ON1 Sky Replacements

[FowlersFreeTime]

A few recent edits featuring sky replacements ranging from mild to wild.

First one was quite subtle:

• Sony E 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 OSS
• 34.0 mm
• ƒ/9
• 1/500 sec
• ISO 800

Second was more noticeable, but still natural-looking:

• E 17-70mm F2.8 B070
• 17.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/60 sec
• ISO 100

Third was more of a "let's see what this thing can do!"

• Sony E 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 OSS
• 23.0 mm
• ƒ/4
• 1/250 sec
• ISO 1600

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

They all look good, much better than some I've seen.

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

All of the original skies were dull, hazy and mostly blown out highlights; those seem to work well with sky replacement.

 

[MrFotoFool]

The extent of editing is a matter of personal choice (unless you are entering a contest or selling it to a publication where it violates their rules). I do sometimes use fairly extensive editing in the form of cloning to extend the edges of a scene or remove stray brances or a pole, etc. However, FOR ME replacing a sky is going too far. I will sometimes combine two exposures to get detail in both sky and foreground, but it's the sky that is there at the time.

Everyone makes their own choice and photographers are free to do what they like. Some people would consider the cloning I do as going too far. As far as the effect looking natural, yours work well (especially the third one). I just am not a fan of this new sky software myself. (Please don't take this as a personal attack; I am just offering a counterpoint that may or may not stimulate further discussion).

 

[russellsnr]

Hi, found it does help when you have those bland plain skies.

• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/2500 sec
• ISO 3200

• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/2500 sec
• ISO 3200

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

The extent of editing is a matter of personal choice (unless you are entering a contest or selling it to a publication where it violates their rules). I do sometimes use fairly extensive editing in the form of cloning to extend the edges of a scene or remove stray brances or a pole, etc. However, FOR ME replacing a sky is going too far. I will sometimes combine two exposures to get detail in both sky and foreground, but it's the sky that is there at the time.

Everyone makes their own choice and photographers are free to do what they like. Some people would consider the cloning I do as going too far. As far as the effect looking natural, yours work well (especially the third one). I just am not a fan of this new sky software myself. (Please don't take this as a personal attack; I am just offering a counterpoint that may or may not stimulate further discussion).

I don't take it as an attack, in fact I agree with you Fred! It is taking editing too far.

Consider this: Picture #2 is representative of my family trip to Scotland. We 4 drove 6 days around the country, seeing the natural beauty of Scotland, under mostly gray skies. While I was disappointed from a landscape photography point of view, if I swap even one sky and print that picture or post it on Facebook for the family to see, then I am undermining the memory of those experiences we had together. The four of us in that picture will know something is not right with that photo. From this point of view, the exercise of sky swapping is pointless.

No, I did these as an experiment to see what my new-to-me editing software can do, that's all. If I was satisfied with sky swapping, there would be no point to going out at golden/blue hour to experience a location and challenge myself to "get it right in camera" that would be a sad day indeed.

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

Hi, found it does help when you have those bland plain skies.
View attachment 23386View attachment 23387

Now in this case, as long as its not being submitted for a photography contest, I don't see the issue because it doesn't distract from your subject. I would never have guessed you added those clouds if I hadn't seen the first photo.