Photography is ruined again

DeathArrow · Oct 26, 2020

Phil A Martin said:
CMCM said:

Phil A Martin said:

Phil A Martin said:

CMCM wrote:

I don't have the newest Luminar AI, but I do have Luminar 4 with its quite amazing sky replacement feature,which I have found to be wonderful and very useful when used sparingly.

Why?

I'm not able to go to a chosen scenic spot at a moment's notice when the weather is perfect and interesting skies are present, it's hard to plan that. I can't go to a place and sit for days waiting and hoping for perfect or even interesting light or skies. I usually arrive somewhere for a day or two and that's my sole window for shooting that location. In so many instances I've gone somewhere hoping for a lot of nice landscapes and been disappointed by less than optimal weather conditions.

I recently shot photo in an incredibly well known and scenic oceanside spot. But when I got there, it was typically gray and overcast, and that type of sky made the photo fairly bland and uninteresting. I liked everything about my photo except the dull, bland sky.

A few months later when I got Luminar 4, I was able to find a great sky to add to my photo and now that bland photo has transformed into something I really like. I don't see this as "ruined photography" or some sort of "cheating" just because my finished photos aren't identical to SOOC images. Just as darkroom film processing and printing was a way to improve on a photo, so is this new software. People want to shoot RAW in order to get a better range of exposure correction to the image. It seems like some people insist the quality of a photo is limited to an SOOC image. If it's not good as the camera spits it out, then it's a fraud if you do anything to it. I don't agree with that. Photo software, like film printing, requires a degree of knowledge and skill. Not everyone has that, by the way. Some photos end up garish to my own particular taste, but the person who created that photo liked what he did and he wouldn't agree with my assessment of it.

I remember my photographer father spent hours in his darkroom, often reprinting photos numerous times as he tried different techniques and filters and other printing techniques to make the photos more like his vision of what he wanted them be. Was that any more "real" and more legitimate than software processing?

I think my father would absolutely LOVE the software processing we have today and its multitude of possibilities and speed of processing, something he never got to experience in his lifetime.

Click to expand...

But you'll always know that it's not your sky and I can't see how that won't niggle you every time you see it and diminish it compared to photographs where everything fell into place when you took it.

Click to expand...

Maybe to some extent. But I see it all as a process that might happen in stages. Besides, I shoot and collect my own skies and have over a hundred of them that I use occasionally in Luminar. So I actually did shoot all aspects of a photo in which I drop in a sky. When I see a great cloudy sky or great sunset, I love to shoot that. If I wanted to just record where I was at a particular time, anything would do. Shoot a scene and download it to your computer, perhaps print it "as is". Personally, I'm happier if all aspects of a scene come together....great scene, great light, great sky. That's the best. But it doesn't always happen and I'm happy to have options to improve things when necessary.

Click to expand...

Yes but a specific sky is a product of the microclimate derived from the landscape underneath it.

Can you recognize the type of microclimate by looking at pictures of skies? If I show you a hundred image of skies, two of them shot in the same place, can you find those two?

Phil A Martin said:
A sky photographed above a mountain range would not be the same as a sky taken at sea level.

Are you sure about that? A sky can be modified by pollution, storms etc but those conditions can happen in many different places.

I live in a big city and the atmosphere is quite polluted. Yet, few times on year it happens that it is extremely clear so we can see mountains at more than 100 km away.

Phil A Martin said:
Also the sky influences the quality of light falling on the land and if there is a mismatch between the two, it would just look wrong.

Of course. That was one reason sky replacement wasn't extremely easy to be done in Photoshop. But Luminar 4 makes it easy to match the sky with environment perfectly.

Phil A Martin said:
Now this might fool some people but anyone with an understanding of climate and the environment, would see right through it.

If I present one hundred images, fifty with the sky replaced, fifty with the sky as it was, would you bet that you will able to spot in more than fifty if the sky was replaced or not?

DeathArrow · Oct 26, 2020

sportyaccordy said:
gary0319 said:

mamallama said:

gary0319 said:

Lee Jay said:

Jonsi said:

I'm curious... where are those people who are saying optional choices in software are ruining the field of photography? Or is that just hyperbole?

Click to expand...

Right here.

The public no longer trusts pictures or videos as being true-to-life representations. That's because there have been so many instances of people intentionally distorting reality for their own purposes, whether shaping their bodies, making political statements or creating false images and representing them as true.

The loss of trust is a MAJOR blow to the field of photography, in my opinion.

Click to expand...

I agree. Time was that if you saw an image....like the iconic “napalm girl” you never had to second guess if the image was photoshopped for impact.

Click to expand...

