I found this pretty depressing

jerry12953 said:
Steven, you've just joined this discussion. Have you read any of it? Have you any idea what you're talking about?

Whatever the answer, I suggest you read, think, and consider before making such silly comments.
Click to expand...

Yea, of course, I read the whole thing. I don't think they are silly comments but that's your view, fair enough. What I'm saying is that just because photography/image making is going in a direction (for some) that you don't like, it doesn't make it any less valid than the approach you prefer.

Personally, I won't be using the software, I prefer to shoot what is there, however I like to think that I'm not narrow minded enough to think my way is the best, right and only way to do things. :)
 
Surely such software is aimed at less creative or less technically adept people and not the typical TP photographer?
I can imagine some smartphone holiday snapper being delighted to be able to spruce up shots taken on a dull day. Even if it looks wrong to you and me.
For us it's very easy to collect our own skies if we wanted to swap skies for some reason. In fact it'd be part of the fun to do so.

I don't see this as any nail in the coffin of photography. People have been doing it for a long time. This just makes it more accessible to casual shooters. They probably wouldn't pick the best sky for the shot anyway. They might even claim it's all their own work. But they could do that with any picture they find on the Internet anyway.
 
Last edited:
jerry12953 said:
That viewpoint is well photographed and well-known, exactly because it's right next to the A9. Presumably Joe Cornish didn't get a sky from a sky collection and combine it with his image of the stream and the mountain, though.

The "everything in photography is fake" argument has been well and often used but in my opinion does not hold water. I agree that the photographer makes selections and interpretations at all stages of the process but there is a quantum leap between that and getting a sky off the internet or a software program and combining it with his own image to produce a result. The latter I call fake, the former is not.
Click to expand...

The problem with the argument of 'no composites' etc is that if it done well, you guys who don't like it wouldn't even know it was done. So how do you know what is, what you call 'fake and what you would call 'real'? You are then in a state of not knowing what you like and what you don't because you don't know how it was made? Strange.
 
odd jim said:
Post processing doesn't make it "fake" if you're simply bringing out detail that's already there, shot and taken by yourself in that frame.

Manipulation and cutting and pasting is completely different IMO.

I agree with the OP. I find a lot of amateur apps and things like this really dumb down and devalue photography. As I said in a post a while back, I was asked (on facebook) what app I used to blur the background on a particular shot. I then posted up a photo of my 35mm f/2. They didn't understand my reply... It shouldn't have bothered me, but it did :(
Click to expand...

Your and my idea of fake is obviously different. Girls with dyed blonde hair, make-up and tans are considered fake however they're just enhancing their features :p. Sorry for being pedantic haha.

I never disagreed about these apps taking away from photography etc because I do agree that would be the case however they will only take away from photography if you let it. If everyone starts using the programs it's obviously an issue for our hobby/profession. However most photographers (amateur and pro) will know that this is a stupid app and not to use it. If you want to show off your skills then you will learn about your camera and what makes a good photo and then use the skills you have to produce that in camera rather than in post-processing.

The point I was making is that it's not something we have to be depressed or worried about because there will be more people not using it than people who will and the people who will aren't in any photographers league in comparison to photos. There will still be the die-hards and if you ask the old schoolers I'm pretty sure they would have had the same fears about photography going digital and probably still do but they'll still use their 35mm film cameras with a dark room rather than using a digital camera.

The bigger issue is celebrity post-processing. That's more of a threat to photography than this app as it's everywhere, used a lot in portraits (maybe not to celebs extent) and will be what most who want to learn photography will want to learn to do.

This isn't photography: http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/britney-e1299172427766.jpg
 
Could this be akin to people remixing music that was not theirs? Talent and skill is needed to pick the right sky.
 
gibtheo said:
Short answer, it's all 'fake'. It is all an interpretation of someones reality. :)
Click to expand...
Interpretation doesn't make a photograph fake. It makes it biased. Not the same thing.

As Martin Parr put it - "All photography is propaganda."
 
YoshiK1 said:
Your and my idea of fake is obviously different. Girls with dyed blonde hair, make-up and tans are considered fake however they're just enhancing their features :p. Sorry for being pedantic haha.

