Photoshop Update - Sky Replacement

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

G

gaknott

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
OK, full disclosure, I am one of those who has stated many times that I do not add stuff to my photos, replace skies, etc.. However, sometimes I wished that I had that skillset because a plain sky, while sometimes very effective, can also be very boring. I read on another forum this morning about the new PS update and the sky replacement tool so I decided to give it a try. It is super easy, I even figured it out in about a minute, it is very intuitive. See sample below.

From this:
720_1197-3.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


To this:
720_1197_2.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
gaknott said:
Thanks, Gordon. I was amazed at the ease of doing this. They include a package of blue skies, sunset and spectacular. Plus, you can add your own skies to the library. It makes it simple for those of us who are not proficient with the editing tools.
Click to expand...
That's awesome... Glad they finally added that feature, sounds like they added some other good stuff as well... I guess the fill is supposed to be easier now too... I was reading up on some of it last night...
 
Member's gallery
I just updated and for grins I tried the sky replacement on a tough image with a lot of small branches and leaves in the sky. It worked quite well. That said, I'll never use it since I'm not a sky replacement kinda' guy. What I likely will use, though, is the new sky select so that I can make changes to just the sky without driving myself crazy trying to manually select the sky.

The new feature that I will use every day is the new zoom. Using the shift key and mouse you can zoom in or out to any size, and by using the command key and mouse you can draw a rectangle or square and it will zoom to show that part of the image. Cool!
 
Member's gallery
Woodyg3 said:
I just updated and for grins I tried the sky replacement on a tough image with a lot of small branches and leaves in the sky. It worked quite well. That said, I'll never use it since I'm not a sky replacement kinda' guy. What I likely will use, though, is the new sky select so that I can make changes to just the sky without driving myself crazy trying to manually select the sky.

The new feature that I will use every day is the new zoom. Using the shift key and mouse you can zoom in or out to any size, and by using the command key and mouse you can draw a rectangle or square and it will zoom to show that part of the image. Cool!
Click to expand...
Woody, thanks for the tips on the other tools. I took the boat out today and had a fantastic bird day (well, I will know how fantastic after I download them....), at least there was a lot of migratory activity, so I did not have a chance to dip deeper into the upgrades. I am not very proficient with PS anyway so I am happy to hear there are easy to use tools. Thanks for the feedback!
 
Member's gallery
The Neural filters are interesting as well.

I have noticed an issue in Photoshop 2021. There is a problem editing text when Photoshop is using the GPU. If you turn the GPU off in preferences the text can be edited but not with the GPU active. It is a know issue listed on Adobe's site but it creates issues if you are trying to edit any text within documents created in Photoshop 2020 with Photoshop 2021.
 
Member's gallery
MartyD said:
The Neural filters are interesting as well.

I have noticed an issue in Photoshop 2021. There is a problem editing text when Photoshop is using the GPU. If you turn the GPU off in preferences the text can be edited but not with the GPU active. It is a know issue listed on Adobe's site but it creates issues if you are trying to edit any text within documents created in Photoshop 2020 with Photoshop 2021.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info!
 
Member's gallery
This is very impressive but the thing I noticed first was the fact that the stock images are in sharp focus and to me, it makes the image look very obviously manipulated. I think I’ll experiment with some of my own sky shots to see if I can achieve a more realistic look. They did do a great job on making this extremely easy to do.
 
Member's gallery
DougC said:
This is very impressive but the thing I noticed first was the fact that the stock images are in sharp focus and to me, it makes the image look very obviously manipulated. I think I’ll experiment with some of my own sky shots to see if I can achieve a more realistic look. They did do a great job on making this extremely easy to do.
Click to expand...
You are correct Doug, it is very easy to do. Some of the tools provided help define the amount contrast between the image layers, but not sure how much they actually alter it.
 
Member's gallery
gaknott said:
OK, full disclosure, I am one of those who has stated many times that I do not add stuff to my photos, replace skies, etc.. However, sometimes I wished that I had that skillset because a plain sky, while sometimes very effective, can also be very boring. I read on another forum this morning about the new PS update and the sky replacement tool so I decided to give it a try. It is super easy, I even figured it out in about a minute, it is very intuitive. See sample below.

From this:
View attachment 8084

To this:
View attachment 8086
Click to expand...

IMHO Photoshop has given a very unnatural result here. The sky is lit with the sun to viewer's left, while the metal structure is clearly lit with the sun to viewer's right. There is also a "green screen" affect around the birds, likely due to 1) the inconsistent lighting, and 2) the impossibly large DOF where the close-up birds and the distant clouds behind them both are in perfect focus.
 
