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).

Member's gallery
Thern said:
Like I see it the example was solely meant to trigger this discussion.
Anyway not necessairily making a pic good or better, one can also use a (set of) picture(s) to create something completely different.
Wether the viewer likes it or not doesn’t matter, that’s a common thing the way art may/will be perceived by different people.

A nice example... (I like it)

Anhinga and it's reflection - Highly Processed

This is an Anhinga swimming along and the photo was just so-so. I ran it through Photoshop ELEMENTS to get the outline / I then duplicated it and flipped it horizontally to get the finished image. A copy is on my living room wall.
bcgforums.com bcgforums.com

If one uses ‘enhancements’ to better a picture in a realistic way there’s little leeway, the minute things start to look unnatural or unrealistic the photog ‘failed’ in PP.
(That’s according to the conservative viewer aka the registrational photographer, show the same pic to non-photographers and they prolly like it.)
If one uses ‘enhancements’ however to create visual art while using a picture as a bases the sky is the limit! (Well clearly not even that LOL)



Yup, rethorical question, however I’m sure with time and changing visions this ‘push/pull’ will fade away eventually.

Nonetheless, for me it’s a simple adage.
Live and let live.

/edit
My assumption happens to be right I see regarding the example LOL
Click to expand...
Thern said:
Like I see it the example was solely meant to trigger this discussion.
Anyway not necessairily making a pic good or better, one can also use a (set of) picture(s) to create something completely different.
Wether the viewer likes it or not doesn’t matter, that’s a common thing the way art may/will be perceived by different people.

A nice example... (I like it)

Anhinga and it's reflection - Highly Processed

This is an Anhinga swimming along and the photo was just so-so. I ran it through Photoshop ELEMENTS to get the outline / I then duplicated it and flipped it horizontally to get the finished image. A copy is on my living room wall.
bcgforums.com bcgforums.com

If one uses ‘enhancements’ to better a picture in a realistic way there’s little leeway, the minute things start to look unnatural or unrealistic the photog ‘failed’ in PP.
(That’s according to the conservative viewer aka the registrational photographer, show the same pic to non-photographers and they prolly like it.)
If one uses ‘enhancements’ however to create visual art while using a picture as a bases the sky is the limit! (Well clearly not even that LOL)



Yup, rethorical question, however I’m sure with time and changing visions this ‘push/pull’ will fade away eventually.

Nonetheless, for me it’s a simple adage.
Live and let live.

/edit
My assumption happens to be right I see regarding the example LOL
Click to expand...
Thank you, Roger!
 
Member's gallery
I am surprised by the amount of debate on the sky replacement thing...to me it’s just a thing...another technique and I see nothing wrong with it. You must do it well so it doesn’t look fake but if you were only at place On a cloudy day what’s wrong with substituting how the sky looks yesterday.
I have to admit...I’m on the Ugly Hedgehog forum as well...and there is way, way less vitriol here on the subject...some of the folks there are being real buttheads and I generally just skip past those threads as they inevitably get comments that you’re not a photographer if you do so...while admitting that they PP themselves and clone out trash. Between that sort of comments and the “you’re not a real photographer unless you use FF” mafia...I find myself liking the folks here to be much more friendly and helpful.
 
Member's gallery
Neil Laubenthal said:
I am surprised by the amount of debate on the sky replacement thing...to me it’s just a thing...another technique and I see nothing wrong with it. You must do it well so it doesn’t look fake but if you were only at place On a cloudy day what’s wrong with substituting how the sky looks yesterday.
I have to admit...I’m on the Ugly Hedgehog forum as well...and there is way, way less vitriol here on the subject...some of the folks there are being real buttheads and I generally just skip past those threads as they inevitably get comments that you’re not a photographer if you do so...while admitting that they PP themselves and clone out trash. Between that sort of comments and the “you’re not a real photographer unless you use FF” mafia...I find myself liking the folks here to be much more friendly and helpful.
Click to expand...
Very true, Neil. I am on UHH as well (rarely comment, just read), and it is amazing how combative it can be. I was wondering about a day into this one if I had made a mistake in posting it, but this group keeps it pretty positive; I hope it does not degrade over time. Thanks for the response!
 
Member's gallery
I think the biggest problem with this is that the images provided by PS are all in focus and that is what makes it a dead giveaway that the sky has been replaced. I took a few sky shots that were out of focus and the results are much more believable IMHO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top