Should You Replace the Sky, Yes or No—and How? - Photoclub - Fotocommunity Alternative und Fotoforum

09.04.2022, 12:25 #1

Hobbyfotograf

Should you replace the headliner or not, and how to do it.

Image Editing with New Possibilities

Old topic, always revisited.
Sure, you could already do this with Photoshop—but there are new programs that make it easier.
I think that’s the core issue—new things always face resistance, but why is that?
Many image editing options have been discussed here from time to time, and many people are quite skeptical about the topic. Some are for it, some against.
I want to focus exclusively on skies here.
There’s so much you can do—you can buy skies, acquire them through software, or even create your own and then use them in the right image.
A few questions about this:
What’s the problem with it?
When is it absolutely not okay?
How should it be done?
Why do I do it?
Does it bring advantages or disadvantages to the image?
Does it overly influence the image?
So many questions.
Why not share some images—ones where you think it works well, and of course, ones where you think it shouldn’t have been done.
I’m curious to see what comes up here.

This entry has already been edited

09.04.2022, 14:49 #2

Günter Rudi Herzel

@Andreas Bibas
Just as we change, the possibilities for photo editing evolve as well. I realized early on that a photo never truly reflects reality or the actual scene—just the way we choose the framing or decide whether the image should be black and white or color already shapes it. Then came Lightroom, opening up so many possibilities. Now there’s Luminar, which is pretty much like Lightroom, except for the feature that lets you replace the sky. Brilliant. It’s my photo, so I can do whatever I want with it. I see images, not necessarily photography. Often we have an interesting photo that wants to become a compelling image, but the sky is dull and washed out.
You just have to be careful that the sky replacement looks natural, as if it could have been that way. To be fair, I only use my own skies, very subtly, never overdoing it. The viewer should think, “What a beautiful or dramatic sky.” It’s just another tool for me to achieve the desired result.

10.04.2022, 15:56 #3

Karl-Heinz Sauer

I have no problem with a "better" sky—provided, of course, that the "operation" is done so seamlessly that you don’t notice any changes afterward. I’ve used that trick myself from time to time. However, I always photograph the better sky/background at the same time of day and from the same location. Other than that, I don’t have much experience with this. I have enough time, so I can afford to skip some shots and wait for a "better" sky. But nowadays, patience and restraint have become foreign concepts.
Best regards, Okasa

28.04.2022, 10:58 #4

Andreas F

Experte

Whether it’s the sky or the foreground—it’s not what the photographer actually saw on site. There are so many ways now to enhance your shots, and you don’t even need advanced photo editing skills anymore. To me, it doesn’t really matter if the sky was taken later on location and then added in. It’s a significant image manipulation, and it seems to have become standard practice. So with digital photos, all I can do is ask whether the sky is original. It’s often not obvious, and that’s exactly the point of this kind of editing.
What I’ve noticed for a long time is how much the perspective on photography has shifted. This includes the obsession with pixel-sharp detail on the computer, which often gets lost at normal viewing distances in print. Also, the heavy post-processing that distorts the image so much it’s hard to even call it a photograph anymore. Sometimes there’s a lack of understanding of what black-and-white photos should actually look like—people keep tweaking the sliders like there’s no tomorrow.
So, everyone can handle the sky however they want.
Someday, we might get adjustable focus after the fact—I believe some cameras already have that capability.
We’ve been waiting a long time for a subject-trigger feature. Maybe the “sky trigger” will come first.

@Andreas: Thanks for starting this discussion. Unfortunately, there are far too few active topics in the forum these days.

28.04.2022, 14:42 #5

Ulrich Schmidt

Hobbyfotograf

Photo editing, manipulation, and montage have been done since the analog days. Back then, though, it was much more difficult and expensive.
For me, photo editing is definitely an essential part of photography. I want to create images that sometimes reflect my imagination and convey certain moods or emotions.
If I only wanted to see realistic images, I’d just buy the daily newspaper. What I find really frustrating, however, is when tools like Luminar or Photoshop are used to swap out skies without any care for whether the result looks harmonious, or when the editing is done carelessly and without passion.
As long as it’s colorful and flashy and gets clicks and likes—I just don’t get that (and I don’t have to look at it). Unfortunately, this is becoming more and more common.
Otherwise, I’m always excited by a well-crafted image.