Member's gallery
Gotta say, I'm not a fan of sky replacement or other major image element replacement in nature/wildlife photos. Sure I understand it's done all the time in advertising work but I hope that Adobe making this easier doesn't make it a go-to for nature photographers wishing they'd been there on a different day or had achieved a different shooting angle for background control purposes.

The more we manipulate the basic image elements the more it devalues the work of nature photographers who actually put in the field time and return again and again trying to capture the right weather or lighting conditions. No doubt there's a lot of room for 'digital art' but the more folks latch onto easy image manipulation and try to pass it off as a scene they actually witnessed the less the viewing public will value the time, effort and commitment put in by photographers actually trying to capture compelling scenes in the field.

I'm not suggesting anyone in this thread has proposed this as a way to pass off photos that didn't quite work but I sure hope that's not what others do with this technology.

Just my 2 cents but I sure hope this isn't the future of nature photography.
 
Member's gallery
DRwyoming said:
Gotta say, I'm not a fan of sky replacement or other major image element replacement in nature/wildlife photos. Sure I understand it's done all the time in advertising work but I hope that Adobe making this easier doesn't make it a go-to for nature photographers wishing they'd been there on a different day or had achieved a different shooting angle for background control purposes.

The more we manipulate the basic image elements the more it devalues the work of nature photographers who actually put in the field time and return again and again trying to capture the right weather or lighting conditions. No doubt there's a lot of room for 'digital art' but the more folks latch onto easy image manipulation and try to pass it off as a scene they actually witnessed the less the viewing public will value the time, effort and commitment put in by photographers actually trying to capture compelling scenes in the field.

I'm not suggesting anyone in this thread has proposed this as a way to pass off photos that didn't quite work but I sure hope that's not what others do with this technology.

Just my 2 cents but I sure hope this isn't the future of nature photography.
Click to expand...

Well stated Dave.
 
Member's gallery
DRwyoming said:
Gotta say, I'm not a fan of sky replacement or other major image element replacement in nature/wildlife photos. Sure I understand it's done all the time in advertising work but I hope that Adobe making this easier doesn't make it a go-to for nature photographers wishing they'd been there on a different day or had achieved a different shooting angle for background control purposes.

The more we manipulate the basic image elements the more it devalues the work of nature photographers who actually put in the field time and return again and again trying to capture the right weather or lighting conditions. No doubt there's a lot of room for 'digital art' but the more folks latch onto easy image manipulation and try to pass it off as a scene they actually witnessed the less the viewing public will value the time, effort and commitment put in by photographers actually trying to capture compelling scenes in the field.

I'm not suggesting anyone in this thread has proposed this as a way to pass off photos that didn't quite work but I sure hope that's not what others do with this technology.

Just my 2 cents but I sure hope this isn't the future of nature photography.
Click to expand...
Spot on!
 
Member's gallery
Palouse said:
So, why even buy a camera, when you have Photoshop to do all your work? 😂
Click to expand...

The image still needs to be a "good" image, no matter what processing system or software you might use. The image must be sharp, if that is the intention, composed well, good tonal quality, edges clean, color correct as you intended, an actual subject that is clear and meaningful. Then you can process as needed to improve the image and make it "all you can" as most good photographers have been doing for a 100 years or so.
 
Member's gallery
Viathelens said:
The image still needs to be a "good" image, no matter what processing system or software you might use. The image must be sharp, if that is the intention, composed well, good tonal quality, edges clean, color correct as you intended, an actual subject that is clear and meaningful. Then you can process as needed to improve the image and make it "all you can" as most good photographers have been doing for a 100 years or so.
Click to expand...
I don't see the phrase "sky replacement" in your list.
 
Member's gallery
DRwyoming said:
Gotta say, I'm not a fan of sky replacement or other major image element replacement in nature/wildlife photos. Sure I understand it's done all the time in advertising work but I hope that Adobe making this easier doesn't make it a go-to for nature photographers wishing they'd been there on a different day or had achieved a different shooting angle for background control purposes.

The more we manipulate the basic image elements the more it devalues the work of nature photographers who actually put in the field time and return again and again trying to capture the right weather or lighting conditions. No doubt there's a lot of room for 'digital art' but the more folks latch onto easy image manipulation and try to pass it off as a scene they actually witnessed the less the viewing public will value the time, effort and commitment put in by photographers actually trying to capture compelling scenes in the field.

I'm not suggesting anyone in this thread has proposed this as a way to pass off photos that didn't quite work but I sure hope that's not what others do with this technology.

