• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Using Pre-Packaged “looks” and replacing skies provided by Adobe et all?

Nicolas Claris

Administrator/Moderator
This is of course a brilliant shot and much better than the crazy and stupid new function in Photoshop to change a sky in a photo…
Soon all amateur (and maybe some pro :-( ) will look the same with the same skies proposed by Adobe…
Now should I wish so (which I really don't!) I could steal your skies and use them for my landscapes…
Need I say that I hate that this function exists ?

Before:
Reignac_NCL5490_A.jpg


Filter (menu Edit/Change sky):

ciel.jpg


After:

Reignac_NCL5490_B.jpg


Of course for this post I used a sky proposed by Adobe and did not steal yours (as it is possible to import in the filter a sky from any other photo)
 

Attachments

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Nicolas,

Even setting the black and white points or an S-curve is creating fiction. We also do not “see” an entire scene but remember what we saw as we pay attention and recruit more information.

So thinking of a different sky is possible and all you do is express that. Nothing is the truth anyway, unless you are fastidious and reproduce the exact contrast and hues of the original scene which is neither possible nor desirable!

But to some, changing the sky is cheating. But my answer is that so is wearing a suit or lipstick: we disguise our appearance and that is normal.

whst is wrong is altering a picture to deceive when selling an item or claiming from an insurance company.

Do you feel guilt when you photography a model on your boat with make up? Not at all!

So the sky is no different!

You are presenting a fantasy, sogo for it!

Asher
 

Nicolas Claris

Administrator/Moderator
Nicolas,

Even setting the black and white points or an S-curve is creating fiction. We also do not “see” an entire scene but remember what we saw as we pay attention and recruit more information.

So thinking of a different sky is possible and all you do is express that. Nothing is the truth anyway, unless you are fastidious and reproduce the exact contrast and hues of the original scene which is neither possible nor desirable!

But to some, changing the sky is cheating. But my answer is that so is wearing a suit or lipstick: we disguise our appearance and that is normal.

whst is wrong is altering a picture to deceive when selling an item or claiming from an insurance company.

Do you feel guilt when you photography a model on your boat with make up? Not at all!

So the sky is no different!

You are presenting a fantasy, sogo for it!

Asher
Then one become an illustrator, not a photographer anymore… Sky is the limit!
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Then one become an illustrator, not a photographer anymore… Sky is the limit!
Then all photographers, except forensic photographers are then “illustrators” as we ALL alter the light distribution to our taste to create the reality we imagine. you too must in the end, admit:

THAT IS ILLUSTRATION, not honest reporting!

Asher
 

Jim Galli

Member
Will all of this ultimately increase the value of a silver based 8X10 contact print? Of course, those are black and white which is also fiction.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
We are approaching a major breakthrough with the advent of Gigapixel cameras, with automatic depth layering and the dynamic range of each pixel.

Ultimately, genuine Black and White silver gelatin and Polaroids will be treasured and are a good investment for grandchildren!

I expect my 20” x 24” Polaroids to be worth a lot!

Asher
 

Nicolas Claris

Administrator/Moderator
Then all photographers, except forensic photographers are then “illustrators” as we ALL alter the light distribution to our taste to create the reality we imagine. you too must in the end, admit:

THAT IS ILLUSTRATION, not honest reporting!

Asher
You don't understand me…
What I don't like is Adobe providing theses skies.
This destroys one's creativity.
If you have in mind a different sky for one of your shot, you go fetching it and wait for the right sky (to your mind) to capture it.
Then it becomes YOUR creativity and work which is shown at the end. It is YOUR sky, the one you wanted and seeked for.
This reminds me of all these filters in cell phones and all kids using them, all their photos have similar aspect. Stupid.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
You don't understand me…
What I don't like is Adobe providing theses skies.
This destroys one's creativity.
I agree!

If you have in mind a different sky for one of your shot, you go fetching it and wait for the right sky (to your mind) to capture it.
|

|

Then it becomes YOUR creativity and work which is shown at the end. It is YOUR sky, the one you wanted and SEARCHED[sic] for.
|

Do you mean it’s OK to add your own sky from your library.

Because if I fly to South Africa and take pictures of a warrior and now have to go back to the USA, may I use clouds from New York or Kuwait in my warrior picture because that’s what my client needs?

OR, must I fly back to South Africa and retake the picture when there clouds are there as I want, hope for and need?

I would love to know your opinion here as it’s practical. One can only book a flight to South Africa and hope to find that warrior in native costume again, but the clouds bring there too? That’s a lot to hope for!

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
This reminds me of all these filters in cell phones and all kids using them, all their photos have similar aspect. Stupid.
Actually, with the right filters, like, “portrait”, “clarity”, “mist” or “B&W”, they can learn a lot!

But I agree, giving “Mickey Mouse” ears or “bright teeth” to everyone becomes boring!

