Why I Will NEVER Replace a Sky in My Landscape Photographs

[@JoshuaCrippsPhotography]

Do you use sky replacement in your landscape photography? Why or why not?

[@ChenniChettyNatarajan]

I adjust the colours but not change it totally.

[@WayOffTheTrail]

Oh hell no...a truly moronic "feature"

[@JoshuaCrippsPhotography]

@@WayOffTheTrail I think it is useful in some applications. And probably this was a marketing decision to help draw people back from other editing software that has 1-click replacement.

[@64BBernard]

I'll never use sky replacement, either from Luminar or the new feature in Photoshop. Every sky replacement I've seen screams fake.

[@Honkus]

If my goal is to make a composite style art picture, sure...but not ever to represent an experience I had. Personally I take a light hand in any post processing, partially because I am lazy, but also I like to use the tools in the field, things like lenses I use, filters I may use or the exposure settings in the camera, to capture my experience. Not for any deep philosophical stand I am taking, it is just the process I prefer. Ultimately photography is an art form and there are so many ways to do it. I won't look down on any tool people use to accomplish their art, but I would frown on sky replacement being used to represent some sort of fictional reality in the same way I would with any composite style photoshopping.

[@jeffp8042]

Skies are easy to shoot. I need Photoshop to develop a foreground replacement program.

[@chrisford9237]

BRAVO! Well said, Joshua! I am in total agreement. I’ve been shooting landscapes for just over 10 years, and it’s the satisfaction and blessing of being in the right place at the right time, and using your skills and equipment to come away with a fabulous shot that makes it all worth it! I have hundreds of images that didn’t work out the way I had hoped for, and that’s what makes the “keepers” SO special! I also sell some of my images to customers in a beach area where we ha e a cottage. I want my customers to know that they are buying something special, and not something that I cooked up back home in my office! My excitement for talking about my special captures is REAL, and I think that my customers want to share that experience with me! Keep up the great work! Your honesty and truthfulness assure visitors that you and your work is the REAL THING, a rare attribute in today’s world! Thank you!

[@PMCN53]

Totally agree with your stance Joshua. This also applies to photographic competitions (I no longer participate in them). A well know photographic competition here in Australia had to strip a well know photographers awards (Firsts ++) over several years after it was discovered that she had taken images from other photographers and made composite images and claimed the work was hers alone. This had devastating consequences on her career as a photographer. Banned from ever entering another competition, humiliation for cheating and her business as a photographer collapsed. The desire to WIN was greater than creating good images using well honed skills. I spent 7 days in February in Lofoten Norway this year, capturing some spectacular scenes with good and not so good sky's. It forced me to be more creative in my composition, which is a good craft development exercise. I am proud of the images I captured because I did it, not a PS application. A great and balanced discussion Joshua. Cheers from Aus. PS Love your work from NZ... one of my favourite places on Earth.

[@kevanhunt3211]

Hi Joshua this is a discussion I have been having with my fellow photographers since this became widely available in Photoshop, you could always do this before but it was a bit more tricky. For me I agree with you, photography is about trying to capture the image as it’s presented to you by nature, I follow the rule that if it’s in the RAW file it can be adjusted in post processing I.e. the saturation , contrast , white balance etc... but if I am just going to add different elements to make a nice image then why bother with photography I could just sit at my screen all day and blend photos.

[@airplanenut1]

I found myself agreeing the whole way through. Yes, my goal is to get a spectacular shot if everything lines up, but even if not, I just enjoy having a record of what I saw so years later I can relive the trip I took, not the trip I made up. I was on Kauai last year and at one spot, it was completely fogged in. I waited for a little while and the fog broke to reveal an incredible view. Two minutes later, the fog was back and the view was gone for the rest of the day. I have my photo of the fog, I have my photo with the clear air, and together, I have a lifetime memory of one of the most spectacular places I've ever seen... for two minutes.

[@insightvideo6136]

So - you're more of a documentary photographer, or maybe a photojournalist then. That's cool, since your goal is to make a record of what you saw, and not really to make artwork. Nice.

[@WJMPhotography]

Complete agree with you Josh. I love the story telling aspect of sharing my photos online (as can be seen by my paragraphs rather than sentences on flickr) and dropping in a sky that wasn't there would rob me of the chance of telling my story. In addition, I am right with you on the idea of shooting the MOMENT and the confluence of light and subject. I've done plenty of other tweaking in my shots, but the sky is my Mason-Dixon Line. I guess each photographer needs to decide where that line is for his or her self, but dropping in a sky would be, in effect, telling my viewers about a day that never existed. Thanks for bringing this up!

