels.

[havoc315]

Where photography is art, the artist may use any tools at their disposal... including editing. 

So I see nothing "cheating" about using photoshop or Luminar to create art.

But with a caveat: If you are using Luminar to put in custom skies that you photographed, no issue. But if you're using Luminar's built-in custom skies, you're combining their art with your art. I still see no problem, Luminar has clearly licensed you to use their art. But still, when showing off such photo, I'd want to give credit: "sky substituted by Skylum Luminar"

 

Similarly, if I'm photographing to create a "record" of a location.... "the Eiffel Tower as seen in by summer 2019 trip".. for example.... I'd want to be clear that the sky is not the sky as it was seen on that trip. So, "Eiffel Tower photographed summer 2019, sky substitution to Luminar"

Substituting the sky... it's no longer an accurate record. But it may be a better looking photograph. So I'd want to be clear as to what aspects are the actual record. 

[pierces]

I'll bet there's a ton of single millennials that wish there were enforceable ethics concerning photo manipulation...most notably in dating apps.

 

Speaking of...if Luminar introduces a "Make Me Datable" AI portrait retouching plug-in, I want credit!

😉

 

Dave

Edited November 4, 2019 by pierces

[FlyingFlip]

19 hours ago, pierces said:

I'll bet there's a ton of single millennials that wish there were enforceable ethics concerning photo manipulation...most notably in dating apps.

 

I did online dating 11-12 years ago.  Photo editing isn't the real problem.  People using photos that were 5-10 years out of date, or 20-50 pounds out of date, or even someone else's photos....

[pierces]

My wife was a freshman when I met her as as a sophomore in high school and we got married six months after she graduated. Every time the subject of dating comes up, I thank her for sparing me from that particular misery for the last several decades. 

 

Dave

[Shazzah]

I use the “replace the sky option” in Luminar occasionally. If you have edited a photo with one of the HDR-like settings, the resulting sky sometimes looks a bit off. So it is easy enough to replace the sky with a copy of the unedited sky.