GOOD or BAD photography practice?

[@Twa-Dags]

No idea who that Mali bloke was but he's right, absolutely right.

[@mauricebawden9561]

old pals act ?

[@GaryGough]

He’s a great pal indeed. You’ll have to check his channel out. Of course he’s right btw 😁

[@jimwallar8920]

My love of photography lies in the experience of making a photo in the field. Finding a composition and working it with the tools you have in the field. Down the road you recall the experience and can be proud of a photograph that you made.

[@warrenlloyd7532]

Exactly, it's so much about personal satisfaction.

[@muhammadesawy9256]

I was so happy through the whole video because of this debate about sky replacement! and because of my love to photography and my belief in photography, to me photographer role is to beautify reality not to fake it! And regardless of all of those photographers who fake their photos and claim that it’s fine art, true photographers will always add that magic touch to their images to make it stand out not change reality only to get someone’s attention!

[@GaryGough]

Agree totally Muhammad, well said 👏👏

[@tonyy452]

You're both right. Replacing a sky or not is an artistic choice like any other. And Going out on adventures to chase and capture those special skies for yourself is all part of the fun.

[@KrunoslavStifter]

Simple: "The true authenticity of photographs for me is that they usually manipulate and lie about what is in front of the camera, but never lie about the intentions behind the camera.” ― Wolfgang Tillmans, German photographer

[@GaryGough]

I'm not keen on Wolgang's work. It's a little too basic for my tastes. But that's the great thing about this thing called art, it's all subjective! Cheers, 👍👍

[@raydunn3501]

I Think since the age of digital,,, everyone who owns a cameraphone thinks they are photographers,,, but to me the way photography is going,,, its who is the best graphic artist, or computer operator. I would like to lend my vote to Mali as photography should be kept honest,,, you see it you shoot it you document it as it was,,, Honest photography.

[@Termidryna]

I agree.

[@AndyP1961.]

100% with you

[@GaryGough]

I'm with you too Ray but there has to be room for art and expression!

[@Outlast1965]

I would be replacing sky if I find it more pleasing to my eye than original image. However, I would go more often on taking a landscape having an original and colorful sky that goes with it at the time.

[@lensman5762]

Well, that just about qualifies me as a moron. I don't even have Photoshop or even if I had it I wouldn't know where to start from. Frankly, I find the time spent at the computer a waste of life. I don't feel the same when shooting film, besides the chores of scanning that is. I am not against digital, quite the opposite, but the satisfaction of making a composition work in the camera at the time of capture, is something else, in particular if I were using my large format or medium format film cameras.

[@toke7560]

Fantastic. Its the end product that matters. Artists paint in what suits the picture.

[@highlands.photography]

Two very talented and hard working photographers / vloggers providing food for thought and very entertaining viewing, it would be good to see more of the pair of you.

[@GaryGough]

Not sure about either of those points Gary 😁😁😁

[@chrisvantwiskphotography]

Great video i ma heading over to the blue corner :)

[@LynneLuxonJonesphotography]

Ha..love it ,brilliant discussion both 👍 I've not gone down the sky replacement route yet ....but after a week of Embracing the grey I came very very close ! Like you Gary I see images on insta that make me wanna quit but slowly I've realised that a large % are not genuine images . & I don't have a problem with it BUT the photographer MUST,in my opinion, state that the image is not a genuine representation of the scene that you will see if you go to that location. Horizon removal /blending gives an image that is obviously not real ...replacing a sky ,blending 2 or more images of the same location ie summer flowers with snow capped mountains ,those are harder to spot . Beautiful images they may be but let's be honest about how they were obtained 👍

[@GaryGough]

Agree totally Lynne 👍👍

[@Phil-earnshaw]

My respect of you guys is immense, but if I thought your compositions were manipulated to that extent then some of that respect would be lost for me I'm afraid 😁

[@GaryGough]

@@Phil-earnshaw luckily they aren’t then. I never replace skies and neither does Mali

[@Phil-earnshaw]