[@ELS80030]

Unfortunately, I’m getting too old to always get to a place more than once. So yes sometimes I will takes a sky that I myself have shot, that has no foreground element and put it together as a composite. It’s not an instant process for me but an artistic process of knowing where the sky was taken and the time of day and year so that I know that those conditions could actually happen at that location I am adding it to, even though I am no longer physically able to get there. Editing for me has become part of my artistic process. Time is not on my side!

[@mijuka]

Agreed. My photos to me are the moment “being there” I captured. I am not a great photographer. When I look at my photos, they bring me back to the place, the landscape, the moment, the feeling, that make me hold camera to press the shutter. If I am changing my photos by adding fake images to just them look more stunning to impress others, I am cheating myself.

[@LtDeadeye]

I agree with you 100%. I’ve tried it and the photo immediately felt cheap. Oh they looked good alright but I’d never hang it on my wall or show it off, as if I took it. It’s been said before that the phrase “a picture is worth a thousand words” is becoming a worthless statement.

[@freetibet1000]

Good for you! I urge everyone to do the same, as an experiment. If we do like you did and recognize the empty feeling it produces we then know exactly why this is a dead-end track. Thanks!

[@gprice1903]

Absolutely agree. Takes all the fun and joy out of the experience! Thank you!

[@AtrusDesign]

I completely agree! You have the power to make me want be a photographer every time I watch your video!

[@Zoll1989]

Yes exactly... the photography for me is the same catch the moment what I live through.

[@Isorivolta.48]

Good for you!

[@randallpeck6056]

I feel most satisfied when I do my best with the conditions I am given. Sky replacement is for comic books.

[@freetibet1000]

Yes Joshua, to me, all your arguments are solid. For me, nature photography is all about “telling the story” of a specific moment in time. Dropping in a different sky afterwards changes or distorts the story, period! I really can’t see the difference between athletes taking performances-enhancing drugs and someone dropping in a fake sky. By that I don’t mean that we are all involved in a race or competition but its more about the type of mind-frame that is willing to take the leap into a fake reality. Cutting corners, if you wish! And as you said, in the end it will only produce an empty and hollow numbness. Kind of like having distorted our sense of reality with drugs or alcohol. There’s a price to pay for that! The nature on this planet is so amazing that it deserves to be treated with the type of respect that you just expressed here. Thank you Joshua!

[@AmorLucisPhotography]

Completely agree! I take landscape photographs because a) I want to hang on my wall a reminder of an actual awesome experience so that I can live it again and again, b) I want to share that experience with others. Landscape photography as art is about communication and sharing *our experiences*. To be clear, I have nothing against sky replacement or composites if that is what float's people's boats *so long as the creator declares that*. Without such a norm in place my consumption of landscape photography is significantly degraded because I can't feel confident that someone is sharing with me something real. Creating images using sky replacement without declaring that is treating the consumer disrespectfully. Contrast, saturation, etc., should be used to better communicate *our experience*; the point is not to faithfully represent the light array. Same with cloning out "distracting elements" that we didn't experience because we were so blown away by the waterfall that we literally didn't experience the stick pointing out of the water even though it was technically there.

[@Henry30065]

I totally agree with you on this matter Josh. I have never replaced a sky in any of my photos despite the fact that I have the facility available in Luminar A1. I would go even further, I think that many photographers these days ‘doctor’ their images in post processing to the extent that the end result looks more like an artist’s impression of the scene rather than a realistic one ie it looks more like a painting than a photo! I have nothing against others doing it, but I certainly wouldn’t. Finally, I always find your videos informative and enjoyable. Keep up the good work. Alun

[@denisroy81]

So nice to see someone explain this replacement issue so clearly.Enhancing a photo helps to bring forward your vision and experience of the moment. Manipulation and altering of a photo is a false narrative of your experience. Like writing a book of fiction or nonfiction what kind of author do you want to be.

[@ufo7781]

I agree, placing something into an image rather then changing the levels of an image is not photography, we live in the moment so capture the moment, changing a level is not cheating anyone but removing / adding elements that were not there is the real failure of our craft. All things come to those who work for it. Love the content, keep up the good work.

[@TessaDagnely]

I totally agree with you ! Very far from me the idea of replacing what I saw by anything else as some “prêt à porter” as we say un French. Thank you for this video.

[@photographlisbon]

It's all about the immediate result with the hopes of immediate success. Hard work is so passé. Nothing against photo manipulation, extensive or not, or digital creation, just be honest about it. I don't see myself doing it, pretty much for the same reasons you mentioned. Can't see myself talking about my favorite photos without that feeling of having been there in that moment.

[@stevenlennie]

100% agree. Loved that I could a Sky Replacement ad for your video.

[@johnoconnell6667]

I haven't dived into the feature much, but I'm wondering if it could be leveraged for blending astrophotos with foreground exposures, like in 2:12. Sure would be easier than luminosity masking, select-and-blend, etc.