Time has not changed. You needed to consider the context and source then and you still do now. Photographs were manipulated then as now. It is just easier to do now with digital photography and computers.

Click to expand...

The point is that such nefarious manipulations are so pervasive today that the basic underpinnings of photography (recording the moment) is threatened.

Click to expand...

How does the manipulation of photographs by others impact your photography?

Of course. If other have images that are more successful and were made with less effort and more creativity, one might become frustrated.

sportyaccordy said:
sportyaccordy said:

Some will say the post processing technology is not the issue, but it will still get the blame, and that stink gets on us all.

Click to expand...

I have never been accused of manipulating my images.... have you?

JeremieB · Oct 26, 2020

mamallama said:
JeremieB said:

mamallama said:

MHshooter said:

All it does is allow people who are lazy and technically inept to take better images. Since the images might make it out into the world, it's probably a good idea. However, A.I. usually means substituting expected detail where there is none. That can be an issue.

Click to expand...

AI does not mean substituting anything fictitious. AI, as the term implies, is simply software programmed to make decisions based on sensor inputs that are normally done by a human operator

Like the AI in a self driving car drives the car based on the inputs from the multiple sensors you can see all over the car and the programmed the rules of the road and safety. Likewise, the AI in a smartphone uses the information it senses from the camera viewfinder to adjust the camera settings to produce an image based on the parameters and descriptions the designer programed in the camera. There is nothing magical; it is just the next level of decision making programmed in the camera.

Click to expand...

I think it's very limiting and rather erroneous to consider that modern neural networks based AI systems are just doing that, decision making, that's not true.

Click to expand...

Mine was a basic concept to illustrate what AI in photography are doing and is not just substituting expected detail where there is none.

Again, that is not true, have a look at DeepPrime, when it's denoising a hugely noisy image it's actually substituting expected detail when there is almost none, and that's an example among others. There's no reason AI in photography tools would be limited to what you say.

mamallama said:
It is in no way a complete description of what AI can do.

mamallama said:

They CAN create completely new things out of old information.

Click to expand...

Many programs do that

To the level of quality and automation that AI can: absolutely not. Anyway not my point.

mamallama said:
mamallama said:

They CAN generate photorealistic images that even the greatest human painter on earth could not achieve.

Click to expand...

Who's "they"? AI in current smartphones?

Neural network based systems. What's your point with smartphones ? It can run just anywhere, in your smartphone in photoshop on your computer in your browser in the cloud...

mamallama said:
mamallama said:

They are not "programmed".

Click to expand...

The software has to be programmed initially.

The algorithm that executes the task of interest (denoising, removing objects, filling blanks, whatever), its "intelligence" resides in one or many matrices of numbers. Nobody "programmed" those numbers. Most of the time nobody know what they "mean" - for image analysis though, sometimes we know a little. These are the result of a learning process and precisely we do this when implementing a proper algorithm to execute the task is too complex or not efficient.

mamallama said:
mamallama said:

And as any software they do exist also to execute tasks that can't be executed by a human operator or that would take ages if performed by a human operator.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is what software in computers do.

You wrote "simply software programmed to make decisions based on sensor inputs that are normally done by a human operator".

Now you agree with the contrary ?

mamallama said:
mamallama said:

Don't take me wrong: I'm not against technology and progress, I studied AI systems in university and I am your basic tech geek.

Click to expand...

You are not the only one.

Is there any other intent in this reply than contradict what I wrote at all cost ? Did I say anywhere I was the only one ?

mamallama said:
mamallama said:

But I think humans should absolutely know and be informed about what a new tech really is about and what it can do, and then decide what to do with it ("decide" instead of always "let it happen").

Click to expand...

Yes.

DeathArrow · Oct 26, 2020

JeremieB said:
With AI you can generate a full, photorealistic image, based on a bunch of existing pictures used to train the algorithm. For now a bunch is required - maybe in the future only a few will suffice.

So you can create something, that is not yet but will some day for sure, be impossible to differenciate from a "real" photo, and where none of the pixels were computed based on photons hitting a sensor. Of course one day, it will also be able to create a beautiful "photo", vaguely inspired by an original photo, removing automatically ugly stuff, blurring background as needed, creating details where required, changing the frame, the angle of view, the depth of field, ...

I think that would be wonderful.

JeremieB said:
Would you call this, "photography" ?

I wouldn't.

No, I think photography is just the physical recording of the image. Making something from that image using creativity and imagination is more like "digital art". You can use that raw material to make art from it. Or you can just keep it as it was for documenting purposes.

