In October 2020, Adobe released version 22 of Photoshop which included a new feature called ‘sky replacement’.
As the name implies, this new feature would enable subscribers of its software to select a sky from a library of different ones to replace the sky in their own image.
This new feature reignited age old debates about whether or not such manipulation of images is right or wrong. Is it cheating? Is it manipulation of an image too far? Should images be true to the scene from where they were taken? Are there any exceptions?
Is It Acceptable?
Everyone will have their own opinion on this topic and I’ve heard plenty of photographers get irate about it.
The Purist’s View
Firstly, let’s get the purist view out of the way. Anyone who reads Amateur Photographer magazine and browses the letters page will often see a photographer write in and complain about image editing not being true photography.
Based on such letters explaining their first experiences of cameras from decades ago, these letters appear to be written by the more mature photographer which perhaps is not a surprise.
They learnt their craft using much more basic camera technology, and before the invention of home computers and image editing software. They had to learn more about the scene and how to catch it, and there was a lot more emphasis on building skills in composition, judging the light, and getting the image with manual focus.
Perhaps the time and effort they spent getting a good image and having to do their best in one moment means they are annoyed that images can be created by what they perceive as far less effort?
Image manipulation is not new
Many of the professional photographers shooting film manipulated their images in the darkroom so why the apparent snobbery? It’s back to those skills again, rather than the technology.
In the darkroom, such image manipulation had to be done by skilful manual techniques such as spot painting blemishes or different techniques with the acid trays and a toolbox. To obtain something good, things had to done to perfection and the output would be a work of pride.
Today’s image manipulation software uses AI (artificial intelligence) to change the image for you. Where there isn’t AI, there are a plethora of tools and sliders that can change any facet of an image, providing of course the photographer has shot a scene maintaining the detail. It’s why most photographers shoot in RAW format rather than JPEG.
The purist view is that you should not manipulate an image. The more relaxed purist view is only light editing, and certainly not replacing the sky. The even more relaxed view is: “I don’t care, it’s all art…” view is do what you like as it’s all individual to the person, the artist!
Halfway House Opinions
Many photographers including myself try to balance their views along a moral compass. For example, you should not replace a sky of an image if it’s not true as you saw it, or believable in tune with the location and the variations of natural skies that are observed there during the seasons.
If the sky is flat, I.e. it’s blank, bland, empty or plain, you can replace it with something believable for the location.
As an example of something not true to a location, if you replaced a UK countryside landscape scene with an apocalyptic hurricane storm sky then the image will clearly look unreal and may never be seen like that in real life.
There’ll be some folks who say they like to see unusual images, or would prefer to see something quirky or different.
Photography as an art form
It’s clear that ‘photography’ means so much more today than just a photograph. The pictures we take with our smartphones are RAW files automatically post processed by the smartphone’s built in software and JPEG files saved to our phones photo library so they’ve been manipulated automatically.
Smartphones and the associated software is improving all the time. One of the interesting areas is imitating shallow depth of field for portraits. The software detects where the face of the person is and adds a blur to the background. It’s possible to get very acceptable images by this method.
There are some very talented artists out there producing fabulous work with software such as Photoshop. It seems that those who manipulate photos trigger a flurry of specific opinions. It’s either fine, fine but with conditions, or not fine!
What’s my opinion?
For someone who shoots landscapes, and spends a lot of time trying to make the best out of the sky, I prefer a sky as it was taken, and accept manipulation of that sky using software. By this, I mean bringing out details in the image that are there in the RAW file, for example reducing the highlights and raising the shadows or contrast to show more cloud.
I’ve once to date replaced a sky. This was on a club sunrise shoot at Hardley Mill. I got some good shots on this morning trip but the sky was very flat.
I felt it was a shame such a nice composition would not be maximised by such a dull sky therefore I replaced it on these two shots:
To me, the output is better and image more pleasing. Am I racked with guilt that the sky isn’t from the actual scene? No. But I did not admit to the sky replacement in my blog of the trip!
I was conscious of the views of some club members, and probably think they knew I’d done this when viewing these images published online. It’s subtle, I think, and perhaps if they are judging me, it’s from a distance and without the inclination to ask or debate.
So, my opinion is that sky replacement is potentially alright to me providing it’s appropriate to the location and scene.
The bottom line is that these are my images and I’ll edit and manipulate as I see fit. As the song goes… “It’s my party and I’ll cry if I want to…”!
I still took the image, stood on the spot, composed the shot, took the foreground and subject, but I decided to replace the sky.
I chose a sky which I felt was believable for the scene, one which I could imagine being a real sky in this location. My conscience is clear.
Composite photography
Being a member of a photography club certainly gets your eyes and ears closer to a more diverse set of opinions.
Many members are into composite image making. Developing art using multiple images, combing them, manipulating them and producing an output. And many members do not see it as ‘photography’.
I appreciate this art form and consider that it should be based on images from the person themselves. There has to be some original output from the artist otherwise it’s just throwing in a collage of stuff and producing an image Dali-style.
An example of a very pleasing and clever composition is the image of a park bandstand which has been taken using multiple exposures then a saxophonist placed in the middle. This won image of the year at my photography club by Dave Balcombe – click here to see the image.
Image manipulation is not going away
There are websites now offering people bespoke images of locations with scenes they want. For example, you can type in a location and ask for a sunset, and up pops the image for you to download.
The images are pretty good but right now, many are over saturated and look basic. You can see where this tech is going though. It will be very soon that excellent images are made available without an artist being named, as the image will have been auto-generated.
HDR
Trends can sometimes dictate opinions too. When HDR (High Dynamic Range) photo techniques (where several photos with different exposures are blended together for a more balanced shot) became popular, many people loved those shots.
However, the immense detail, high contrast and occasionally fake look eventually led to the technique being less common.
Focus stacking
Many photographers are now focus stacking. This is where there’s typically a portrait orientation shot where even a narrow aperture won’t get everything in focus.
It’s a common technique used in macro and/or product photography, and increasingly common in other forms of photography too.
Several shots are taken, each one with the focus on a different part of the scene with the images being stacked or merged in post production software. If done correctly, you can achieve front to back sharpness.
Some photographers are almost obsessed with this in order to achieve a super sharp shot.
Others say it’s false because some visible softness in the image either at the bottom or at the top of a scene is more natural looking.
Infrared photography
There’s a trend ongoing in taking infrared images where either cameras are converted to take infrared images or a filter is used.
As the name implies, this enables a shot to be taken where visible light is not captured but invisible light is captured.
Typically these images are then edited in post production. This type of photography appears to be more accepted than heavily manipulated images. Presumably as there’s still skill needed to capture a scene, it’s just the camera is set to capture specific light.
Final thoughts
All art is subjective and personal to the artist, and to every viewer and potential purchaser to their own taste and preferences.
There will always be fans and critics no matter what the form and style. If folks want to replace their skies, and use wild dramatic different ones that don’t look natural, it’s their prerogative.
I wrote in a previous blog about how composite pictures of WWII planes over scenic landscapes appear to sell well on the Photo4Me website, so it’s not as if those making those images are suffering from a lack of success because of it.
If composite image makers enjoy their creations and bring pleasure to their viewers then that’s great. If you want to focus stack, do it. If you don’t want to focus stack, don’t do it and who cares?
No opinions offered create or change the laws of the land (thankfully).
Onwards and upwards…