[@verlenelewis9866]

I bought Luminar 4 as a newbie because the sky replacement sounded awesome. I took my favorite photo from Africa and played around with the different skies. It was kind of fun, but I kept coming back to the same thought “but that isn’t how it really was” so I made the decision right then that I just didn’t feel good using sky replacement.

[@PeterNolten]

You have a valid point there Joshua. For me replacing a sky means to also dismiss the power of nature. If we can make nature the way we want it, what respect do we have left for that nature? It feels like a studio photographers thing to me to replace a sky. It's for someone who wants to have control over what happens in an image, control in the light, the subject and the surroundings. But for me landscape photography is about reacting to the light, subject and surroundings and not defining them yourself. I don't feel like you're doing nature justice when replacing a sky.

[@smashexentertainment676]

I feel you. I only do usual: straighten horizon, crop, colors, filters. In extremely rare occasion might erase something tiny I don't like. Done. I'm all-in-camera guy as much as possible. That what makes photography fun and creative. But if the image is for sale, then by all means, go all in. That's why I'm just an enthusiast. If I didn't get a shot, I still had a great day, who cares.

[@captinktm]

Firstly, great video. I agree with everything you said. I am new ish to "proper photography" and now post my work on my own time line and on various web sites. The feed back and following I get is mostly about the viewer wishing they could be standing beside me. Many say "oh your living the dream" which of course i am. Getting that shot where you just stand grinning like a cat, knowing you have just witness and captured nature at it's most beautiful is why I get up in the morning! But we are trying to convince folk who would rather virtually play sport or war games (I have done both for real) on there Xbox so will we ever convince them that climbing a mountain in the dark to capture the sunrise is better? I doubt it. I find that when I post I always tell the story behind the capture, this helps people who don't know me get involved is my world. As for sky replacement it's lazy, but I blame the pro's, many do it, some even admit it, rather than deploring it. In the end I guess there is room for all, but my problem is that these digitally assemble images should be labeled as such, the average punter could n't tell the difference. Which in my view devalues s the photo.

[@tjt072]

I would never replace a sky unless I was doing photo manipulation/fine art type of shot. I agree with you and the reasons. It's like doing a light painting shot and adding abstract lights to it to make it "better". I do add simple photo effects to bring out the colors etc but I don't and would not add something like a sky from another photo, of another place and time .

[@WalkingDevon]

100% with you Joshua. I throw sky replacement into the digital art bucket and is not a photograph. The best part of photography is the experience of taking the shot.

[@mlevesque33]

You talk about sky replacement and I get a Luminar sky replacement add. Lol. I once looked into sky replacement but I didn't do it yet. I still prefer being on site for the cool shot (if I can find one) and wait for the appropriate time of day. It's easier for me this way.

[@elliswoodphoto]

A lot of people now creating 'digital art' also shoot northern hemisphere foregrounds with southern hemisphere milky way which makes me chuckle

[@M_Rollins]

9:35 and on. Perfectly stated. I agree completely. Do whatever you want in order to convey your experience, and to tell the story you're trying to tell. But when you no longer recognize your own story and experience, you've gone too far. (And what irony to get a Luminar sky replacement advert in the middle of this.)

[@JamesParkerPhotography]

Great points, Josh. I'd just add that I'm fine with it as long as the photographer states the shot is a composite. Don't try to pass off your insane moon rise shot behind a tree as a single frame when you obviously composited it. Being a "digital artist" is fine - sell your prints or whatever you do, but just own the fact you didn't capture it all in camera.

[@eugenebreindel]

At 4:50 in I totally understand the concept! Yayyyy. I prefer my photos as is without 47 photoshop layers to make it glorious. 1 shot with a minor amount of Lightroom tweaks. It's what photography is about. Thanks for your insight!

[@JoshuaCrippsPhotography]

Appreciate the support Eugene

[@carolynvines2027]

I agree with you Joshua; and I probably will not use sky replacement as a general rule. I would like to play around with it though. When I use sky replacement, I plan to use my own skies. I love photographing the sky, just the sky. Sky shots just aren't as interesting to others, as they are to me. 🤓 I love the sky, and frequently have my head up in the clouds. 😵🥴

[@97hb]

I agree with you. Well explained, thanks. But what I am thinking now is , in paintings, for example, painters are allowed and do add and remove stuff from the scenes because that is the art they are crafting. I as a photographer never do that (besides removing distracting objects) but as vfx compositor artist I do it a lot. So the question is, is photography different somehow from other types of art? I have an answer but would love to hear your thoughts on this too.

[@dragonguise]

THANK YOU! Finally, someone who gets it!