JeremieB said:
If you agree that photography exists as an art, then it means that even if fuzzy, there IS a limit to the amount of "post processing" you can do while still calling the result photography. And well, that's ok, but it's not the same thing, and not the same intent.

I do not consider the process of recording as being art. Why would it be? Do you make art if you just record your phone call? Do you make art if you record video? I think not.

If you set up your scene, direct the models, carefully use the light before clicking the button, that is scenographic art. If you get an image and make art from it by using creativity and imagination, that is more "digital art".

JeremieB said:
I would say photography is a frame cut from reality and altered by chained transformations applied on the captured frame as a whole (starting with lens and sensor) - but the aim of photography is to base itself on the best captured frame of light from a specific point in space and time, and make it something unique.

Every recording is unique, because thing are never the same and freezing anything in time makes it unique. Valuable might or not be, but unique it is.

Photography is the process of recording images.

JeremieB said:
While now and more and more, intent becomes making the best looking image at all cost, whatever the source material, changing pixels if needed.

That is something akin to art. Yes, aesthetic is one of the goals of art.

JeremieB said:
With this idea stuff like focus stacking or panoramas stitching remain photography because the intent is the same - but you use tricks to compensate for limitations in depth of field or angle of view of the sensor+lens. But when you replace a sky by another one, or remove those phone cables, your intent clearly is not the same anymore.

What do you mean by intent? Two people shooting the same scene can have different motivations. One might want to record it for documenting purposes, one might want to use that image to make art from it.

JeremieB said:
What I think, photography may not be ruined, but it will become further marginalized.

Why do you think so? You imply that photography was already marginalized. What do you think are the purposes of photography (i.e. clicking the shutter)? Have those purposes faded?

DeathArrow · Oct 26, 2020

Gary Martin said:
Just like how photography ruined painting. Isn't it normal for every art form to be occasionally "ruined" by technology?

Photography never ruined painting.

DeathArrow · Oct 26, 2020

Autonerd said:
JeremieB said:

With AI you can generate a full, photorealistic image, based on a bunch of existing pictures used to train the algorithm. For now a bunch is required - maybe in the future only a few will suffice.

Click to expand...

But this same thing has been possible with film for well over a hundred years. Movies in particular used mattes all the time. Watch The Towering Inferno -- the Glass Tower didnt' exist in real life, but it sure looked like it did in the movie. We just have tools that make it a little easier.

While it was possible, using physical processes was very difficult. Digital made it easier, and software refining makes it even easier. So more people might be tempted to do it and more bad results might appear.

Autonerd said:
Autonerd said:

What I think, photography may not be ruined, but it will become further marginalized.

Click to expand...

I still say nothing's changed. I've read lots of "Photography is dead!" either because of AI or phones or EVFs or whatever, but these are not new arguments. Roll film, color, disc, compact 35mm -- they were all going to kill photography for us pro-ams, and yet they managed not to.

Aaron

I think some people are simply insecure and they fear.

Sometimes the fear is justified, like in jobs which were replaced by technology improvements.

DeathArrow · Oct 26, 2020

justmeMN said:
You can be awed by the authentic reality of nature, or you can be awed by the power of software.

Or by the skill, the imagination and creativity of an artist.

DeathArrow · Oct 26, 2020

gary0319 said:
First off, of course I manipulate my images, perhaps only to remove noise, add sharpness, boost shadows, etc. Sometimes I even contact aware out an ugly power line. But I don’t use my photographs for deceitful purposes.

I submit that the manipulation of images, or videos for deceitful purposes does tarnish the whole of the art.... the same as pedophile priests, harm a religion; or rogue police actions destroys public trust, or lying and manipulative civic leaders damage society as a whole. Does it mean my photography is directly affected, perhaps not. But once the seeds of suspicion are planted we all lose a bit,.... just my opinion, of course.

Fraud and lying are bad.

DeathArrow · Oct 26, 2020

Brev00 said:
Everyone is capable of ruining a photograph and no particularly technology is needed to do it. I suppose a lot of photographs that I consider ruined are well loved by the photographer and possible many admire him or her. When I scroll through Flickr images, I often notice that a pic I consider over processed in one way or another has a great number of faves and comments. I guess it is up to each photographer to determine what sort of photographs they want to create. Technology such as Luminar AI is available. Most will never know it exists. Some will play with it once in a blue moon (not sure if the moon will be fake or real). A few will make it a regular playground for their processing. It's not like a pandemic or something.

I remember than when software made HDR easy, there was a flood of awful looking HDR images, but people grew tired of it.

DeathArrow · Oct 26, 2020

BruceB609 said:
The older I get, the more accepting but I feel tuned into a certain wavelength that may go back several years, to a point where I could become rather fixed on a photographic period I'd like to reflect in my own portfolio.