@@GaryGough enjoyed the vlog though Gary as always 🙂, my analogy of the subject would be this... I wanted a photo of myself to give to my dear old Mum to hang on her wall with pride so I went to a professional photographer who after half hour said I'm sorry sir but no matter where I position my lighting it reacts badly to your bald head so would you mind wearing this wig, I duly comply, have photo taken and go! A week later I return to collect the photo and the photographer says, when I got it on the computer I noticed your teeth wern't quite white and you had a gap at the back of your smile so I took the liberty of filling the gap and whitening the teeth, I also lightened the bags under your eyes and smoothed out your wrinkles and just thinned out your cheeks a little, oh and finally I added a touch of colour to your pale skin ! I thanked him and took the photo and presented it to my dear old Mum, she took it and said very nice dear but who the heck is it 😂. If nothing else I hope this makes you smile! Keep up the fantastic work Gary, you and a few others are the highlight of my week 🙂

[@GaryGough]

@@Phil-earnshaw not only smile I’m booking an appointment. I wonder if he could thin me too 😂😂😂

[@grahamegannon9708]

Good question!! I sometimes change a sky when it comes out bland and uninteresting and ruins a shot and replace it with one of my own skies that I have collected over the years. I not in favour of changing skies with a sky taken by someone else as only half the photo is yours!.

[@GaryGough]

Agree totally 👍👍

[@martienhoogebeen8434]

I agree with Mali! If you can’t get a decent shot, try harder next time.

[@paulcookphotography]

True, locally. Go back until you get what you are looking for...but what if you are travelling to a far away location? What if you are doing a job for a tourism board who is looking for a crystal clear blue sky?

[@GaryGough]

Excellent points Paul 👍👍

[@linkedinfred]

This is a great debate Gary. Here’s my tuppence. We make changes, some slight, some major to our raw, very flat files all the time. Isn’t that why we shoot in raw in the first instance? Since digital , the art of photography is no longer entirely about the shot taken but includes editing as well. You are right Gary. Art is art and its subjective.

[@wellwhatthen10101]

Yes sir i do agree since photography started in some shape or form all photographs have been manipulated. Even in the good old days in film and on glass frames with flags dodging and burning they have always been used.

[@grahamhall6516]

I've been following you and Mali for yonks, I think you both gave enthusiastic and passionate arguements, but deep down I reckon Mali won this one. I hope you and Mali make more of these 'debate' type blogs.

[@robinedwards9401]

Brilliant! Fair play Gary, you are not afraid to tackle a thorny subject. Very entertaining in the process. As you’ve mentioned in previous videos, we are never satisfied with what we have got. There is always an element or two that wasn’t to our liking, when out with the camera. We shoot in RAW format, knowing we have the best chance to post process that image into what we think it should look like. There is room for art and there is room for recording exactly what you see, reflecting the connections felt at the time. It’s another tool that can be used ( sparingly) for the right image at the right time.

[@andyjsmith1981]

My 2p is that I think it comes down to being honest with the viewer, personally I think if you declare that its a 'composite' then it's OK but we are on a very slippery slope with this. What amuses me most are those that do a really bad job of it, light coming from wrong direction etc. and then try to argue that it was shot in camera! 🤣🤣

[@Macman608]

Excellent points by both but I’m in agreement with Mali. I believe photography should be kept as pure as possible. Sure we all use filters and make corrections within our photography programs. However, using replacements is deceiving and a form of trickery that has no place in our art form. The joy is going out time after time and experiencing that moment when everything aligns just right so we can capture that perfect image. Blue corner on this one.

[@davidcookphotography]

I’m with Mali. I have replaced skies in a few landscape images and although the altered image looked better I knew that it wasn’t what I had experienced and I couldn’t feel any connection with it. I guess it depends why you take pictures in the first place. For me it’s about trying to capture and express what I experienced at that moment in that place

[@Whoanly9]

LOVED this video! Wonderful friendly debate that was very thought-provoking.

