Sky replacement tool in Photoshop

[MDM]

3 hours ago, sb photos said:

I've never replaced a sky, but now have an image where I'll experiment replacing a bland blue sky with a black menacing one. When shooting skies for potential later use, do you shoot at a range of different iso's to match the iso of the image it could be used with, or simply shoot at the lowest practicable iso?

 

I have not done any sky replacements as yet with the Photoshop tool but it certainly looks impressive from a quick play. It seems to be so good that great skies will become the norm everywhere and one will have to provide evidence in the form of the raw file that one's fantastic skies are actually original. 😎

 

For shooting skies I would use the lowest ISO possible, as skies tend to show noise for two reasons. Firstly, noise is always most evident in large bland areas. Secondly, the blue channel is always the noisiest in an RGB image. I would also be inclined to use a wide aperture to minimise visibility of any sensor dust spots. Critical sharpness is not so important for skies so wide apertures should be fine. 

[Allan Bell]

1 hour ago, MDM said:

 

I have not done any sky replacements as yet with the Photoshop tool but it certainly looks impressive from a quick play. It seems to be so good that great skies will become the norm everywhere and one will have to provide evidence in the form of the raw file that one's fantastic skies are actually original. 😎

 

For shooting skies I would use the lowest ISO possible, as skies tend to show noise for two reasons. Firstly, noise is always most evident in large bland areas. Secondly, the blue channel is always the noisiest in an RGB image. I would also be inclined to use a wide aperture to minimise visibility of any sensor dust spots. Critical sharpness is not so important for skies so wide apertures should be fine. 

 

Just a little warning here. I have taken images of skies for the clouds, sun etc. And some failed QC for not being sharp. I could not see the difference between the images that passed and those that failed, all looked the same to me.

 

I have never seen a sharp cloud either.

 

Allan

 

[Ed Rooney]

A good tip, Allan. 

 

The mistake I see in most cloud replacement images, is a mismatch with the main images. 

[Jill Morgan]

1 hour ago, Ed Rooney said:

A good tip, Allan. 

 

The mistake I see in most cloud replacement images, is a mismatch with the main images. 

 

So true Ed.  I have seen many where the light source has not been matched up.  Or there is water and reflection doesn't match the sky. This is especially evident in scenes with still water.

 

Jill

[sb photos]

Thanks for the tips, I shall have to start accumulating a collection of skies, and then experiment with Photoshop.

Edited May 12, 2021 by sb photos

[Betty LaRue]

I’ve scoped out a place I can drive to with fairly open sky. I’ve driven there a few times to get great sky images. Still on the lookout for more.

[Betty LaRue]

I almost hate to post this one, because Steve praised the image in the new uploads thread. It made me feel like an imposture to not disclose the sky replacement.

Ok, Steve, I’m fessing up. This is my own sky, discovered through trolling through old images. The original sky in the image wasn’t nice, very bland.

This photo was taken in 2009, a part of my project of going through my exterior HDs and DVDs. The new sky makes it so much more dramatic.

 

[Michael Ventura]

15 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

I almost hate to post this one, because Steve praised the image in the new uploads thread. It made me feel like an imposture to not disclose the sky replacement.

Ok, Steve, I’m fessing up. This is my own sky, discovered through trolling through old images. The original sky in the image wasn’t nice, very bland.

This photo was taken in 2009, a part of my project of going through my exterior HDs and DVDs. The new sky makes it so much more dramatic.

 

 

When I first saw it, I figured it was a replaced sky as it doesn't match up with the light hitting the trees.  But honestly I don't care...this is not a news image and in the old days you could mark it as digitally altered but Alamy took that away.  

[Ed Rooney]

I like that picture, Betty, and I agree with Michael. With News, you should submit all photos as they come out of the camera. Stock is a very different story.

[Betty LaRue]

Why I thought it would work is because there are holes in the clouds. One cannot see whether there was a hole or a space where I was standing or behind me, allowing the sun to hit the trees. You cannot see what wasn’t photographed, overhead or behind. I think that’s what Steve probably thought, but I don’t know.

[MDM]

58 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

Why I thought it would work is because there are holes in the clouds. One cannot see whether there was a hole or a space where I was standing or behind me, allowing the sun to hit the trees. You cannot see what wasn’t photographed, overhead or behind. I think that’s what Steve probably thought, but I don’t know.

 

I don't think it could be realistic as there is a rim light on the clouds and what look like crepuscular rays indicating that the sun is low in the sky behind the clouds so could not be shining on the mountain face. But it's a great picture. It doesn't have to be realistic.

[John Mitchell]

On 12/11/2020 at 09:07, MizBrown said:

 This is the first one I've submitted and one of the keywords is "sky replacement."  

 

 

I think that was the right thing to do. Personally, I no longer trust landscape photographers, but I guess that's my problem. 🙈