I had a huge collection of National Geographic Magazines going back to 1918, through to the 1990's. There couldn't have been a better way to study how photography has evolved, let alone the graphics in advertising. In 1918, it was all black and white and of a quality that appeared like clear lubricants were smeared on the lens along with printing qualities of that time. I wonder how impressed my great grandparents were. The 1950's color appeared to use much of the same formula but now in color. By the end of the century, film was quite impressive but today's digital is stunningly further ahead. So, I ask, what will photography offer fifty years from now?

Bottom line is, we may as well be accepting but it's still enjoyable to tag our favorite times, looks and photo techniques as long as those favorite photo resources can last for us. My Rollei twin lens is gone, along with any D-76 developer and even my SCSI film scanner. I must admit, I love the current luxury of digital along with RAW processing with ACR. After all, I can now simulate 1918 ... with a different kind of skill!

I love documentary/travel photography as it was done in NG. But that will never be ruined by technology.

But as time passes, doing that kind of photography is both easier and harder. It's harder because unfortunately cultures change at a rapid pace, it's easier because people have more money and can travel much easier.

If that kind of photography will be ever ruined, it will be ruined because the subjects and the scene will disappear or because some type of shots will be quite common, like cigar smokers in Cuba, fake holly men posing for money in India, Buddhist "monks" posing for money in Laos. Fishers in Myanmar standing in one feet in their boats is a quite common photo in Flickr. As are bears catching fish in Alaska.

DeathArrow · Oct 26, 2020

MHshooter said:
All it does is allow people who are lazy and technically inept to take better images.

It will allow making, not taking of the images. And also, it will allow people with creativity and imagination to do their things easier.

MHshooter said:
Since the images might make it out into the world, it's probably a good idea. However, A.I. usually means substituting expected detail where there is none. That can be an issue.

I don't understand what you mean by that.

DeathArrow · Oct 26, 2020

Bing Chow said:
CMCM said:

Phil A Martin said:

But you'll always know that it's not your sky and I can't see how that won't niggle you every time you see it and diminish it compared to photographs where everything fell into place when you took it.

Click to expand...

Maybe to some extent. But I see it all as a process that might happen in stages. Besides, I shoot and collect my own skies and have over a hundred of them that I use occasionally in Luminar. So I actually did shoot all aspects of a photo in which I drop in a sky. When I see a great cloudy sky or great sunset, I love to shoot that. If I wanted to just record where I was at a particular time, anything would do. Shoot a scene and download it to your computer, perhaps print it "as is". Personally, I'm happier if all aspects of a scene come together....great scene, great light, great sky. That's the best. But it doesn't always happen and I'm happy to have options to improve things when necessary.

Click to expand...

As long as you are at peace, knowing that the scene that never existed, then that's fine.

Keep in mind that being true to the scene has nothing to do with accepting the image SOOC. A processed RAW image can still be true. It may be dodged and burned, it may have garbage cloned out, the white balance changed, displayed in B&W.....it is still true. But when a different sky is used, shoreline warped, showing one lonely tree when there were 5, animals added, light rays added, galaxies and moons moved to positions that can never be, then that is no longer realistic. The question is: Do we have to be truthful?

Do we have to be truthful? If your goal is to document, then yes. If your goal is to "create", to obtain a pleasing, interesting, artistic image, then no.

Bing Chow said:
Personally, I feel I owe it to the viewer to say that it is a composite. Unlike fantasy digital art, landscape photography generally shows our natural world as it is. And if the most cynical among us say, "well, that's your own damn fault for believing what you see," then I think that's sad. I want to know that our world is beautiful and fascinating. (and ugly and horrible too.) I want to believe that what I'm seeing happened in real life; that it is possible, that it is worth experiencing. If the artist discloses that the work is fictitious, then I will appreciate the work as such. Nothing wrong with that. But don't lie to me. Don't show me something that looks real, evoke a certain emotion in me, and then let me find out later that it was all faked. It's just underhanded.

If your goal is to record, to document the beauty of nature, then do that. If your goal is more artistic, than do that, too. Neither one is good or bad.

DeathArrow · Oct 26, 2020

lost alaskan said:
-I shoot and collect my own skies and have over a hundred of them that I use occasionally in Luminar.-

No comment.

So why did you felt the need to reply?

DeathArrow · Oct 26, 2020

JeremieB said:
What is becoming useless are the specific skills that used to be required to make photographs. No problem with that, but if you think those skills defined this specific art called photography, then we're moving to... something else. Nothing new here as you said

JeremieB said:

Aaron

Click to expand...