[@michaelwatts3407]

David Bailey "It takes a lot of imagination to be a good photographer. You need less imagination to be a painter because you can invent things. But in photography, everything is so ordinary; it takes a lot of looking before you learn to see the extraordinary."

[@Richard-xj5ye]

Hi guys, this was excellent. Remember the days of film when we used our skills to use filters and other bits of gear to get the image 'perfect' as it went into the camera. Then we would use burning and dodging skills in the darkroom to get the perfect print. The essential word there is 'skills'. In digital photography, that now equates to taking the image and a degree of manipulation in post-process. However, to replace a complete sky with little or no skill or effort, particularly if it is someone else's sky, is almost the equivalent of cutting a load of images out of glossy magazines and pasting them on top of each other in montage fashion. Not for me I'm afraid, I'm too old-fashioned. I'm well entrenched in the blue corner.

[@stevedawson4928]

I'm with Mali 100%

[@scotty4418]

This was a great video and nearly spat my tea out at the end with Mali doing the spits lol. In terms of the question, I have never done a sky replacement in a colour image but I have done it on a black and white fine art image if I don't get the conditions I needed on the day such as Gary's example of a total blue sky and I want a particular look to my work. I won't however use another artists work so if I do replace a sky, it will be only with one I have taken. Unless you create an image that exactly mirrors what you seen with the naked eye at the moment you pressed the shutter, there will also be the debate about image manipulation as some would argue removing an artefact such as a twig makes you a heretic. Tough one to call between Red or Blue, maybe a rematch on another topic is in order 🙂

[@qkamoen]

Absolutely agree with the blue team Meli! It’s about the adventure, the story you can tell, the memories and rewarding when you make the perfect image. If you not satisfied about your image, you learn and try the next time. The second reason is I invest in my gear, filters and learning process. So if you replace the sky or something else it is not completely your work. Thereby if a artist make a painting, he can’t replace an sky or something else in his work that make someone else. Yes he can make a duplicate, but that’s it. But even I disagree with you, I like your honesty and love this video

[@TeeJay18Fir]

My photos and what I do with them is to please me, however I would NEVER use another photographers image.

[@MrCNMW]

I completely agree with Mali on this. We do tend to remove distractions from "our" images to improve the look of the photography. But the keyword is "our" photograph, taken with "our" camera, gear, skillset, time and effort. You learn things from failures, frustrations and setbacks. If you replace the sky with a photograph taken by "others" with "others" camera, gear and skillset, what is your takeaway. The intention of the pic is also to bring back the memories and experience both good and bad.

[@micksullivan6678]

For me its a definite no no because when i take a photo i want to know that the image is what i created on site at the time yes the argument that using a filter to blur the clouds is there but doing that is just exaggerating the sky you saw at the time..inserting a complete different sky is not what you've created at that given time even if its a sky u have taken on a previous visit its not the sky you are seeing then and there

[@deltafit]

I've replaced the sky on some occasions and guess what...it has NEVER sat right with me. Sure it might make the image 'better', especially those blue skies...but I always feel like I've compromised...and that is what I can't deal with. Now I'd rather not take the image, or better still, put on the macro lens and take intimate landscape shots or cut the sky out altogether.

[@cagiva85]

As a Astrophotographer I use Sky Replacement especially for tracked Milky Way and foreground blending. I must point out that the foreground was taken first then the tracked Milky Way afterwards by adjusting my camera upwards to track the sky, then blended. Same time, same position, same location.

[@GaryGough]

Perfectly acceptable as far as I'm concerned 👍👍

[@GaryMcIntyrePhotographer]

Great discussion from both of you

[@jeffolson4731]

I am with Mali on this.

[@davidwhittaker8392]

Fantastic Gary. I see both side but great to have the debate published and on film

[@davidbreeze448]

Sorry Gary I am definitely in Mali's corner.