[@andreasbininda6226]

That's the thing. I think the most difficult thing in landscape is to tell a story, to share the experience you have on location. That's my hardest task to fulfill, to look at the image later and say "hey yes, that's the I saw it and it was the way it felt". If the picture doesn't transports that feeling, it won't with another sky. Other way round, if you have a great picture, you don't need a differnt sky. And sitting in front of your computer isn't the same experience you have, when you're outside shooting. That's where the fun is. And the fun is even bigger, if you created that photo by yourself, that transports that feeling. My 5 ct

[@TFPadmin]

I replaced a sky only once and that was 2 or 3 years ago. I wasn't happy with my results but I knew with practice I could do a much better job. But I never did it again. I couldn't explain why I decided that but I do agree with the points you make in this video. So, I stopped watching it at the 8-minute mark and clicked the Like button because I thought I had listened too long already. It was feeling redundant and I wasn't about to listen to another 3+ minutes of it. But thank you for solidifying my decision. I just wish you had realized you said all you needed to say in about 5 minutes.

[@ronpettitt6184]

I have struggled with this one quite a bit. I CAN see some of the arguments for changing a sky, and I've done it a few times on say, on a vacation photo in a place where I just couldn't invest time to wait or return to get better conditions, which we've all experienced. That said, I do agree with you completely, it means so much better when it's an actual moment you have experienced and you have a copy forever to be proud of. I have some of those ones too. :) I fear that some of the new younger photographers may not see things this way and I would have to say that yes, I also fear that this stuff will weaken the field. It has gotten to the point that when I show my wife a good photo I've come across, she asks me, "is it real?". I see her point, I find myself looking at images with a whole new level of scrutiny these days. Makes ya think.

[@markrapien]

Great video man. I keep going back and forth on this topic. I can see how replacing the sky in some images can create a more epic/appealing image which in the world of follows and likes that is extremely enticing. I also understand that for some, this new one-click replacement will allow them to make a client happier and faster, allowing the individual to potentially make more money. On the other hand, I also agree with you that it is the easy and cheap way to get the results. I love being out in nature and experiencing these moments irl. And in the end that is why I picked up a camera, to get out of the house and in nature.

[@scothowe539]

Great video Josh. I experimented with replacing the sky on one photo right after I got my first camera. Have not even considered doing it since. The real joy is in the pursuit of the image and being in a place and time to capture something special. This new technology is going to create more doubt on what is actually real. That’s sad for those who put in the effort to capture that special moment in camera.

[@tompatton2086]

I've noticed that a number of images in this video with flowing water features (a creek, a waterfall) that have this silky smooth look to the water. People have been photographing water like this for years and every time I've seen it, my reaction has been "It looks fake" and yet it's been considered an acceptable, even desirable practice.

[@philipculbertson55]

I'm with you 100%. The other thing that drives me nuts is people adding the lame old elk into a scene when there wasn't an elk within bugling distance. It cheapens photography for all of us.

[@nightcoder5k]

Man, you hit most of the points I've been wondering about. How about paintings? How about autotune for singers? How about wearing makeup? I recently went to see some houses for sale. They look nothing like what they appear in the real estate photos.

[@dragonguise]

What about photo contests? International Landscape Photographer of the Year? How do we (or the judges) know if those pictures are fake?

[@michaelsanfilippo7433]

I agree. In the past I tried sky replacements, but they always seemed unnatural to me. Here in southern California it is almost always sunny and the skies are usually clear and cloudless. So this is what I work with. Sometimes there is high altitude wispy clouds that can reflect light and color, or just a few cumulus clouds that add some dimension, or late afternoon haze that adds pastel color to the sky. That is the beauty of So Cal deserts and mountains. The locals know what our sky looks like, and fake just looks fake. A dropped in sky just doesn't feel artistic to me. Of course, we all manipulate or images, but I prefer to work with what nature has provided on that day. Then when the conditions change, I have an excuse to get outdoors once again.

[@mechanicalhorserider2512]

100% agree! It's all about the experience 'living in and witnessing' these magical moments in nature that will never happen again the same way and capturing them with a camera is just a bonus on top. It's not about bragging on social media how awesome you and 'your work' are. But that's just my opinion. ;)

[@egyptiansphinx]

I totally agree with your views on sky replacement 100% Images with sky replacement for me, are no longer photographs. I think they belong to another definition like digital art, montage or whatever you want to call it. That being said, it's not necessarily a bad thing, it just makes your image end being a photograph (for me) for all the reasons you've mentioned.

[@cliffroehn8181]

I thought it funny that the 1st commercial on this post was for Luminar 4!!!!! Over the years I have collected a folder full of skys that grabbed my attention, but didn't have a good subject or composition. Always thinking I will use this someday on a photo that needs a good sky. Thing is I've never used a one of them!!!