You mistake the process of recording an image with the process of creating an image.

DeathArrow · Oct 26, 2020

JeremieB said:
mamallama said:

MHshooter said:

All it does is allow people who are lazy and technically inept to take better images. Since the images might make it out into the world, it's probably a good idea. However, A.I. usually means substituting expected detail where there is none. That can be an issue.

Click to expand...

AI does not mean substituting anything fictitious. AI, as the term implies, is simply software programmed to make decisions based on sensor inputs that are normally done by a human operator

Like the AI in a self driving car drives the car based on the inputs from the multiple sensors you can see all over the car and the programmed the rules of the road and safety. Likewise, the AI in a smartphone uses the information it senses from the camera viewfinder to adjust the camera settings to produce an image based on the parameters and descriptions the designer programed in the camera. There is nothing magical; it is just the next level of decision making programmed in the camera.

Click to expand...

I think it's very limiting and rather erroneous to consider that modern neural networks based AI systems are just doing that, decision making, that's not true.

They CAN create completely new things out of old information. They CAN generate photorealistic images that even the greatest human painter on earth could not achieve. They are not "programmed". And as any software they do exist also to execute tasks that can't be executed by a human operator or that would take ages if performed by a human operator.

Don't take me wrong: I'm not against technology and progress, I studied AI systems in university and I am your basic tech geek. But I think humans should absolutely know and be informed about what a new tech really is about and what it can do, and then decide what to do with it ("decide" instead of always "let it happen").

I quite agree with you. I've also studied machine learning and AI in Uni, even at times that it wasn't fancy. I still use a bit of ML in my work and I like to be informed with what happens in the field. One of my pet projects is using AI for the game of poker.

I think people should be informed before using "AI", what are the limits, what are upsides, what are downsides, what can be the expected results.

Sometimes, ML is terribly useful. Take Sony Eye AF for example which is just some image recognition built on top of ML algorithms.

mamallama · Oct 26, 2020

JeremieB said:
mamallama said:

JeremieB said:

mamallama said:

MHshooter said:

All it does is allow people who are lazy and technically inept to take better images. Since the images might make it out into the world, it's probably a good idea. However, A.I. usually means substituting expected detail where there is none. That can be an issue.

Click to expand...

AI does not mean substituting anything fictitious. AI, as the term implies, is simply software programmed to make decisions based on sensor inputs that are normally done by a human operator

Like the AI in a self driving car drives the car based on the inputs from the multiple sensors you can see all over the car and the programmed the rules of the road and safety. Likewise, the AI in a smartphone uses the information it senses from the camera viewfinder to adjust the camera settings to produce an image based on the parameters and descriptions the designer programed in the camera. There is nothing magical; it is just the next level of decision making programmed in the camera.

Click to expand...

I think it's very limiting and rather erroneous to consider that modern neural networks based AI systems are just doing that, decision making, that's not true.

Click to expand...

Mine was a basic concept to illustrate what AI in photography are doing and is not just substituting expected detail where there is none.

Click to expand...

Again, that is not true, have a look at DeepPrime, when it's denoising a hugely noisy image it's actually substituting expected detail when there is almost none, and that's an example among others. There's no reason AI in photography tools would be limited to what you say.

You are twisting the meaning of just substituting expected detail where there is none. You are talking about changing detail which is common in any photo editing process.

JeremieB said:
JeremieB said:

It is in no way a complete description of what AI can do.

JeremieB said:

They CAN create completely new things out of old information.

Click to expand...

Many programs do that

Click to expand...

To the level of quality and automation that AI can: absolutely not. Anyway not my point.

JeremieB said:

JeremieB said:

They CAN generate photorealistic images that even the greatest human painter on earth could not achieve.

Click to expand...

Who's "they"? AI in current smartphones?

Click to expand...

Neural network based systems. What's your point with smartphones ?

The thread is about AI and photography and smartphones are devices that use AI with photography.

JeremieB said:
It can run just anywhere, in your smartphone in photoshop on your computer in your browser in the cloud...

JeremieB said:

JeremieB said:

They are not "programmed".

Click to expand...

The software has to be programmed initially.

Click to expand...

The algorithm that executes the task of interest (denoising, removing objects, filling blanks, whatever), its "intelligence" resides in one or many matrices of numbers. Nobody "programmed" those numbers. Most of the time nobody know what they "mean" - for image analysis though, sometimes we know a little. These are the result of a learning process and precisely we do this when implementing a proper algorithm to execute the task is too complex or not efficient.