[@Bluenoteguitar]

To me the answer isn't one of is it right or not, its more of a question... Are you a photographer or are you an artist who uses a camera as part of his toolkit to create an image? Personally I am a photographer ( not necessarily a good one) and when I go out with my camera my intension is to take an image that is as close to what I am seeing with my eyes as possible. Yes that does sometimes mean I blend images using bracketed exposures, but the whole aim and intent is to make it as I saw it with my own eyes. The only filter I own is a polarizer, and its very rare that I use that and when I do its generally to help neutralise reflections in water. Nature doesn't need an artist to make it look pretty. I have no problem with people who use a camera as a tool to create images. Indeed Nick Page is one of my absolute favourites and creates some masterful work, but Nick is also very honest about his work and explains exactly what he's done to create the final image, and to me that's what it comes down to..... honesty.... I am quite happy to admire an image that's been created, I'd just like to know that's what I'm looking at, that way not only can I admire the final image but also the artistry and skill that's gone into it.

[@michaelyoungimages2741]

my work is for me and i'll use any tool that will help me create what i'm looking for. eliminate distractions, lighten shadows, increase exposure, add skies, i'm happy to try it all to create my version of a work of art.

[@GaryGough]

Agree totally Michael, cheers 👍👍

[@davidellinsworth22]

I'm not a fan of sky replacement in the slightest! Agree with 100% of what Mali said. Part of the thrill of landscape photography is the thrill of the chase; the hard work, the perseverance, the early starts, the late evenings, visiting a location and composition over and over, just waiting to catch it right. If people want to use it them I certainly don't look down on them for it, but Mali made the very important point that total transparency is required.... otherwise you're just making a mockery of the art of photography.

[@alexelley6283]

A good debate with pro's and con's on each, I always think that taking a landscape photograph is recording what you see at the time, regardless of what the weather/sky is like. thank you to you both for sharing your views and points....

[@SidBonkers51]

Editing any photo is changing the photo you took, so if you want to change a sky or remove something in the image you dont like, well its up to you. You made a good point when you said there is a difference between recording an event/subject and art. When you use a 10 stop filter you are not changing the sky?

[@GaryGough]

Agree totally Sid. cheers 👍👍

[@barry10ish]

Hi Gary boy did I love this great choice in Mali Cheers for the much needed laughs.

[@gazdyer2732]

I am in your corner Gary , keep up the fantastic work 110% 👍

[@bongjovi4168]

This was such an interesting topic. I'm for and against both and agreed with a lot that you both said. For me over the years, when I travel from Southampton to the Lake District and return with no portfolio quality images due to bad light, it is very upsetting as its hardly round the corner. So to know I'm able to rescue an otherwise unusable image does give me piece of mind, however I won't use it when it isn't necessary.

[@andyv6127]

No matter what you do, if you enable a connection with an image that inspires then you can be proud of it.

[@ianbeck9647]

I think you lost that argument Gary. I'm with Mali

[@christianmaltby7638]

Great stuff loved the vlog, but what's in the camera is the shot I'm with Mali on this Gary.

[@Alan-DPhotos]

Great conversation. My view, like my images is very simple; By replacing the sky you change the image dramatically in that it is no longer a photograph but is now a composite picture. Much the same as moving buildings etc. Minor tweaks like removing a discarded crisp packet etc are acceptable as you are not changing the "as seen" view to any extent. I like (or dislike) images for what they are but I would prefer the originator to state whether he\she has produced a photograph or 'created' a picture.

[@susanfirth2279]

This was excellent. What a debate. I'm totally with Mali, sorry Gary. I think a photograph is real at the time of creating it. Replacing skies or adding any other elements that were not in the scene at the time of hitting the shutter button crosses over to art which is fine but should be transparent by the artist ( in my opinion). Just my two cents for what its worth. Nice to see Mali on here.

[@Bob-ls7uf]

If you want to document an image of a certain place at a certain time e.g. here is a picture of an old tram as was used back in the day at Blackpool circa whatever, then fine, but if you want to create an image that you and other people would like on their wall as a work of art, fine. You can document or you can create, the option is there.

[@DaveCouldwell]

I used to swop the sky in the darkroom years before photoshop, but it was with one I had taken. And I would swap out the sky with one of mine. So now I need to take a mix of sky images!