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
But, Nicolas do you ever alter hue, saturation, S-curve, exposure, contrast and create “the look” you like to present to the world?

After all, you must admit, that, ANYWAY, the hues and contrast curves of a picture depends on what Pentax, Leica, Hasselblad or Fuji does with their delivery of Sony sensors!


But, Nicolas do you ever alter contrast and “the look”?

After all, the hues and contrast curves of a picture depends on what Pentax, Leica, Hasselblad or Fuji does with their delivery of Sony sensors!

Why must we pretend that what we capture is the truth?

Admittedly it can be evidence for military, scientific or forensic research. It can be used in court.

But the “LOOK”, the esthetic qualities that we bring out in post processing a RAW files, are our INTERPRETATION and an illustration of our own fantasy and creativity.

Ten different professionals would end up with ten different prints from the same RAW file!

Asher
 

Nicolas Claris

Administrator/Moderator
Ten different professionals would end up with ten different prints from the same RAW file!
Asher
That's fine! because they will use their own creativity and then there would be 10 different images!
They achieve that with their own intent! not tone provided by Adobe.
Adobe should keepproviding tools to edit hues and contrast curves and whatsoever. But not ready made recipes…
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
That's fine! because they will use their own creativity and then there would be 10 different images!
They achieve that with their own intent! not tone provided by Adobe.
Adobe should keepproviding tools to edit hues and contrast curves and whatsoever. But not ready made recipes…
That makes sense, Nicolas. You just are against Adobe/On1 giving you and “Adobe” it “On1” skies!

But is it OK for you to replace the sky of the day with last weeks sky in Marseilles, perhaps?

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Nicolas se plaint de Adobe? Voilà:

A pity, in the linked video, he talks too fast for me to understand, but I have read about him: a good man!

He started a free food kitchen!

I have to listen to more French so I can understand fast everyday casual speech!

Asher
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
A pity, in the linked video, he talks too fast for me to understand
The small quote means: "If only people stopped buying such stuff, they would stop making it. What a shame!".

Of course Nicolas cannot stop buying Adobe products (which is a problem in its own right), but I am sure he understood the little joke.
 

Cem_Usakligil

Well-known member
Bonjour Nicolas,

I think the reason Adobe felt obliged to introduce this function is because of the market pressure they are experiencing from the likes of Luminar 4/AI software, which does this and much more automatically. There is a huge market for anything which has the appendix AI nowadays. In the past decade, we saw photography become the domain of every person with a mobile phone, no longer just for the photography enthusiasts. But using Photoshop to replace a sky (which has been possible for decades) has been restricted to the elite group who could afford PS and knew how to use it properly. What we are now experiencing is that this domain is also being taken over by the masses, thanks to the Luminar-like software which offers ready made solutions to people who don't know anything about PS. This trend has become visible to me in the past 2 years. One example is Topaz. Previously they used to have filters with extensive manual controls, now they have AI filters with one or two sliders. And I am afraid that this is an avalanche which will not stop any time soon. First, people could take photos with phones, now they can post process them like pros. And of course Adobe had to play along with the demand from the masses. Replacing a sky easily is useful for some professions, such as real estate agents. And if they can do it easily, why not.

Regarding your comments that Adobe should not have included skies already in their product. I agree. I have a sky/cloud catalog of my own photos and if I ever need to replace anything, that is what I use. I don't need to use the stock images of Adobe which will be recurring in million other photos on the net. But for 95% of the people who only post to social media, they couldn't care less. Should we blame Adobe for trying to milk this? Perhaps. But it is and has been a commercial enterprise, so everything goes.

Just my 2 cents anyway.
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
In the past decade, we saw photography become the domain of every person with a mobile phone, no longer just for the photography enthusiasts.
Well... photography has become the domain of every person since the founding of Kodak by George Eastman in 1888. Such was the objective (pun...) of that company and it was enormously successful for over a century.
Now: I am not saying you are wrong, on the contrary. Adobe sees the market of "every person" and offers them what they want to make "good photographs" and good taste be banned if it does not improve revenue. Which is the actual meaning of what I cited from Coluche: because people buy it in large numbers, it is manufactured. If only they did not, what a shame.
 
Last edited:

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
But we benefit in the end too. The advanced technologies that allows protection of shadows and highlights are financed by competition on a Giga market scale that never could be allocated to pro cameras as readily.

But we will benefit with more robust files and tools to get the presentation we wish.

Asher
 

Nicolas Claris

Administrator/Moderator
Regarding your comments that Adobe should not have included skies already in their product. I agree. I have a sky/cloud catalog of my own photos and if I ever need to replace anything, that is what I use. I don't need to use the stock images of Adobe which will be recurring in million other photos on the net.
Hi Cem
My point, precisely!
 
Top