JeremieB said:

JeremieB said:

And as any software they do exist also to execute tasks that can't be executed by a human operator or that would take ages if performed by a human operator.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is what software in computers do.

Click to expand...

You wrote "simply software programmed to make decisions based on sensor inputs that are normally done by a human operator".

Now you agree with the contrary ?

I stand by what I wrote. You don't seem to understand what I wrote based on the rest of your statements.

JeremieB said:
JeremieB said:

JeremieB said:

Don't take me wrong: I'm not against technology and progress, I studied AI systems in university and I am your basic tech geek.

Click to expand...

You are not the only one.

Click to expand...

Is there any other intent in this reply than contradict what I wrote at all cost ? Did I say anywhere I was the only one ?

JeremieB said:

JeremieB said:

But I think humans should absolutely know and be informed about what a new tech really is about and what it can do, and then decide what to do with it ("decide" instead of always "let it happen").

Click to expand...

Yes.

Click to expand...

DeathArrow · Oct 26, 2020

ivanka-xy said:
is it art only for using only hand made oil colors for painting ?

is it cheating to use "fast" acrylics and to not be art

same with this if u have art in you you will produce art with chalk or oil or tube paints

film ,digital, ai

Art means using your creativity and imagination to create something. As opposed to just recording something, which can't be art.

I've already expressed my opinion in other treads that merely recording something isn't art, no matter if people call it art.

ivanka-xy said:
when u look magazine covers u need to puke what they do to these pictures

fat ugly women with touch of cs is transformed to super sexy one ---art

bad composed image of old orchard with "help" of couple other even worst pics

composed to art image that win 1st places in competitions ---art

even these earth images from nasa composed of a toon of images create art painting

is it real world image not ,,but art

is that all art or not ?

If "product photography" and "food photography" would be true to life, would that help sales? You can say it's a lie.

Also the posters with politicians helping poor people.

ivanka-xy said:
art is final product of you mind

Of course it is. But that isn't enough.

ivanka-xy said:
,,it doesnt mind if you come to it by using chisel and hammer down half mountain or just press 20x mouse clicks

final result is what count and when ppl say uuuh aaahh love it u got reward ,,,,,,

If your purpose is to create art, then yes, final result is what matters. If your purpose is to record what happens, to document the reality, the the result also matter but in a very different way.

Phil A Martin · Oct 26, 2020

DeathArrow said:
Phil A Martin said:

CMCM said:

Phil A Martin said:

DeathArrow said:

CMCM wrote:

I don't have the newest Luminar AI, but I do have Luminar 4 with its quite amazing sky replacement feature,which I have found to be wonderful and very useful when used sparingly.

Why?

I'm not able to go to a chosen scenic spot at a moment's notice when the weather is perfect and interesting skies are present, it's hard to plan that. I can't go to a place and sit for days waiting and hoping for perfect or even interesting light or skies. I usually arrive somewhere for a day or two and that's my sole window for shooting that location. In so many instances I've gone somewhere hoping for a lot of nice landscapes and been disappointed by less than optimal weather conditions.

I recently shot photo in an incredibly well known and scenic oceanside spot. But when I got there, it was typically gray and overcast, and that type of sky made the photo fairly bland and uninteresting. I liked everything about my photo except the dull, bland sky.

A few months later when I got Luminar 4, I was able to find a great sky to add to my photo and now that bland photo has transformed into something I really like. I don't see this as "ruined photography" or some sort of "cheating" just because my finished photos aren't identical to SOOC images. Just as darkroom film processing and printing was a way to improve on a photo, so is this new software. People want to shoot RAW in order to get a better range of exposure correction to the image. It seems like some people insist the quality of a photo is limited to an SOOC image. If it's not good as the camera spits it out, then it's a fraud if you do anything to it. I don't agree with that. Photo software, like film printing, requires a degree of knowledge and skill. Not everyone has that, by the way. Some photos end up garish to my own particular taste, but the person who created that photo liked what he did and he wouldn't agree with my assessment of it.

I remember my photographer father spent hours in his darkroom, often reprinting photos numerous times as he tried different techniques and filters and other printing techniques to make the photos more like his vision of what he wanted them be. Was that any more "real" and more legitimate than software processing?

I think my father would absolutely LOVE the software processing we have today and its multitude of possibilities and speed of processing, something he never got to experience in his lifetime.

Click to expand...

But you'll always know that it's not your sky and I can't see how that won't niggle you every time you see it and diminish it compared to photographs where everything fell into place when you took it.

Click to expand...