28.04.2022, 18:35 #6

Andreas F

Experte

Photo editing, manipulation, and montage were already being done back in the analog days.
True. But by whom?
Even dedicated amateur photographers followed the Kodak principle.
“You press the button, we do the rest.”
A small number still tinkered in their own darkrooms. But how many were there? Very few also did montage work there. Analog photo editing was pretty basic compared to today; the vast majority just picked up their prints from the discount store. Nowadays, anyone can "enhance" their photos with an app on their phone.
A huge difference compared to today is that back then, photos existed as physical prints, not just digital files on a hard drive. How many analog shots with swapped skies do you have in your personal collection? I have none. My grandfather did montages professionally. People would be placed on a beach, and even the vacation price would be inserted. But amateurs doing that back then? Mostly with slides? Today, it’s standard and neither difficult nor demanding. Otherwise, YouTube tutorials provide plenty of help.
I wouldn’t call it carelessly thrown together. The creator must have had a purpose. And tastes vary, after all.

29.04.2022, 02:36 #7

Günter Rudi Herzel

As nostalgic as we may feel looking back on the analog past, when I think about those roughly 35 years of analog photography—the countless nights spent in the darkroom, waking up tired the next morning, the many boxes full of prints, the liters of developer and fixer poured down the drain, the hassle and expense of organizing an exhibition just so people could see the photos, and the sheer joy when FOTOMAGAZIN featured an article about my work—I don’t actually miss that time. I was always frustrated that I couldn’t get more out of the slides. No, I don’t miss those days. Today, I can process my photos exactly how I envision them. My galleries are spread across various forums like Art Limited, 500px, Facebook, and more, where I have far more interaction every day than I ever did during a four-week exhibition. The only thing from the analog era that’s stayed with me is that I still think analog when I’m photographing.

29.04.2022, 09:32 #8

Andreas F

Experte

@Günter

How often did you change the sky back in your analog days?

29.04.2022, 09:48 #9

Ulrich Schmidt

Hobbyfotograf

I think my statement was misunderstood. I'm not nostalgic for the analog days; on the contrary, I appreciate the possibilities we have today.
I just wanted to point out that photo editing, in all its forms, has always been part of the process, adapted to the tools and opportunities available at the time.
Lately, I keep hearing people say their photos aren’t edited (and they often consider themselves top photographers), and I think that’s nonsense.
So, really, there’s no need to debate this. Everyone can do it their own way.

29.04.2022, 13:40 #10

Andreas F

Experte

I've never heard anyone say, "My photos aren't edited." But "I only shoot in Manual mode!" does come up, and that's usually a clear sign you're dealing with a true pro.
What I hardly ever see anymore is anyone admitting their photo has been altered. Just a few years ago, that was completely normal. Nowadays, things like swapping elements have probably become so routine that they’re no longer worth mentioning.
@Günter
Regarding the exchanges on various online platforms—does the quality of interaction hold up, or is it just quantity? Comments tend to be short and vague, with few people genuinely engaging with the photos. Unfortunately, this is something you also see in local photo clubs.

Just to be clear, I’m not against digital photography or its possibilities—I use it myself. But in my hobby, I truly love the process of working with film and paper.

There’s far too little conversation about photography here anyway, so it’s definitely worth continuing the discussion.

This entry has already been edited

29.04.2022, 14:19 #11

Andreas Bibas

Hobbyfotograf

Alright, let’s talk about "Photography."
But we should probably start a new thread for that.
Before we do, we should think about the direction we want to take it in, otherwise the discussion could go on forever.

29.04.2022, 14:29 #12

Andreas Bibas

Hobbyfotograf

By the way, my photos are always edited to some degree—sometimes more, sometimes less. Whenever you shoot in any mode other than Auto, and I’m always in Manual mode, you’re basically required by the camera settings themselves—so to speak—to contribute your own touch, even if it’s just fine-tuning the exposure.
With many of the photos shared here, it’s often a bit of a mystery what techniques were used and why.
Unfortunately, since in-depth photo discussions are so rare here, that’s probably not going to change anytime soon.

This entry has already been edited

29.04.2022, 14:29 #13

Günter Rudi Herzel

@Andreas Bibas I'm ready for it

01.05.2022, 10:24 #14

Andreas F

Experte

Hello Andreas,

I’m not quite sure I understand this sentence: "By the way, my photos are always edited, sometimes more, sometimes less. When you work in any mode other than automatic."

What does editing have to do with the shooting mode?