[@JoshuaCrippsPhotography]

Hahaha! Now that Adobe has sky replacement I think Skylum is ramping up their advertising. :)

[@paulgreen758]

I agree, ive dabbled with the sky replacment on my wildlife images im mainly geared to wildlife, long lens and the like, im kinda new to landscape and seascape, but I end to go Garys way with the Long exposure and if the sky is grey I normally use mono, if its vibrant ill go colour in the image, im nowhere near your level, and striving to catch up, but age is catching up with me as well

[@liamdoran2149]

Totally agree with you. How long before the "best" landscape photographers won't even leave their house...but simply composite, foregrounds and middle-rounds with blazing skies...

[@JoshuaCrippsPhotography]

Yup, that's definitely the direction things are heading.

[@tommimakinen1128]

Experience defines the photo -is a good guideline for landscape photography in my opinion. As a rule of thumb, I would feel like I am cheating myself, if I do add elements to the photo in post. Sky replacement would be one such an addition. If the sky is distracting or somehow bad for the shot, I try to "fix" that with exposure or color management -sometimes even with masking it and unsharpening etc. Main idea for me is, that anything that I could've changed via camera settings or physical filters on location, is ok to do in editing. Removing some distractions is ok for my personal style -as those are actually mostly things that I did not notice on location and as such, removing them does recreate my experience more accurately. Simply put; to me adding more data to a photo is altering that reality and as such, not ok for representing the experience behind the photo. Using the data that is already there, is fine -even if it takes some work to find. Latter point is especially relevant to skies, as blown out sky might actually have a really beautiful clouds that you can find with adding a gradual filter in post. (which, you could have done using physical filter on location, if you remember to use those -a thing that I unfortunately do often forget). And to clear my opinion a bit: in my mind, panoramas or focus stacking are fine, as they are -as Mr. Cripps so well put it- "ways to overcome the limitations of your camera", in order to better convey your experience. This is a interesting topic, and something I am currently very much thinking about. And your thoughts made mine a bit more clear on the topic, so thank you for this, Joshua!

[@ronhallam2180]

Well expressed. Very much in agreement - Landscape photos capture a moment of nature and that moment is precious. manufactured "moments" will decay the landscape genre I agree and fear for the Art.

[@thomastuorto9929]

Do most of my editing in LR6. I use Affinity Photo for some better clean up tools. So I finally decide to start playing with layers & such. Different fill backrounds for stuff like sea shells & flowers, art type stuff. So , as an exercise I took a sky(that shot from the same area) I shot at sunrise on one side of a sand bar about (about a mile wide) and put it into a sunset. Looked good but I wouldn't print it or put it up for display. I'm with you on that, couldn't sleep at nite. I do think if your in the Advertising/marketing business & have a deadline & time budget its ok say like for a resort advertisement & they didn't want to fund you to be there for 2 weeks until a perfect sunset came along its ok as long as your not selling to someone as being authentic. You will always have photogs with different skill sets, travel budgets & the ones who enjoy playing with post software more than taking the actual photo. To each their own.

[@dkikac]

Absolutly agree, sky is as much a part of an image as anything else, plus people tend to forget that light comes from the sky, and different skies cast different qualities of light. replacing the sky messes up the image althogether.

[@michaelmckeag960]

Excellent! You said it all so now when the subject comes up I will just point to your video, sparing my listener from my far less disciplined and articulate rant.

[@matssandquist9258]

Hear, hear. Exactly my thoughts.

[@anthonymrbs]

I have always looked on photography as a way of recording our visual experiences, capturing that moment in time in our lives. I'm not sure how inserting scenes into our photographs that we didn't experience fits into that.

[@lubaortoleva9554]

the sky determines light and colors on land, so if replaced with different color or light then the land is out of sync...kind of awkward, right?

[@damienrobertson349]

Totally agree and well said - nature/landscape photography for me is way of mindfulness - to make me aware of and be in the moment. I don’t have any use for sky replacement. I will say however, the real tragedy of this video is that you didn’t photoshop in the two wolves howling at the unicorn 😉

[@grmrtnz]

Josh, one of my photography groups discussed this topic last Sunday. I agree with you for the most part. But since Ansel Adams used dodge and burn (extensively), landscape photography has been the art of conveying our feelings at a specific moment in time. If we need to do long exposure, use filters, multiple exposures, or push the image in order to achieve it, well that is what is we do. The only true representation of a moment in time, is the jpg file that you see in the back of your camera! Every other image is manipulated (specially in post processing) by us. Again, I totally agree with you that the most satisfying photos are the ones that we plan and sweat to get them... or the ones I call serendipity (we were lucky enough to the be there are the right time). But I have no problem with people replacing skies when done as follow: 1. The replacement sky was shot by the photographer at the same location as the image. 2. The photographer does not claim for the image to be "directly out camera".