[@hamshanksproductions7161]

I don't mind it.I haven't put a different sky in yet. However, if I have a complex image ( sky through tree branches and sky blown out) I'll take another photo of same sky without obstructions. Point the camera higher, which arguably isn't quite the same sky. Then replace sky in original photo with correctly exposed image of same sky . It does a great job.

[@STAFFSSURGE58]

Great video had me in stitches, but agree 100% with Mali on this one its all about honesty.

As a photographer, the question is WHY do I take a photo, what is the reason? Is the final image more important than the process itself? My answer is no.

[@GaryGough]

Fair point Jan, cheers 👍👍

[@SimonBoothPhotography]

Hi Gary, I’m going to comment first without listening and amend afterwords if I’m convinced otherwise. I wouldn’t touch sky replacement with a barge pole. Kudos for having a blue and a red corner but I’m with Mail!…Ok, watched it and I feel you both make good points and art is art! Art is what you make it! For me, I do what I’m most comfortable with and that’s integrating with nature with a camera. I can only express how I feel about nature within my images at the time I’m there. The processing part I find is pretty mundane so use it only really to do the final polishing and realise the vision, which stops well short of sky swapping! What anyone else does should be their business and we shouldn’t really criticise that! Mali has a good point with disconnect and I think those that do it may well be disconnected with nature and more connected to digital art!

[@GaryGough]

Couldn't agree more Simon. Whilst I was fighting on the side of swapping skies I was merely playing devils advocate. I can totally understand why commercial photographers would swap skies, but like you, I'm dead against it. If you fancy a collab one day drop me a P.M. Cheers 👍👍 [e-mail]

[@markwhyatt8923]

It's a fascinating debate. As a photographer I know that I am not reflecting what is in front of me, other I am interpreting it and imposing my own personality to the image, whether it's how I frame the image, or how I enhance it in post, but like Mali I like to work with what I have within the image, enhancing or removing, and don't feel comfortable adding stuff that was never there in the first place. There is plenty of scope for interpretation and artistry without adding someone else's picture as the sky.

[@jeffransford7490]

photography is an art .Its up to you how u want that photo to look and which paint brush u use to get there .ie tools .to me its all about letting my self go and enjoying photography and useing what ever tools i want to make the photo that makes ME happy .loved this vid gary

[@bey0ndd]

"Do what you want! .. at the end of the day!" - Mali Agreed, although capturing the moment fully for me is more special than manipulating half an image. If timing is the issue than planning out another day - be it the next day, next few weeks, months, years.. is part of the journey. Love this debate.

[@anvilcloud]

Ha! I am going to waffle and agree with you both. Being there authentically is what we strive for. But sometimes we get to the spot and everything is right except the sky. So, on some occasions, and mostly for our own benefit, I would say go ahead and do it if having a better picture in front of you, which you ultimately did, pleases you. After all there is still creativity involved by finding the right sky in post and maybe then adjusting the photo to suit. I do believe that authentic is better and more satisfying though.

[@randyschwager2515]

No swapping! Mali nailed it!

[@randybelaire8439]

If there ever was a time that I wanted to agree with both views on a subject, it is this video. This was just an amazing video demonstrating all sides to a subject. Nicely done. :)

[@jackthair8311]

The issue I have is when does photography stop be photography? It's getting to the point where a person can claim to be a photographer without ever touching a camera.

Depends on the purpose, movie poster, brochure of any kind etc. then it's just made to pay the bills. Made one for Aprils fools day and it was awesome, and why should the sky be the limit?

[@davidlesliewilliams1513]

Simple question Gary, would you do it on wedding photos to make the day look something it wasn't?

[@timhansen778]

Each to his own, all i would ask photographs who use these replacements is to be honest about it. I personally would not use.

[@MaliDaviesPhotography]

Great fun, great video superb edit! Lots of fun. I’m looking we’ll fit at the end!

[@GaryGough]

I can't believe nobody has commented on my face-swapping skills yet 😁😁😁 or were you really doing the splits :)

[@Ramblingdads]

Nice one! I’m in the Red corner! Maybe with a bit of blue….😉👏🏻👍🏻👌🏻 🎞🎥📸🎥🎞

[@DigitalImageStudio]

To me it boils down to authenticity and integrity vs mendacity. If I apply any type of gross transformation to my images I will typically volunteer the information when sharing that work with other photographers or if I'm publicly exhibiting the work (I'm perfectly at ease adding the word "composite" in my image description) however my approach is different for commercial work.

[@keswicklimeyphotography]

I feel what I aiming to do is get a representation of what is in front of me and that can be enhances by minor changes (including blending images taken at the same spot but with different settings). If I change the sky then it is no longer a representation of what was in front of me, so I don't do it. I feel that if it is a composite of images from different location and/or significantly different time then that should be disclosed.

[@keithsaint8829]

Great argument and I tend to agree with both. The problem is when people assume something has been done that hasn't. I had this happen to me a few years ago in a camera club competition. Was about 2005 and I was just getting in to digital photography. I entered a print where the judge openly said if this had been a genuine sky it would have been a contender for the winning print. He did say the sky had been added to perfection. That's because it was 100% genuine. So it does lead people down the wrong path and questions the honesty of the photographer. But have I added a sky before, yes I have and it's fun. But I do tell people as well

[@paulmilovich2982]

In my opinion, photography is capturing the composition that is in front of the camera and at that precise moment. To me, even manipulating the photograph in post-process seems like it's not photography, because you are changing the original perspective that really didn't exsist. Great video.

[@monkeysausage2404]

Tend to agree with Mali however if you want to replace the sky have at just be honest about it. Don't try to pass it off as the scene on the day the picture was taken. Great points about these pictures you see on social media. They aren't real, just how much manipulation has gone on, have they just become digital art.

[@GaryGough]

Agree totally Mark, cheers 👍👍

[@blujeans9462]

Sure makes me wonder how many incredible images are done this way. I've never done it, but can't say it didn't cross my mind -- but, gosh, buying a pile of skies, at your fingertips?? Problem is, a lot of folks don't understand how nature works - angle of the sun, etc - so they don't realize how difficult it is to also get a truly realistic/correct image. I think there are apps for that, though. :-)

[@sanclewphotographic]

I think being a Amateur photographer for almost fifty years, I can tell the majority of images that are fake, and Though I do not agree with everything Mali says, but I happen to agree with him on this occasion, when you fake images you are losing the connection with the subject and your own self respect in a lot of cases. No to Replacement Skies.

[@my.penny.wagers]

If I were a compositor, I'd be swappin' skies all day. Or night. Who'd even know? 😄 But I'm not, and I try with my photos to bring out what I felt or noticed at that time and place. So, I edit of course, but I don't composite. I love those kinds of photographs, but it's not what I'm personally after.

[@neilthacker2069]

I'm with Mali...work with what you have,come back again and again until you get what you want...forcing yourself to think outside the box when conditions are not in your favour opens up new avenues that you may never have gone down if all you were going to do was swap out a sky for something "ideal". I think the point of this comes down to what kind of photographer you are,and the way that you present yourself to your audience. If you are a digital artist,then swapping skies is no different than changing the colour of a person's clothes in your shot,or making them thinner,or any other countless things that are done in digital art...it is expected from your audience that you do this to achieve your creative end result. If,however,you present yourself as a serious photographer that captures the scene,or person,or whatever it is you shoot,in a natural and realistic fashion,and are presenting it as authentic to the moment,then no,sky replacement is not acceptable. We know that serious photographers may clone out distractions,or dodge and burn areas to augment what was there in the first place...Ansel Adams did this,and is considered a master. I doubt he would've been if it was discovered that he had replaced a sky and pretended that it was there all along.

[@briankerrison5233]

So,if a photographer & a painter, side by side make an image of the same scene, the painter is quite entitled to leave out the telegraph poles, the rubbish bins, the parked cars.Paint in a nice sky, with fluffy clouds, but the photographer has to take the shot as is.Come back repeatedly, until the sun shines, the cars are gone & the bin men have emptied the trash.Get out a here!

[@grantlawrence6689]

I'm definitely in the Mali camp on this. My worry is, if, on the rare occasion that this happens, I find myself in front of a scene with an epic sky and capture an epic shot, will it be believed that I didn't replace the sky? For me it's about putting in the effort and when all of the elements align we get rewarded with a fantastic shot and hopefully the effort put in shows in the photo.

[@JDWebb]

We're already manipulating colors and other enhancements in Lightroom AND Photoshop, why should replacing a sky to enhance a photo be any different?

[@paulcookphotography]

How is adding a sky any different from removing something distracting from a photo? 🤔

[@silverligsay4266]

Great topic and I will agree on both. It depends on situations.👍🏼

[@andrewdevoncourt]

For entertainment value alone this was great and Mali was brilliant in ‘expressing his passion’ - I laughed out loud! Both arguments are good and I’ll bet those in Adobe land have had a similar argument amongst themselves (because this technology has been around for a while). Mali and Gary - loved this!

[@GarethDanks]

Fantastic video guys. Enjoyed that. And a very important topic. I 10000% agree with Mali who delivered a fantastic argument against. It annoying that so many images we see online lack honesty and transparency. I think it’s important to be honest. Also there needs to be a line where reality stops and digital art takes over. But again, honesty is needed. My argument “for” this “tool” is commercial work. When you are commissioned to shoot a building or location where the client needs an image for their media. But the location isn’t one you can re visit over and over to get honest genuine conditions. Or the suns in the wrong place etc. You get the point. Haha. Great vid guys. It’s not for me tho. As Mali says. There’s no connection with the scene. 😊👏🏻

[@lkaufman719]

I'm in favor of not swapping skies. When I went to Yosemite National Park in the USA and stood at Tunnel View where Ansel Adams took his iconic photo, I had wonderful clouds and skies. I was fortunate, but if the sky had been totally blue, I personally would not have swapped it out. Photography is different from painting with a paint brush--yes it's painting with light, but it's with the light we have before us! A great and thought provoking video--just because we CAN do something, doesn't mean we SHOULD!

[@thesaxman]

No…Bloody No….I’m with Mali……lots of fun tho!

[@wallywaller11]

Simple for me, I agree with you both. Gary "yes" we can replace the sky because of the digital age we have the tools to do so, however Mali i agree with you that we should only use our own sky images as we are the artist creating the image, that we post or print then take credit for.

[@echo21bravo]

A very interesting debate. As just a hobbyist photographer I wouldn't use sky replacements, as every time I looked at the image I would know that it had been changed. I feel that it would spoil the memories or feeling generated by the photo. I accept that for a Protog it may be different as you may need to satisfy a particular style for you client. My approach to editing has always been that it is okay to remove something from a picture to improve it, but never add anything. The one thing I do want tp see more of; is the two of you doing more collaborations as you guys are hilarious!

[@cliveingram9840]

Seacombe perchance Gary?

[@GaryGough]

Indeed Clive 👍

[@cliveingram9840]

@@GaryGough glad you got there - hope you enjoyed. I may have another local(ish) location for you that you may not have been to for your minimalist work. I scouted it at the weekend but couldn’t take the camera as I had the dog. I’ll email you with details. Btw still haven’t been asked for Glencoe money yet - when do u want it?

[@GaryGough]

@@cliveingram9840 Sounds intriguing Clive. Not sure about the money thing. Paula will ask when she wants it :) I'll mention it to her. Looking forward to seeing your location. Cheers

[@DarrenJSpoonley]

Thoroughly enjoyed this Gents, Great banter and flow between you both.. Mali Wins for me on this one... Keep it real and feel the landscape , be the landscape and become the landscape v's nag one together for the gram ..

[@oldfilmguy9413]

Delightful video! Passionate and humourous! I side with Mali - sorry Gary!

