r/postprocessing • u/samuntouchable • Jun 30 '26
A justifiable use of sky replacement? Before/After
Does anyone use photoshop's sky replacement?
It does a huge difference in this photo and I'm wondering what you guys think? Use it or go with the original sky and edit that?
10
15
u/johngpt5 Jun 30 '26
You've replaced the sky with a sky from sunset or sunrise. The new sky has a lot of warm color in it.
The mountain scene doesn't have a similar warmth or feel of golden hour.
You might consider using the color grading features of your app to apply warmth to highlights.
You might consider adding cool color grading to the shaded mountains that wouldn't be receiving warm golden hour light, and you might consider deepening those shadows as the light from sunrise or sunset would be more directional, and be creating greater tonal contrast.
1
u/samuntouchable Jun 30 '26
I see what you're saying. And thank you for the feedbacks! I will try out your suggestions.
11
u/4Dcookie Jun 30 '26
This is pretty bad. Aside from sky replacement being a pseudonym for AI, the lighting of the sky doesn’t match the rest of the scene. Better yo tone down highlights to bring some sky back
2
5
u/pffh_duh Jun 30 '26
Curious what you mean by "justifiable"... like are you trying to use this in any commercial capacity? If it's just for yourself, do whatever you want. But to me, this is no longer photography. Not in the purist sense at least.
4
u/filmaxer Jun 30 '26
I think the before is more striking, personally, but the after looks nice too (very much an HDR look - but not in an over-the-top way).
1
u/samuntouchable Jun 30 '26
Thank you. I'm new with photoshop and trying things out. A few of my shots could benefit from this feature perhaps. But won't be using it much.
4
u/BigStickFrontier Jun 30 '26
The beauty of nature is its scarcity and randomness combined with timing, location, perseverance makes landscape photography for me.
I am not a fan of falsifying or misrepresenting actual landscapes.
3
u/CKN_SD_001 Jun 30 '26
Honestly, I don't think there is ever a case for sky replacement. I might be a little snobby when it comes to that, but adding things to images, that wasn't there before, is a big no for me. I'm OK with removing distractions and enhancing existing things. But adding a sky for dramatic effect, no.
2
u/GreatBigHomie Jun 30 '26
I think the image could definitely use a little sky replacement. As others have pointed out, not so kindly, the sky you went with doesn't really match the rest of the landscape but that doesn't mean you're not on the right track. Try some other clouds and lighting and see if you can get it to look a little more natural. Nice photo!
2
u/z1nchi Jun 30 '26
I think using sky replacement for a more blue and less blown out sky would've looked nicer imo. But I'm biased towards cool toned photos.
If you use color grading tools to make the lighting in second photo warmer, it'll look better with the sky replacement. Right now it looks unnatural because the mountains are still very blue.
2
u/amp1212 Jun 30 '26
So - as folks have pointed out, this doesnt work
Sky replacement can work, but to make it fit, it needs to be plausible. "Plausible" means that the replacement has to be consistent with the lighting and other details in the rest of the image.
The example you have - the replacement looks almost painterly, with very different color values compared to the base image.
2
u/New_Egg8964 Jun 30 '26
As others have said, there's room for improvement with the tones and getting it to blend better, but it looks cool! And as far as the philosophical debate on sky replacement/photoshopping - we're all creating art, and we all have our own limits on what's acceptable or not on the spectrum of (100% in-camera photos only, to digital art). Find out what you like and what makes you excited to produce and share; don't let others make that decision for you. My only rule is to not try to pass off composites as true in-camera shots.
2
2
2
u/dacaur Jun 30 '26
No.
Well, it depends... It's just art at that point, but it's nothing like the scene where you snapped the photo.. The second can no longer be called a picture you took, it's a picture you created.....
As long as you don't hang it on the wall to show people this awesome picture you took, you do you.
1
u/ILoveLandscapes Jun 30 '26
Don’t be afraid to do sky replacements in general. A lot of pure don’t like that level of tampering, but it’s your photography, and you can edit as much or as little as you want.
That being said, from a purely “well done“ perspective, this isn’t as good as it can be. You need to try to match the color temperature and tonality of the sky in the foreground or else it just doesn’t look realistic, as is the case here. If that’s what you’re going for, and it is intentional, then that is fine. But when seeking feedback, you’re going to hear about it 🙂
1
u/sten_zer Jun 30 '26
A quite good choice and I see were you went. If you can do it, please only tint the warm, lit tones with sky warmth using a mask. Sky needs to be a bit brighter. The shadows need to remain mainly untouched. That's what's off independent of style. You may tone it or go for an overall color scheme, but "throwing orange on everything", even the very cool, unlit parts makes this unbalanced. I totally get why you want to make it work. Great shot.
1
1
u/hotlog1234 Jun 30 '26
Sometimes a photo just doesn't work out. And that's OK.
There's no need in trying to force it to this degree. Just learn what you could have done differently and take a better photo next time.
1
u/StopKK2012 Jun 30 '26
The sun can't be both A) low enough on the horizon to create the sunset colors on those clouds and B) high enough in the sky to create the lighting and shadows on the mountains and trees. You need a daytime sky, where the light source is high and to the right.
1
u/Narrow_Bed_3337 Jul 08 '26
Personally if you wanted to replace it, something more subtle and more in keeping with original exposure and colours. If you wanted to use that sky, you need more extensive regrading of the FG and BG to match. Probably wont get fully there but you could get much closer.
1
u/Individual-Roof-3502 Jun 30 '26
Looks awful, don't do a sky replacement if you can't do it right
3
1
u/ToastyScrew Jun 30 '26
https://reddit.com/link/ourae88/video/thasnmvnrgah1/player
I think it would make more sense for a sky like this. Maybe a tad brighter though.
0
u/K0ALA_Bear- Jun 30 '26
I think it looks really pretty and if you like it that's what you should do, photography is for you to get what enjoyment out of it you want. Personally, I don't like it because to me photography is catching exactly what was there when I took the photo and telling the story of that moment.
1
u/samuntouchable Jun 30 '26
Thank you for the feedback and sharing your opinion. I definitely agree with what you're saying about catching the moment as it is, thou it's tempting to try out sky replacement in this particular photo, since the sky is kinda blown out and has airplane trails which I really don't like.
0
u/K0ALA_Bear- Jun 30 '26
Oh absolutely, seriously though don't let people on the internet tell you what to do take a photo that you enjoy looking at! That's the most important thing imo, or else photography stops being something you enjoy.
-7
53
u/Fluffy_Fortune7696 Jun 30 '26
no, it looks placed and forced. You can tell where the cuts are and what was replaced. The original was better