Maybe to some extent. But I see it all as a process that might happen in stages. Besides, I shoot and collect my own skies and have over a hundred of them that I use occasionally in Luminar. So I actually did shoot all aspects of a photo in which I drop in a sky. When I see a great cloudy sky or great sunset, I love to shoot that. If I wanted to just record where I was at a particular time, anything would do. Shoot a scene and download it to your computer, perhaps print it "as is". Personally, I'm happier if all aspects of a scene come together....great scene, great light, great sky. That's the best. But it doesn't always happen and I'm happy to have options to improve things when necessary.

Click to expand...

Yes but a specific sky is a product of the microclimate derived from the landscape underneath it.

Click to expand...

Can you recognize the type of microclimate by looking at pictures of skies? If I show you a hundred image of skies, two of them shot in the same place, can you find those two?

DeathArrow said:

A sky photographed above a mountain range would not be the same as a sky taken at sea level.

Click to expand...

Are you sure about that? A sky can be modified by pollution, storms etc but those conditions can happen in many different places.

I live in a big city and the atmosphere is quite polluted. Yet, few times on year it happens that it is extremely clear so we can see mountains at more than 100 km away.

DeathArrow said:

Also the sky influences the quality of light falling on the land and if there is a mismatch between the two, it would just look wrong.

Click to expand...

Of course. That was one reason sky replacement wasn't extremely easy to be done in Photoshop. But Luminar 4 makes it easy to match the sky with environment perfectly.

DeathArrow said:

Now this might fool some people but anyone with an understanding of climate and the environment, would see right through it.

Click to expand...

If I present one hundred images, fifty with the sky replaced, fifty with the sky as it was, would you bet that you will able to spot in more than fifty if the sky was replaced or not?

That would depend on the photographs. If it was the work of Fay Godwin with her subtle observations of interrelationships between the weather and landscape, then yes. If it was from dozens of oversaturated and over sharpened melodramatic images, then I'd just dismiss the lot as kitsch.

Phil A Martin · Oct 26, 2020

DeathArrow said:
CMCM said:

Phil A Martin said:

DeathArrow said:

CMCM wrote:

I don't have the newest Luminar AI, but I do have Luminar 4 with its quite amazing sky replacement feature,which I have found to be wonderful and very useful when used sparingly.

Why?

I'm not able to go to a chosen scenic spot at a moment's notice when the weather is perfect and interesting skies are present, it's hard to plan that. I can't go to a place and sit for days waiting and hoping for perfect or even interesting light or skies. I usually arrive somewhere for a day or two and that's my sole window for shooting that location. In so many instances I've gone somewhere hoping for a lot of nice landscapes and been disappointed by less than optimal weather conditions.

I recently shot photo in an incredibly well known and scenic oceanside spot. But when I got there, it was typically gray and overcast, and that type of sky made the photo fairly bland and uninteresting. I liked everything about my photo except the dull, bland sky.

A few months later when I got Luminar 4, I was able to find a great sky to add to my photo and now that bland photo has transformed into something I really like. I don't see this as "ruined photography" or some sort of "cheating" just because my finished photos aren't identical to SOOC images. Just as darkroom film processing and printing was a way to improve on a photo, so is this new software. People want to shoot RAW in order to get a better range of exposure correction to the image. It seems like some people insist the quality of a photo is limited to an SOOC image. If it's not good as the camera spits it out, then it's a fraud if you do anything to it. I don't agree with that. Photo software, like film printing, requires a degree of knowledge and skill. Not everyone has that, by the way. Some photos end up garish to my own particular taste, but the person who created that photo liked what he did and he wouldn't agree with my assessment of it.

I remember my photographer father spent hours in his darkroom, often reprinting photos numerous times as he tried different techniques and filters and other printing techniques to make the photos more like his vision of what he wanted them be. Was that any more "real" and more legitimate than software processing?

I think my father would absolutely LOVE the software processing we have today and its multitude of possibilities and speed of processing, something he never got to experience in his lifetime.

Click to expand...

But you'll always know that it's not your sky and I can't see how that won't niggle you every time you see it and diminish it compared to photographs where everything fell into place when you took it.

Click to expand...

Maybe to some extent. But I see it all as a process that might happen in stages. Besides, I shoot and collect my own skies and have over a hundred of them that I use occasionally in Luminar. So I actually did shoot all aspects of a photo in which I drop in a sky. When I see a great cloudy sky or great sunset, I love to shoot that. If I wanted to just record where I was at a particular time, anything would do. Shoot a scene and download it to your computer, perhaps print it "as is". Personally, I'm happier if all aspects of a scene come together....great scene, great light, great sky. That's the best. But it doesn't always happen and I'm happy to have options to improve things when necessary.

Click to expand...