I never disagreed about these apps taking away from photography etc because I do agree that would be the case however they will only take away from photography if you let it. If everyone starts using the programs it's obviously an issue for our hobby/profession. However most photographers (amateur and pro) will know that this is a stupid app and not to use it. If you want to show off your skills then you will learn about your camera and what makes a good photo and then use the skills you have to produce that in camera rather than in post-processing.

The point I was making is that it's not something we have to be depressed or worried about because there will be more people not using it than people who will and the people who will aren't in any photographers league in comparison to photos. There will still be the die-hards and if you ask the old schoolers I'm pretty sure they would have had the same fears about photography going digital and probably still do but they'll still use their 35mm film cameras with a dark room rather than using a digital camera.

The bigger issue is celebrity post-processing. That's more of a threat to photography than this app as it's everywhere, used a lot in portraits (maybe not to celebs extent) and will be what most who want to learn photography will want to learn to do.

This isn't photography: http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/britney-e1299172427766.jpg
Click to expand...
Wow, they even airbrushed her camel toe :D !
 
ianp5a said:
Could this be akin to people remixing music that was not theirs? Talent and skill is needed to pick the right sky.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting parallel and to some extent I agree with you. The difference is that with music it's all a construction. A photograph is (or was) an interpretation of a section of reality.
 
YoshiK1 said:
If everyone starts using the programs it's obviously an issue for our hobby/profession.
Click to expand...
And I think that is one of the issues. There is no "our hobby/profession". We are a group of people using the same/similar tools or software for very different reasons. I know that we get grouped in the way you suggested, but there are huge differences in people's intentions and expectations.
 
I have heard rumours that Adams, as in Ansel, wasn't averse to dropping in a more attractive sky now and then, but that was probably because he always seemed to manage to get an unnatural level of contrast in his photos through his darkroom work
 
Bythesea said:
And I think that is one of the issues. There is no "our hobby/profession". We are a group of people using the same/similar tools or software for very different reasons. I know that we get grouped in the way you suggested, but there are huge differences in people's intentions and expectations.
Click to expand...

BUTTTT........ it's photography and that's hat we're talking about here.
 
But, hobby wise, photography means different things to different people.

This software is not going to affect us. But it will make somebody happy.
 
Last edited:
YoshiK1 said:
BUTTTT........ it's photography and that's hat we're talking about here.
Click to expand...
Exactly, and there are some photographers who do want it (assuming those who developed it did their research before creating it). Unless you want to get into a debate as to who is and who isn't a photographer ;)
 
I too get confused by these debates and its one i've had many times over the years with different people. Photography has never been 'truthful' as has been said before. What always amazes me is the 'traditionalists' seem to forget that photographers like Adams shot in mono. The biggest un-natural depiction of a scene there could possibly be! Virtually nobody sees that naturally.

The debate is 'should photography be truthful?' It never was and never has been so why should it be now? OK, image manipulation has become more accessible but that's it.

The arguments are about where the line is drawn and that debate will rage for time in memoriam. Mono conversion, tweaks to levels/contrast, hue and saturation, adding/subtracting vignettes, straightening horizons, cloning, healing, dodging/burning, cropping, skin smoothing, liquifying, stitching, compositing etc etc etc. The list is endless. Each individual will deem some things 'acceptable' others will 'accept' different things. Its what makes the world go round.

What I have found tends to drive any particular individual's responses on this matter is their abilities and skill at post processing. Those less capable of using image manipulation software will dislike it, those more competent tend to embrace it more. A generalisation I know but just my experience.

In my book, photography is an art form, anything goes. Lying about it is a different matter and an ethical issue but thats about it as far as I'm concerned!
 
Remember the word "likeness"?
A 'woody' word from the bygone days of early photography.
 
Last edited:
Back to the OP's opening point...

As a Landscape Photographer who teaches it as well I too find it depressing :(

I've never dropped a sky in and I have no desire to ever do so. Of course I adjust whatever the camera captured to suit my idea of what image I want to portray, but nothing is added only its impact either lessened or enhanced, and very little is removed (mostly dust spots!!!)

I won't even bother getting into the arguments about 'reality' as everyone's perception of that differs anyway regardless of whether you're pointing a camera at it or not

So jerry12953, for the sake of keeping the discussion simple, yes it is depressing in that sense

Dave
 
I've dropped skies in but about 35 years ago. Took bloody ages cutting out a dodge/burn mask and sometimes several attempts to get it right! I've also spent ages burning skies in to increase the drama in what was otherwise a less interesting sky. Rarely (if ever) do it these days, let alone automate the process and/or use other people's skies.
 
I still don't see why this is in any way depressing. Is something bad going to happen? Is this worse than playing the demo song on a electronic keyboard? Is it going to affect us?
 
Last edited:
gibtheo said:
I agree, I didn't use the term 'fake' the OP did, hence the inverted commas. :) There is no real or fake in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Of course their fake,ie the photos taken by the Nazi during WWII showing how nice the conceration camp were,or to you were theses legitimate photos ?
 
simonblue said:
Of course their fake,ie the photos taken by the Nazi during WWII showing how nice the conceration camp were,or to you were theses legitimate photos ?
Click to expand...
Legitimate photos showing what someone (or a regime) wanted to show. Doesn't make them any more fake than anything else. Just a different viewpoint. All photography is fake to some extent...
 
Rich_Ellis said:
Legitimate photos showing what someone (or a regime) wanted to show. Doesn't make them any more fake than anything else. Just a different viewpoint. All photography is fake to some extent...
Click to expand...

They were fake in the sense they were taken to be fake,to hide the truth o_O
 
Back then it was easier to fake a scene than it was to fake a photograph. A bit of cleansing and you're ready. As it were.
So the photo was a reasonable 'likeness'. The black and white bit was the worst bit. Apart from the 6 million of course. The liberation was going on precisely 70 years ago by the way.
 
Last edited:
simonblue said:
They were fake in the sense they were taken to be fake,to hide the truth o_O
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what your point is Simon? yes they were, they were guilty of prettifying a disgusting horror. To a hardly comparable extent, isn't that what we all do?
 
Rich_Ellis said:
I'm not sure what your point is Simon? yes they were, they were guilty of prettifying a disgusting horror. To a hardly comparable extent, isn't that what we all do?
Click to expand...


Really??? We all take photos of ugliness and retouch to make them pretty??? What if we take a pretty photo and make it even prettier or even a pretty subject and make it dark and sinister

Hasn't this gone WWWAAAYYYYYY off topic now and into the realm of arty bull - the OP was only asking about a program that drops in skies wasn't he

Dave
 
Rich_Ellis said:
I'm not sure what your point is Simon? yes they were, they were guilty of prettifying a disgusting horror. To a hardly comparable extent, isn't that what we all do?
Click to expand...

They were not prettifying it,they were faking it to hide the true crime,and I don't try to prettify thing to to make look nice nor the other way round
 
Last edited:
jerry12953 said:
I'm probably not the only photographer to have received this junk email ad for sky replacement software.

The slogans include the following -

"Always have beautiful skies...."

"With the killer App for Sky Replacement and our new Skies and Clouds Collections"

With [..............] sky replacement is no longer like Rocket Science"

"Add Skies III and our amazing new Drag and Drop Cloud Formations and the skies the limit on creativity!"

It goes on and on like this. I just find it depressing I'm afraid. It used to be possible to believe that what we were seeing in an image was real but it gets more and more difficult. Another problem will be that if you do manage to get a great sky in your image people will believe it's fake!
Click to expand...

Forget it.

I take photographs for myself and therefore why should I care what someone else does? I don't.

Forget this and just enjoy what you do because it makes you happy.
 
You're totally missing my point mate. :-(

What you are talking about is whether the scene in the image is an accurate portrayal of what happened in a concentration camp. That is a totally different thing.

Think about it... anyway, as someone said we are going slightly off topic now I suppose... :)
 
gibtheo said:
You're totally missing my point mate. :-(

What you are talking about is whether the scene in the image is an accurate portrayal of what happened in a concentration camp. That is a totally different thing.

Think about it... anyway, as someone said we are going slightly off topic now I suppose... :)
Click to expand...


I don't think we are. All photographs are subjective representations. Nothing is exactly as it seems. Most landscapes have been processed to death already any way, so who cares if there are different skies added. The kind of people who do that are usually the ones that process stuff to death, so they were probably still making crap before, and they'll still be making crap after compositing.

You're all happy to have shots from the A9 represented as wild Scottish countryside, yet get all squeamish about a different sky putting in. This is typical amateur thinking, because amateurs only place value in the actual artefact.. the image itself - technically. That's how amateurs judge photos. They value "skill" in image creating, but only value that skill if it's a single photo, yet ironically amateurs are the ones most likely to process an image to within an inch of it's life. Doing so also massively changes it from reality, and that change happened not in the camera, but on a computer, so what exactly is the difference between your processing and adding another sky?