Just my 2 cents but I sure hope this isn't the future of nature photography.
Click to expand...

Photography keeps right on changing, as it has done for a long time, and it continues to be contentious and that is nothing new. New ways to develop or process have always been questioned and will continue to be, old ways drop off and new ways latch on. Change is the way of the world whether we like it or not. Perhaps we need to develop new terms for the new ways, wildlife or other subject. Yes, it would be great if we could all get out in the field and get that great sky or great shot and I continue to try for that. But I also love to play with software and see what I can do with my images. I routinely add texture backgrounds to images and just this morning tried out the sky replacement on a wildlife shot (OMG), so I guess I'm guilty of something....I like to think I'm guilty of creating art. I don't think altering a sky is a true composite as nothing else is changing...but maybe it is...are we required to reveal every change we make? Putting on a digital "filter" that you used to put manually on your lens...should we reveal that? Using a polarizer...should we reveal that? What about taking shadows up or highlights down...has anyone ever been "required" to reveal that? These are just questions. I don't know if I'll use the sky replacement but I have a lot of sky images to use if I do. I don't think what anyone does for art "devalues the work of nature photographers." All those great shots you see from high-end nature photographers are not done with him or her crawling around in the brush alone...they are done with a ton of research and money thrown in before-hand and a load of staff helping to get the shot the photographer wants...does this devalue the shot? I don't think so, it's just another way to get the shot.
 
Member's gallery
DRwyoming said:
Gotta say, I'm not a fan of sky replacement or other major image element replacement in nature/wildlife photos. Sure I understand it's done all the time in advertising work but I hope that Adobe making this easier doesn't make it a go-to for nature photographers wishing they'd been there on a different day or had achieved a different shooting angle for background control purposes.

The more we manipulate the basic image elements the more it devalues the work of nature photographers who actually put in the field time and return again and again trying to capture the right weather or lighting conditions. No doubt there's a lot of room for 'digital art' but the more folks latch onto easy image manipulation and try to pass it off as a scene they actually witnessed the less the viewing public will value the time, effort and commitment put in by photographers actually trying to capture compelling scenes in the field.

I'm not suggesting anyone in this thread has proposed this as a way to pass off photos that didn't quite work but I sure hope that's not what others do with this technology.

Just my 2 cents but I sure hope this isn't the future of nature photography.
Click to expand...
AMEN, Dave! Well said!
 
Member's gallery
gaknott said:
Woody, thanks for the tips on the other tools. I took the boat out today and had a fantastic bird day (well, I will know how fantastic after I download them....), at least there was a lot of migratory activity, so I did not have a chance to dip deeper into the upgrades. I am not very proficient with PS anyway so I am happy to hear there are easy to use tools. Thanks for the feedback!
Click to expand...

Oops. I just realized the zoom tools I decribed are new in Lightroom, not Photoshop. :)
 
Member's gallery
I, too agree with Dave. I do have to admit to occasionally losing a stick growing out of a bird's head, or some such, but I try to keep it as close as possible as to how it was shot.
 
Member's gallery
Okay, a lot of purism here LOL
Digital photography has everything to do with photo-editing.
How ‘far’ one’s willing to go in PP is completely depended on ones intentions.
Personally I’m between the ideas and opinions of @DRwyoming and @Viathelens.
(And I’m sure a lot of others inhere are there too)
What’s the difference between those well-accepted adjustments we do everyday? Enhancing sharpness, denoising, cloning, dimming highlights pushing shadows, black tones, white tones, WB, removing colorcasts, adjusting contrast, saturation, blurring or replacing backgrounds, cropping for composition aso aso are okay? but replacing a sky isn’t?
Some of those pros have staff to edit their photos, but every single one does edit his/her work.
Like I said I do agree with the ideas of Dave from an idealistic pov, but reality is more like Viathelens describes and given the progression of AI in cameras and software it will grow with time.
Troublesome? It’s like doping, administer it to everybody and the effect will be non-existent or at least accepted.
We say ‘our effort’? Yup but the vast majority of our viewers don’t even reckognise a good (technical) pic and they couldn’t care less.
Take a look at FB, take a look at ,pardon my French, the crap photography posted on there and the zillion likes it gets if the subject appeals to people (in a WAYYY less degree how perfectly exposed, composed and brilliant the pic is)
Photography is changing from analogue ,and the darkroom with its restricted possibillities to mod a picture, into an Art where the or A (set) of picture(s) are used together with software to create.
Wether you like it or not it’s the future (and that future is allready here)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top