[@stephenschmid492]

Glidden, even the jpg out of the camera is not a "true" representation. The jpg is created by an algorithm, so the camera maker's software is making the choices about how the image should look. On Fujifilm (and I presume other brands) cameras, you can choose from a large number of styles for your jpg.

[@stevep.3124]

"The only true representation of a moment in time, is the jpg file that you see in the back of your camera!" Really? You believe that a camera sensor accurately captures the true color fidelity, intensity, and dynamic range of the scene? So when my eyes see faintly lit detail in the foreground and a bright sky, but the picture captured shows a bright sky and a completely underexposed (black) foreground because the camera can't capture the dynamic range as well as my eyes, I should believe what's displayed on the back of the camera versus what I actually saw? And by your reasoning, then, every camera's LCD screen would show exactly the same colors and tonal range for a scene, because they all show the "true representation" of the scene? Not even close my friend! You've never taken a shot of an amazing sunset and when you see it on your camera's LCD, thought "Man this picture doesn't do justice to what I saw. The colors were much more intense, and much redder" or something like that? Sorry, but your faith in any (every?) camera's sensor to accurately portray colors, tones, detail, contrast, and dynamic range is a bit puzzling, if not plain ludicrous.

[@grmrtnz]

@@stephenschmid492 Yes, you can choose from a wide range of Fuji film imitation profiles. All they are doing is presenting a jpg with the color profile of some of their films. So if you were using that film that would be the way the picture would look. Remember that in the film era you could only capture whatever the film could handle. Therefore, you could only present the scene within the limitations of the film being used. It might not be exactly as you saw it, but it was exactly as the film captured.

[@grmrtnz]

@@stevep.3124 if you have an old digital camera with a very limited dynamic range or do not pay attention to the histogram before pressing the shutter, is not my fault!

[@stephenschmid492]

@@grmrtnz Uh, yes, that was my point. There is no one "true representation". _Every_ camera makes choices about color, contrast, saturation, etc. in the jpg's they produce.

[@IanSmithFotografi]

I agree with you... totally.

[@dianecotton9531]

If l could l would give you 1000 thumbs up. Sooo agree! I won't replace skies. Plus why does everything have to have a colourful sunrise or sunset? ....then it just becomes boring. Those colourful skies are only a part of the beautiful world we live in. I really love those photos you showed without the colour. I also just like blue sky & puffy white clouds. As you say it's all part of the experience. Had to edit because people who know my photography ( local camera club! ) would say I'm a hypocrite because I often like to use Topaz or add a texture to make a more creative/painterly image because I like this genre and in these, I may replace a sky with a texture, but my straight out photographic landscapes, I will not.

[@timothykieper]

Ok to focus stack, exposure blend, HDR merge, or have a $5000 camera with 8 different lens and 5 ND grads, but no fake sly ?????

[@tangzwire]

I see what you are saying and I dont use sky replacement either. However, what if there are no clouds in the sky (that usually makes the landscape more interesting) or that you as a photographer cannot time for example golden hour (to get those golden, pinkish, purple sky)? I have shot landscapes during golden hour, when there are clouds, etc. But sometimes I have also shot landscapes where you only have a blue sky. Which makes the landscape a little bit boring to look at. So at that point, I think its OK to use sky replacement. But I do understand what you mean, I usually dont use sky replacement all the time.

[@slowlyrusting4044]

I am a firm believer of "To each his/her own." If you want green skies, go for it. That being said, I PERSONALLY do not "fake" my skies. It's just something I can't get into. I "shoot" for my own personal gratification and couldn't stare at a photo of mine, and be proud of the image, knowing that I threw in a sky that was never there in the first place. Again, to each his/her own.

[@JackBellesPhotography]

I agree 100% with the experience. Sadly I think there are many armchair photographers who are using Luminar to manufacture photos on their computers and try to pass them on as actual photos. It’s only going to get worse as other apps appear, not just PS, with 1 touch edits of sky replacement other add-in unicorns etc.

[@LiamGalashan]

The first advertisement on this video was Luminar AI Sky Replacement... I still agree with you

[@ChristianHeid7]

I don't replace the sky unless it's from the same place in a same spot in the same hour. Sometimes things are totally impossible to get 100% right and they will never, ever happen again. Like when I was taking photos on the Diamond beach in Iceland few days ago and got the perfect iceberg setup for an ice giant lying on the beach in a .8 second exposure. I had 1 min before the surf ruined the giant. The sky at the time was very dull so I used another one from the same perspective, taken 15 mins earlier with .7 second exposure when the sky was more interesting with a tiny bit sunlight coming through the clouds. I experienced that moment as well so I didn't feel I was cheating :)

[@antivar]

You could not said better, Loved the Uber reference, I am also a landscape photographer and had the same friendly discussion with Mads Peter Iversen in his channel, he defends the sky replacement technique, but for me, that makes his amazing work in photography, like other photographers who do that, a litter bit fake, and you no longer know when their photos are real or not, I propose to make two difference categories; landscape photography and digital art landscape photography, so you can say which one is real or not and you could like both without feel cheated.

Fun fact: many people on Instagram are using the factory sky presets of Luminar over and over. They think it looks great on all photos (in every condition). But when I am scrolling down their timeline every photo looks nearly the same and it becomes obvious even to non photographers that something fake must be going on. I don't replace skies in my photos, I try to keep the overall image as it is in terms of what is in there. But I tend to emphasize light and shadow during my editing process in LR.

[@ronpettitt6184]

The illusion of perfection, makes it too easy. The instagrammers are the first ones I thought of when I heard of this feature coming to Ps

[@heinzhagenbucher4714]

I totally agree with you. And I wonder what comes up next, by a click of a button? 😔😉

[@glennstephenson184]

For me personally- if a bought a print from a landscape photographer at a local fair, it would interest me a great deal to engage the photographer about the story behind the image; how he got there, what gear he used, whether that was the image he had hoped to get/pre-visualised. I would proudly hang that image on my wall or the wall of a loved one knowing what was put into it to achieve it and be feeling pretty good about it. If the photographer had said yeah, I added the sky in photoshop when I got home, or if I had somehow found out that the sky had been replaced at a later date but that that fact had been deliberately kept from me, I would be hugely disappointed and somehow ripped off! But hey... that's just me IMO.

[@Virtuous_Rogue]

I'm a young tech nerd and I don't like the idea of replacing the sky. It stops being my photo when I let the computer just swap out such a big part of a landscape photo. It is a cool tool for graphic designers making blended collages from stock photos though.

[@ChenniChettyNatarajan]

Totally agree. Can't believe Photoshop invested so much on this feature. 😁

[@JoshuaCrippsPhotography]

My guess is this was a marketing decision to help draw people back from other editing software that has 1-click replacement.

[@danielpabst731]

I am kind of late to the party here, but I’m wondering where it ends: Some software that provides a library of foregrounds, mid grounds, backgrounds and skies from which we pick and choose? We could definitely save time, gas and effort. I try to convey what I saw and felt at the time. Sometimes the conditions aren’t perfect and the best we can is play the hand we are dealt.

[@Techbypaco]

Great commentary video. I am tempted to add multiple moons to my photos from time to time... Ironically, the first ad in your video was for Luminar Sky AI 2.0

[@timgriffin5827]

Well said Sir!

[@Ramotttholl]

yeah i agree. though i think its understandable when someone does it for someone else as a product. i don't like that stuff but i know the client in this case likely would want that.

[@mchocolate2301]

Hey Joshua, great video as always! Personally, I think any editing/enhancements done to a photo is "cheating". With that said, "replacing" the sky or background in a photo is just Wrong! And though it may look visually more appealing. I agree with you that It takes away from the emotional connection between the photographer and the gift that Nature has graced him/her with at that time.

[@FelixJorgenfelt]

For me it's about standards and having pride in the final product. Doing the work properly boost my confidence in my ability and thus my self-confidence. If I fake it, then even if no one notices, I still know that it wasn't my ability that made it happen. Especially now when it's a one button click. Thus I would destroy my self-esteem and in doing that probably destroy the joy I previously had from photography as well. Anything that fakes reality isn't worth doing.

[@dilus13]

I’m a beginner and don’t have to make a living from photography (probably just as well) so I take photographs that please me first and foremost and hopefully they might be appealing to others. I am trying to hone my skills and take images at a particular moment in time “in camera” and I am not bothered if they are not perfect technically, you learn by your mistakes and try to do better next time. I have no real interest in “post production” yet but perfectly understand why it is necessary, at times to make a great shot even better. I agree with you 100% that to totally alter an image in post production so that it no longer represents what you witnessed at that moment in time is cheating yourself, let alone the viewer. If I manage to be in the right spot at the right time and capture one stunning image out of hundreds of mediocre ones I would be content. Nature is seldom perfect and shouldn’t be forced in my opinion 🤔

[@peterlebengood7160]

My thoughts exactly.

[@nevadaxtube]

I agree with you 100%. If I flawlessly photoshop Abraham Lincoln into my family Christmas photo does it make the image better? I don't think so.

[@stephenschmid492]

I'm with you.