[@GaryGough]

Don't worry I do too :)

[@evv_]

Completely agree with Mali. When you arrive at a place and you the sky is not what you like, you need to address the problem right there and then. Or come back at a better time when the conditions suite your taste. Replacing the background the most easy way out. Taking the easy way out is something which occurs too often in our society every day more and more. As a landscape photographer you indeed need to work for your creations. Otherwise what can we then still complain about? ;)

[@jensbjorkkvist]

If i do replace a sky i always use a sky from the same day, time and location. Not because i think its wrong to do otherwise but it feels best for my self. I like the struggle to chase that one great photo and put in the leg work of doing so. but a great photo is a great photo in the end so.

[@remodanza611]

Great video as usual Gary. You couldn't have picked a better guy in the opposite corner. The problem I have with manipulating photographs is when a photographer does put the hard work in and goes back time and again to locations until they get the conditions that are perfect for their shot they don't get the recognition for their efforts as most people look at a picture and first thoughts are that's not real. Whether you should or shouldn't is a personal thing but unfortunately now people tend to think because you can you have. And that's a real shame for the photographers who do put in the hard yards and make the effort

[@andybaden9276]

Great video, really enjoyed it. Replacing a sky is nothing new in PS, it’s just got easier. This really got the passive aggressive’s down from their trees, nice to know the Luddite cause is alive and well. Quite simply it is your image if you want to replace the sky, then you now have a great tool in PS, it still take skill to get the replacement correct. Whether that image is better or not, can only be down to you to judge

[@timrosenburgh9485]

Hi Gary, Great discussion. I think i agree with Mali as some people make there photographs very unrealistic. I have a 50-50 opinion to changing sky's but i guess if it is done so that it looks realistic it should be ok.

[@andrewlunn]

Well battled gents haha! Photography is massively about the journey for me rather than the destination. I want to get out and chase great weather and when I experience it and shoot it, the rewards come in. Epic conditions don't happen very often and when they do, it seems to make many failed attempts worth it. I wouldn't get much thrill from sky replacements for work that I am passionate about and print etc.

[@mdturnerinoz]

Your friend has his views and mine is: it's ALL ART. You make what you want, how you want to, and some will like it and some will not. But first of all, you have to make it FOR YOURSELF.

[@GaryGough]

I'm happy with that too Martin 👍👍

[@danielbruhin6171]

I personally will not. I prefer wait about spectacular clouds or moment in situ. This is the magic and satisfaction to be there. And if I was the only one to be there (because I maybe forecated it) and capture it, much better (and it will be unique, not available in Photoshop for all).

[@alexandersanmiguel6451]

I'm with Mali 100%. His explanation beginning at 16 minutes is the strongest argument. The photographers I respect and admire work with the conditions available to them to looks for stunning compositions or come back if the current conditions are not ideal. I can't say I'd ever buy a print of a landscape where I knew the sky was replaced. If fact, it would probably ruin the experience of what I'm looking at no mater how beautiful the end result.

[@andysuzierawlins5462]

I agree with your mate for the most part, I think transparency is the key, composition is also key. I also think sky replacement can help when you have no other option

[@quarkyman1]

I only see the finished image, if I like it great. I don’t see if it has a new sky or something else added. I either like it or I don’t.

[@Dylon1981]

I have no problem replacing the sky of my photos... as long as the sky photos are mine.

[@FocalChemistry]

I'll give you one better: would you value more an image captured after 15 consecutive days visiting the location in search of the perfect sky? Or would you prefer an image taken at a rubbish day, with rubbish lighting, that took 10min to change the sky sitting in front of the computer? And Don't confuse transformation with enhancement...

[@GaryGough]

Couldn’t agree more 👍🏻👍🏻

[@R762349F]

I enjoy watching photographers work to get the best image they can. It's a little like joining them on their trip. If it's all faked in post, it will save me a lot of time as I won't be watching youtube anymore! I don't need to see the best fakery. I swap skys all the time on snapshots that I share with my family but I would never market any image that was not the original composition. Great video!