Why do you shoot in manual mode? Your camera surely supports TTL, right? Or do you rely solely on a handheld light meter?

I sometimes have to use manual mode, but rarely when I have a camera that can measure exposure on its own. When I can choose the aperture, I get to the desired result faster and can still make adjustments.

I consider TTL metering and the associated automation to be one of the great achievements in photography.

Of course, I set everything manually when there’s no other option or when I prefer to take a light reading myself.

There won’t be a discussion. There have already been plenty of attempts to start one. As Andreas also mentioned, there are hardly any discussions about the photos themselves. It seems most comments come just from scrolling through the feed. Very few people really take the time to look closely.

From this, I’ve decided to limit my comments to single words, emojis, or short phrases. Those are probably easier to understand and convey exactly what’s intended, as shown in the green box when someone explicitly requests feedback.

Why bother engaging deeply with other photos? You can’t argue about taste, and what someone feels when looking at an image doesn’t really help the creator.

Who wants to make a new attempt at a general exchange?

01.05.2022, 11:20 #15

Andreas Bibas

Hobbyfotograf

Since I shoot exclusively in Manual (M) mode, I’m forced to find the right settings for me using the adjustment dials.
I rarely use any other modes—never automatic, seldom P, sometimes A and S when needed.
But for landscapes, it’s always M.
For me, editing is basically what the camera does automatically through a program.
I do that manually in M mode.
Opinions on this vary widely, and that’s a good thing.
Regarding your other thoughts, well, what can you really say?
Every now and then, I try to shake things up a bit

But you can’t force it.
It’s a shame, but unfortunately, it can’t be changed.
I’ve only been here for about 2.5 years and have seen many come and go, and sometimes I didn’t understand why.
You can look at a forum membership as either short or long-term.
Now some might wonder why I’m already ranked so high among the active members.
P.S. I’ve had those questions too.
It’s not just from logging in daily. I can tell you why: I try to comment on photos that truly deserve it—not just with “Okay,” “Great,” “Awesome,” or “Cool” (which actually puts me off and says nothing).
I believe those photos deserve more thoughtful comments, and that often leads to a sentence or two, quickly surpassing 100 characters, and the engagement grows.
I don’t upload five photos just because I could; I carefully select—max two per day, usually just one (which is sometimes a topic of discussion)—and I consider my financial contribution to the forum as a way to support the admins (also a recurring topic).
Of course, everyone sees this differently—but I don’t mind. It’s doable for anyone.
If you want to do it—well, for me, it just happened naturally, and it’s rewarding.
But the most important thing is that this isn’t why I’m here.
I want to stay involved because, believe me, some amazing photos have been shared here, and that’s what keeps me coming back.
Sure, there are ups and downs, but you have to push through, just like anywhere else.
All I can say is: stick with it—it’s worth it.

This entry has already been edited

01.05.2022, 13:00 #16

Andreas F

Experte

Hello Andreas,

You’re sticking to the camera’s light meter in manual mode, right?

Maybe you’ve seen some of my comments—usually over 100 words. But why? A word or two, or just a short phrase, is often enough.

I’ve already made up my mind about whether it’s worth trying to boost the forum activity.

01.05.2022, 16:19 #17

Andreas Bibas

Hobbyfotograf

Everyone has their own opinions and attitudes about things.
I see this as a fun side hobby, and I believe that if I’m going to get involved in something, I do it with passion—or not at all.
That’s how I built my own companies, and today, I’m pretty proud of that.
So, I’m sticking around here simply because I enjoy being part of this community.

01.05.2022, 17:26 #18

Andreas F

Experte

Of course, everyone has their own opinions and perspectives.
It sounds like a conversation stopper to just end it there.
But the point isn’t to convert anyone—it’s about exchanging ideas. Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be any interest in that. Such a shame.

01.05.2022, 19:12 #19

Andreas Bibas

Hobbyfotograf

Do you have any idea how to get out of this mess? 1f44d

This entry has already been edited

01.05.2022, 19:30 #20

Andreas F

Experte

Nope!
I've definitely tried more than once to start something in that direction. I've also joined in on a few existing threads.
But clearly, there's no interest in engaging.
The introduction thread was even closed. Getting to know others seems to be uninteresting as well.
At least the wordplay is going strong! nophoto

Should you replace the headliner or not, and how to do it.Should you replace the headliner or not, and how to do it.Himmel austauschen ja oder nein und wie.

Should you replace the headliner or not, and how to do it.