A good example is the work "Going Home" I shot last year.

View attachment 38812


This cheating? This less skillful? This not pure enough for you?

The fact is, I realised what I wanted and saw in my mind, unfortunately, what I wanted was so difficult to achieve it would have probably never got done if I hadn't shot the model elsewhere. Why would anyone have a problem with this? How is this different from taking a picture of a waterfall with a 10stop and basically massively altering reality? Out of the two, the waterfall shot would require the least skill. I had to shoot the model in such a way so she slots right in to the landscape and be utterly believable. That requires an understanding of lighting... and lighting is the most important aspect of photography. While the actual amalgamation of the two things happened in photoshop, they were both both shot by me using photographic skills and knowledge, and with the intention of being composited together. A waterfall shot with a 10stop is a piece of p**s.. anyone can do it.



View attachment 38814View attachment 38815

Is it a "lie"? Does it matter?

There are no ethical considerations here. It's not news or documentary. Nothing is being misrepresented as a result. No "facts" are being distorted. The only distorted facts are A) She's not halfway up a mountain in Galloway, and B) I've removed her "visible panty line". Big fat so what.
 
Last edited:
Rich_Ellis said:
What I have found tends to drive any particular individual's responses on this matter is their abilities and skill at post processing. Those less capable of using image manipulation software will dislike it, those more competent tend to embrace it more. A generalisation I know but just my experience.
Click to expand...

It I add a +1 to this should I expect a torrent of 'I have no interest and there is no need to learn' comments?

We're already manipulating a view of reality when we select viewpoint, focal length, exposure, DoF and so on.

I used to be totally anti-processing. That was until I realised that choosing to do none is simply accepting the camera's defaults settings. It's a small step from manipulating the camera's jpeg treatment to doing it yourself in raw, and from there to do a little bit more.

Then I realised I was on a continuum. My place on it is limited by my ability, not by any notion of values. Each step is just a small one; where do you stop?
  • correcting verticals
  • global contrast manipulations
  • local contrast manipulations (to emphasise or de-emphasise details)
  • removing dust spots
  • removing skin spots
  • tweaking shadows to flatter body shapes
  • skin smoothing
  • studio backdrop 'cleaning'
  • studio backdrop replacement
  • complete composites
fwiw photojournalism tends to stop at global manipulations. For everyone else - why shouldn't we attempt to get the best out of our images?

(As an aside: fashion retouching deserves special scrutiny, not because it shouldn't be done, but because of the dangers of promoting impossible idealised bodies. But that's already the subject of a lengthy and heated thread).
 
DG Phototraining said:
Really??? We all take photos of ugliness and retouch to make them pretty??? What if we take a pretty photo and make it even prettier or even a pretty subject and make it dark and sinister

Hasn't this gone WWWAAAYYYYYY off topic now and into the realm of arty bull - the OP was only asking about a program that drops in skies wasn't he

Dave
Click to expand...

You took my point too literally...we do exactly as you describe, still fake though, still a 'misrepresentation' of the actual scene.

The OP kinda implied it was the end of photography as we know it, some of us are merely pointing out that it isn't, so hardly off topic.
 
Pookeyhead said:
There are no ethical considerations here. It's not news or documentary. Nothing is being misrepresented as a result. No "facts" are being distorted. The only distorted facts are A) She's not halfway up a mountain in Galloway, and B) I've removed her "visible panty line". Big fat so what.
Click to expand...

and C) You've removed colour - how very dare you!!! ;)
 
DG Phototraining said:
Back to the OP's opening point...

As a Landscape Photographer who teaches it as well I too find it depressing :(

I've never dropped a sky in and I have no desire to ever do so. Of course I adjust whatever the camera captured to suit my idea of what image I want to portray, but nothing is added only its impact either lessened or enhanced, and very little is removed (mostly dust spots!!!)

I won't even bother getting into the arguments about 'reality' as everyone's perception of that differs anyway regardless of whether you're pointing a camera at it or not

So jerry12953, for the sake of keeping the discussion simple, yes it is depressing in that sense

Dave
Click to expand...

Sorry. Response on the way.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top