Replacing Bland Skies In Photoshop

[Gazza]

....Every time i see a nice sky, I take a photo and file it away under "skies"....

I do a very similar thing...just realised I spelt 'Skies' wrong! OK, now I do the same thing...
We should have a buy sell or exchange one day

[Plays With Light]

Sorry, I might have expressed that badly. The special group is for teaching members how to do it, not for a separate comp! They accept anything in comps, basically because there's no way of drawing a line in the sand between a modified image and one straight out of the camera.

I remember being struck by an excerpt from the comp rules of a club in NSW a few years back. It said something like "We know that pigs don't fly, but if you take the photo of the pig and you also photograph the wings then put them both together, then that's fine by us!"

I had a conversation here a while back, and also with another club member with a string of letters after her name - because I was concerned that today's filters introduce things into images that are not real. Both effectively said that there were no boundaries any more. I tend to think that there are boundaries, but I'm not sure where that line should or could be drawn, or how you'd police it. It's a can of worms if ever i saw one !!!

My misunderstanding, Bob. It certainly is an interesting one, with Photoshop composites in the right hands being impossible to tell. Whether they should be judged against folks that prefer the straight out of camera look and approach is a conundrum indeed. I seem to be amongst a minority on the interwebz these days that doesn't really enjoy colour images with the selective artificially and overly lit or the unrealistically illuminated images that are loved by so many. They tend to look too CGI for my eye, rather than photo-realistic, but each to their own I guess. When it comes to B&W long exposures, I do enjoy the unrealistic lighting that is the current trend for it. And that's the beauty of photography, that everyone can explore and further refine what they enjoy about it.

[Gazza]

...I have Jimmy's Luminosity Masking plugin, but am yet to use it...

Did ya get 'InstaMask' as well? Think it came free if you had already paid out for 'Raya Pro'

I'm now finding 'InstaMask' slightly easier to use as long as ya don't want to radically change things, just enhance what's there.


Cheers -

[Plays With Light]

Did ya get 'InstaMask' as well? Think it came free if you had already paid out for 'Raya Pro'

I'm now finding 'InstaMask' slightly easier to use as long as ya don't want to radically change things, just enhance what's there.


Cheers -

I haven't grabbed InstaMask as yet, Gazza, but can get it for free as you mentioned. One day, when I feel a lot more confident with Photoshop I'll play and learn how to use them to full advantage.

[bobt]

My misunderstanding, Bob. It certainly is an interesting one, with Photoshop composites in the right hands being impossible to tell. Whether they should be judged against folks that prefer the straight out of camera look and approach is a conundrum indeed. I seem to be amongst a minority on the interwebz these days that doesn't really enjoy colour images with the selective artificially and overly lit or the unrealistically illuminated images that are loved by so many. They tend to look too CGI for my eye, rather than photo-realistic, but each to their own I guess. When it comes to B&W long exposures, I do enjoy the unrealistic lighting that is the current trend for it. And that's the beauty of photography, that everyone can explore and further refine what they enjoy about it.

Yup ... the whole range of options available to us is mind boggling. I think photography must have a broader capacity than just about any other hobby. Young or old, fit or handicapped - there is something for everyone. Except young attractive nudes .... my wife has an embargo on those.

[feathers]

Well blended around the rocks. The only problem is the ocean is reflecting a much brighter sky than is now above it.

How did l miss that? Thanks Hamster

- - - Updated - - -

Yup ... the whole range of options available to us is mind boggling. I think photography must have a broader capacity than just about any other hobby. Young or old, fit or handicapped - there is something for everyone. Except young attractive nudes .... my wife has an embargo on those.

LOL

[Mark L]

Why is the white sky any more bland than the sky you replaced it with??
Brighten the eye a bit to help draw attention away from the sky.

[Plays With Light]

Why is the white sky any more bland than the sky you replaced it with??
Brighten the eye a bit to help draw attention away from the sky.

I personally find white or grey skies more boring than blue ones and then find plain blue skies more boring than blue skies with clouds.
I did briefly wonder about lightening the eyes. Thanks for the confirmation that I should have, Mark.

[Cage]

I found this very helpful tute by Steve Patterson great because he takes you through the process step by step. http://www.photoshopessentials.com/p...g/replace-sky/

[Plays With Light]

I found this very helpful tute by Steve Patterson great because he takes you through the process step by step. http://www.photoshopessentials.com/p...g/replace-sky/

Thanks for linking to that one, Kev, it seems to be very effective using the 'Blend if Blue' feature! I'll definitely give it a try, now to create a library of cloud images to draw upon.

[Cage]

Thanks for linking to that one, Kev, it seems to be very effective using the 'Blend if Blue' feature! I'll definitely give it a try, now to create a library of cloud images to draw upon.

I'm about to do the same and was thinking I'll have to do them at different times of the day and multiple directions to allow shadows to look right.

[Plays With Light]

I'm about to do the same and was thinking I'll have to do them at different times of the day and multiple directions to allow shadows to look right.

Good point, Kev. Wouldn't want the light on the clouds to be coming from a different direction to the subject of the image!

[ameerat42]

I didn't notice that mentioned in the tutorial.
(Is that because it goes without saying? Pretty important point, IMO.)

[Cage]

Good point, Kev. Wouldn't want the light on the clouds to be coming from a different direction to the subject of the image!

I was also thinking about how to name the files so I can find the appropriate one when I want it. Like 'AugNW1600' taken in August, facing North West at 4pm.

[Dan05]

I found this very helpful tute by Steve Patterson great because he takes you through the process step by step. http://www.photoshopessentials.com/p...g/replace-sky/

Thanks mate


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[enseth]

I came across this tutorial today. It works really well. It uses the channels in PS. No fringing or other artifacts. So good I thought it was worth sharing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHo9...em-subs_digest

[Plays With Light]

I came across this tutorial today. It works really well. It uses the channels in PS. No fringing or other artifacts. So good I thought it was worth sharing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHo9...em-subs_digest

That's interesting, Enseth, thanks for sharing it with us.

I discovered this new tutorial from Serge Ramelli which uses the 'Multiply' blend mode and is really simple and quick, but so effective.

[ameerat42]

...which uses the 'Multiply' blend mode and is really simple and quick, but so effective...

But not for everything. AFAICT, Multiply "multiplies" the "value of the pixel" by itself, so...
Brights > brighter
Mids > "Midder" (actually a bit darker).
Darks > darker.

That brights > Brighter and darks > darker could lead to blown highlights or irretrievable shadows.

[Plays With Light]

But not for everything. AFAICT, Multiply "multiplies" the "value of the pixel" by itself, so...
Brights > brighter
Mids > "Midder" (actually a bit darker).
Darks > darker.

That brights > Brighter and darks > darker could lead to blown highlights or irretrievable shadows.

Thanks for the warning, AM, I tried this 'Multiply' blend technique today with a couple of different skies and had no blown out sections, but I'll definitely keep an eye on it in the future.

[NikonNellie]

I have replaced the sky in one of my bird photos with a gradient but I have also used sky images in some of my portraiture. You can buy sets of skies on the web or you can photograph your own to make it cheaper. Just one thing to remember when you do use an image of the sky that you make sure the tones in the rest of the image match the ones in the sky. When purchase some sky images they come with a photoshop action to help with placement and blending.

The image below had a horrible grey sky (it was taken in England). I chose a sky image that had similar tones to the lavender and the grass and then used a photoshop action to warm up the skin tones in the portrait.

_DSC5984-Edit copy.jpg