[@MrCochise71]

I'm an old school zen type monk photographer that roams Utah. Definitely not for me. I shoot what mother nature gives me. Would make me feel more like a graphic designer. I'm on the same boat as you. 🤘

[@danberkovitz8334]

How can you call it a photograph if it's not captured in the pixels in your camera? It's not so much the manipulation that bothers me, it's passing it off as a photograph. People are free to create beautiful artificial images, but they shouldn't pass them off as photographs.

[@L.Lyubomirov]

Agree !I hate all this facebook and instagram groups which are ment to be landscape photographers groups...but they are full with fake photos.Its very dissapoiting in now days to try to upload landscape photos,and be inspired...sad thing !I believe one day in future people again will start to apriciate more real photography.Making hues little different,dodge burning,contrast...little bit of color grading...its ok,i like when somebody has a certain style..but change the sky,whats the point even to go out for sunrise or sunset,or those magical moments....

[@martinfinzel7679]

Definitely a valid argument, but it does not just stop with replacing the sky. Long exposures where water looks like buttermilk is also one of my pet hates. Also looking at some portrait software which produces out of (in my opinion) nice looking people fake glamor girls...

[@atomikmaster1]

I shot both images. I then went and purchased the software. Mmmm I have done all these things myself and then I clicked the button so I have done all the work. Me not anyone else I have done it all. I made it happen. Its art 🎨 you do you as long as you don't hurt anyone. 👍🏿

[@2MProduction125]

One day when robots would to neurosurgery, u can't say that u did it cause u turned on the computer. U are using electric devices now, but u did not make them. I also made sky replacement and I don't have anything against, but if someone comment "it was magical weather" u need to say, no man, i switched the sky :D... but Joshua has good point. If everyone in future can make fake "stunning" photo just with pressing on button on phone camera, and none cant recognize it, net will be saturated with "good" photos and u will lost excitement that u have when u see something exceptionally beautiful. U can recognize this in "modeling" industry with fake breast. Astrophotography is another thing. U need to blend if u want maximum quality of pixels. U can do sky replacement but u cant sell it like it is real moment in space and time. That is my opinion.

[@RomainC99]

Haha I did that exact Milky Way sky replacement on Temple Crag that you did!

[@joaodomingues1559]

Exactly, it should represent what you saw and felt. If you do sky replacement, that's ok, but don't call it photography, call it digital art, where you are free to do what ever you want! A painter can also create an awesome landscape paint in a dark basement, and that's perfectly fine, but, it's not photography. My two cents! 😊😉

[@jeffnewman8261]

You make a lot of sense

[@keithpinn152]

Hi Joshua: Sky replacement technology and Luminar AI have certainly created a lot of buzz on You Tube and the photographic community in general. I share and applaud your position that sky replacements have no place in legitimate landscape photography. I have no problems using ND filters for long exposures, or selecting a lens that will compliment the composition of the scene. Using AI type tools adds elements that did not exist at the time the image was captured makes the image an illustration rather than a photographic image. Pretty soon, people won't need to go out and capture these images, they will simply go to their computer and select a sky, a lake, a mountain and some fore-ground elements and paste them all together based on how a computer engineer perceives the world to be. Cheers, Keith

[@freetibet1000]

I suspect this is a discussion that will continue for a long time. And I think it has something to do with the fact that we see photography as a form of art, - and in the arts everything is allowed, right? So the question then becomes; -why even bother drawing a line and set up rules for our selfs? And why should we listen to somebody else’s ideas about boundaries and self-imposed limitations? This sky-replacement business have surfaced a much deeper and necessary discussion around the art of photography on a whole. What is the inherent nature of photography? We all agree it is not painting and it is not graphic art either. What is it? It is a very interesting and much needed topic that needs to be discussed much deeper, I think! What are the relationships between photographs produced for commercial purposes to those captured for documentary reasons, for instance? And how does that correspond to the wast body of landscape, nature & macro photography that’s we’re all involved in? And when does that become ART? Somewhere deep down I suspect that we still cling to the notion that photography somehow captures “the reality - as it is” although we know that that’s not true, and has never been. But somehow, in the mind if the audience, photographers are suppose to capture “reality” because that’s what photography does, right? But as photographers we know that reality can never be capture with the equipment we have to our disposal. It is not possible! So if we accept that, how can we evolve our relationship with this art form in more constructive ways that can serve humanity better? I think we can all agree on that it is an amazing type of technology at our disposal and now it is up to us to grow and mature in relation to it. What do you think?

[@davestokes3446]

But, six month ago you posted a tutorial on sky replacement!

[@mayflip]

Totally agree with you

[@JoshuaCrippsPhotography]

Thank you!

[@drewgarrison185]

Couldn't agree more! Thanks for speaking out against this Josh!

[@ericmahoney9750]

great take, josh!