Well, if everything falls into place and you just push the button documenting what happens, where is the imagination in that process, where is the creativity? Not that documenting is bad, but recording, documenting and creating are different processes. One can like one, can like the other or can like the both. I don't see anything bad in either approach.

The creativity is in the observation and assessment of what can be created and what you intend to say about the landscape. Its what photographs are all about. Sure you can splice in skies and anything you like but don't call it photography. Call it digital art or something and then we can judge it as such, accepting or dismissing it depending on the vision displayed in the image.

Sadly though, I suspect that the vast majority of those who would purchase such software, are the sort who'd want to pose as landscape photographers but don't want to put in the time and effort to become one. To be fair, on the whole they're cheating nobody but themselves but how it must hurt when they see truly great landscape photographers who produce amazing images without the need for digital trickery. A bit like comparing truly great singers and those who have to rely on autotune to hit a note.

DeathArrow · Oct 26, 2020

Phil A Martin said:
DeathArrow said:

CMCM said:

Phil A Martin said:

Phil A Martin said:

CMCM wrote:

I don't have the newest Luminar AI, but I do have Luminar 4 with its quite amazing sky replacement feature,which I have found to be wonderful and very useful when used sparingly.

Why?

I'm not able to go to a chosen scenic spot at a moment's notice when the weather is perfect and interesting skies are present, it's hard to plan that. I can't go to a place and sit for days waiting and hoping for perfect or even interesting light or skies. I usually arrive somewhere for a day or two and that's my sole window for shooting that location. In so many instances I've gone somewhere hoping for a lot of nice landscapes and been disappointed by less than optimal weather conditions.

I recently shot photo in an incredibly well known and scenic oceanside spot. But when I got there, it was typically gray and overcast, and that type of sky made the photo fairly bland and uninteresting. I liked everything about my photo except the dull, bland sky.

A few months later when I got Luminar 4, I was able to find a great sky to add to my photo and now that bland photo has transformed into something I really like. I don't see this as "ruined photography" or some sort of "cheating" just because my finished photos aren't identical to SOOC images. Just as darkroom film processing and printing was a way to improve on a photo, so is this new software. People want to shoot RAW in order to get a better range of exposure correction to the image. It seems like some people insist the quality of a photo is limited to an SOOC image. If it's not good as the camera spits it out, then it's a fraud if you do anything to it. I don't agree with that. Photo software, like film printing, requires a degree of knowledge and skill. Not everyone has that, by the way. Some photos end up garish to my own particular taste, but the person who created that photo liked what he did and he wouldn't agree with my assessment of it.

I remember my photographer father spent hours in his darkroom, often reprinting photos numerous times as he tried different techniques and filters and other printing techniques to make the photos more like his vision of what he wanted them be. Was that any more "real" and more legitimate than software processing?

I think my father would absolutely LOVE the software processing we have today and its multitude of possibilities and speed of processing, something he never got to experience in his lifetime.

Click to expand...

But you'll always know that it's not your sky and I can't see how that won't niggle you every time you see it and diminish it compared to photographs where everything fell into place when you took it.

Click to expand...

Maybe to some extent. But I see it all as a process that might happen in stages. Besides, I shoot and collect my own skies and have over a hundred of them that I use occasionally in Luminar. So I actually did shoot all aspects of a photo in which I drop in a sky. When I see a great cloudy sky or great sunset, I love to shoot that. If I wanted to just record where I was at a particular time, anything would do. Shoot a scene and download it to your computer, perhaps print it "as is". Personally, I'm happier if all aspects of a scene come together....great scene, great light, great sky. That's the best. But it doesn't always happen and I'm happy to have options to improve things when necessary.

Click to expand...

Well, if everything falls into place and you just push the button documenting what happens, where is the imagination in that process, where is the creativity? Not that documenting is bad, but recording, documenting and creating are different processes. One can like one, can like the other or can like the both. I don't see anything bad in either approach.

Click to expand...

The creativity is in the observation and assessment

Observation and assessment has nothing creative in it.

Phil A Martin said:
Sadly though, I suspect that the vast majority of those who would purchase such software, are the sort who'd want to pose as landscape photographers but don't want to put in the time and effort to become one.

Why would someone like to pass as a person documenting the nature? It's not e terrible hard thing tot do if you fancy that.

Phil A Martin said:
To be fair, on the whole they're cheating nobody but themselves but how it must hurt when they see truly great landscape photographers who produce amazing images without the need for digital trickery. A bit like comparing truly great singers and those who have to rely on autotune to hit a note.

You can't compare a landscape snapper and an artist. One is recording, the other is creating something.

Photography is ruined again

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts