How far should you actually go in post-processing a landscape photograph?
Now, more than ever, there are so many ways to aesthetically improve a landscape photo. Many landscape photographers say that the process of producing a near-perfect landscape photograph is often under-estimated and under-appreciated. With the challenges presented by the location, the weather condition, and the limitations of the gear that you use, producing a masterfully done landscape photograph indeed is much harder than it looks.
A couple of days ago, Elia Locardi announced the release of his “Epic Sunsets sky pack”, a library of beautiful photographs of skies that can be utilized royalty-free by any photographer for them to use on their own images through sky replacement. The process of which is one of the things that Skylum’s post processing software, Luminar 4, is best known for. This announcement, however, wasn’t received very well by some of Locardi’s followers for an obvious and well-debated reason.
Does Replacing the Sky Make You Less of a Photographer?
A lot of opinions were thrown around in Locardi’s Instagram post and don’t get me wrong, as I have labeled them as opinion, I believe that they are all (well, most) valid. To many landscape photographers, the purist idea of keeping their images true to a single exposure, or at least accurate to what was present during the time of the exposure can be considered sacred. To others, any method is valid in order to produce the output that they envision. The backbone of this never-ending debate is obviously due to a difference in opinion and inability to acknowledge and respect that difference. So, let’s explore the two sides of the coin.
Should Landscape Photography Be Accurate?
I personally have heard many people ask such a question and most purists seem to be imposing and adhering to something similar. For them, the craft of landscape photography mostly lies on the act of capturing a scene and depends mostly on “getting it right in-camera”. The goal of getting things right upon the moment of exposure mainly stems from the general aversion towards editing or post-processing. This frame of mind may be coming from a pre-programmed notion that editing is some sort of cheating and that having to edit your photos makes you a mediocre photographer.
I think it may be true for most photographers that we all somehow went through a phase when heavy editing and even combining two photos into one image felt so taboo. For a hobbyist landscape photographer, especially one who is very passionate about going to different locations, being there at the right time to, being able to have everything in it’s perfect place, and capturing that scene of perfection, the idea of making heavy and abrupt adjustments to a photo might seem over-the-top and against their own personal art-ethics.
Personally, I must admit that for a good fraction of my journey as a landscape photographer, I made constant effort to veer away from heavy post-processing. For quite some time, I wouldn’t even entertain the thought of learning how to create composites or even a simple sky replacement. But then again, that might just be lazy old me making excuses.
When Reality Hinders Vision
It was when I started doing professional work as an architecture and real estate photographer that I opened my mind to learning heavier editing and compositing. In the above-mentioned Instagram post, many photographers who disliked the thought of sky replacements argued that doing such editing isn’t photography anymore but is instead digital art. I admit, I would have to agree that such is digital art simply because I believe that photography is part of a much more expansive scope of digital art.
Looking back, I think that the younger version of myself wouldn’t have thought that doing heavy editing and manipulation would be instrumental to my success as a photographer. By “success”, I mean both being able to render my vision into an image that others can perceive, and also being able to produce the kind of images that my clients pay me to create.
This was created through a composite of two images, taken a few minutes apart but facing different directions to put subtle sky elements where an empty blue sky was.
Photography is a non-stop learning process. The technology behind image-making is ever-evolving both on the side of the camera and on the side of the post-processing platforms. There comes a time in the journey of a photographer wherein more than technical know-how, they must focus on expanding their vision and learning to overcome a multitude of challenges that they only encounter through time and experience. In the recent years I made the decision to let go of the self-imposed limitations I put on my art and instead learn every way possible to get past the limitations of producing an image. These limitations may be due to unfavorable environmental conditions, unforeseen obstacles, overlooked details, or technical hindrances in the gear that I use.
This image was created through a time lapse series that had to be combined later on to put together each of the sky elements
Because of the things that I decided to learn in order to produce the images that my work requires me to, specifically the things that I had to learn to do to be able to create images expected of me by my clients, I realized that being a capable architectural photographer also enabled me to become a more expressive landscape photographer. Any landscape photographer would agree that they photograph a place and a scene not to record or document what it looks like, but actually to express themselves and share the images that they envision. More than to be able to show a certain place at a certain time, a landscape photographer aims to stimulate the senses and evoke emotion through the images that they take. Probably because of a lot of shooting experiences, or a lot of inspiration, my vision as a landscape photographer sometimes can not be satisfied by what’s taken with a single exposure and being open to a wider variety of methods allows me to be more successful in turning my vision into a photograph.
Personal Preference
A composite image with the foreground taken at dusk and the sky taken at midnight
It all boils down to what you prefer for your own art. And yes, I do mean to call your photography art because it is and your ability to create that art should not be hindered by anyone else. The reality is that no matter how many people argue with you online, it is only your personal belief and preference that matters. What’s important is that you also believe that to be true for anyone else and respect it. Personally, I almost never keep myself from doing what is necessary to create the image that I envision, however I would see to it that all of the images and elements I use on my composites and sky-replaced images were taken by and rightfully owned by me. But if the need arises in one of my projects to use stock sky images such as the ones accessible on Luminar 4, I would consider it for the sake of my work. In the end, the most essential part of this equation would be transparency. There is nothing wrong with post processing, nothing wrong with composites and sky replacement, nothing wrong with stock images, for as long as there's no deception and lying involved.
I agree.
BTW, I sooo love your work :) Super fan here :)
Me too! I'm a big fan of JkL!
I guess as long as the photographer is honest about it, it's fine. When the photographer is honest, the ones who are not in favour will move on.
Personally I can't stand things being sharp from front to back and so I don't do that. But if that's what someone else wants to show by focus stacking, it's fine.
Someone else learning photography may not be able to replicate it without knowing it's not a single shot, but these days I doubt any newbie would assume that (many YouTube videos talk about it).
yup. Even focus stacking should be done with subtlety
Once we start replacing skies will the next step be replacing the foreground with someone else's work? Do what you want, but personally if i didn't take the whole photograph then i can't say it is mine.
I got a great sky at Maroon Bells but mediocre fall color. If only i could buy an image with great fall colour and put in my sky.
Reminds me of the grandfather's axe paradox.
I think a distinction should be made between professionals who intend to sell their photographs and hobbyists like me who do it for fun and also as a memory of a moment in a beautiful place. For hobbyists I prefer it should be minimal post processing as possible. No composites for sure. But that is just a personal preference.
You're absolutely right! if someone is doing it for fun and they would pass their photo off as something that it isnt, then they're only fooling themselves.
The bad thing is, editing an image has become far too easy, so much that you just do it because you can, not because it’s somehow necessary and in context with the image. This is the norm with new generation of those approaching photography or whatever other creative context. Technology has made everything immediately accessible. You don’t even need to go someplace to snap a picture. You can just buy skys, auroras, clouds, sunsets, startrails, whatever, and put them on the background of your mediocre image of a termonuclear sunset which you didn’t even had to plan or climb to...
Social media just put the last nail in the coffin, so to speak: people just need to showoff and get instant “like” gratification and being told “wow, great image”. And most of the time they don’t even have the knowledge or background to judge how far to push the editing, they just can, it’s so cheap and easy...So sad.
I’m an hobbyst nature and landscape photographer, while I still do commercial photo and video work, and I accept a fair amount of editing and retouching. But my personal view is that landscape photography is about the experience of going there, being there in a particular moment, living it and trying to document that moment to the best of my ability. If nature doesn’t cooperate, well, that’s part of the game...
The word “create” an image makes me cringe, as it implies the fact that it is not taken on location, but it’s rather “created” artificially in your living room...
I agree with you. Nothing can match the value of actually being there and capturing it yourself. Precisely why even if I would do composites from time to time, I'd stick to elements that I personally took. You're also right about how social media affects people's urge to show off.
I wouldnt blame it on how easy things have become though. Photography used to be much harder and slower in terms of actually seeing what you captured. Technology has made that faster and has made us more efficient. That's always technology's role. To make things easier and faster. It's now up to the people who use it wrong to ruin things.
I think people should shoot what ever they want to see. If you like it then do it. If someone else doesn't like what you like then they can go away mind their own business. Photography is art and art is subjective. Not everyone is going to jive with every type or technique of photography. There types and techniques of photography I really don't like but I'm not going to go around telling people they shouldn't do it. That would be a really lame thing to do and it's none of my business how people shoot their photos. I focus on my work and how to make it better. I don't feel like wasting energy on getting in some else's business just because I'm not a fan of how they shoot their landscapes. it's not really a good look either. Stay positive and support your fellow photographers.
Precisely! Thanks for that!
Yes, but it should be disclosed. Imagine you read a book about a famous adventurer who lived a crazy and beautiful life. And you assume this guy really lived and experienced those things. You might feel motivated and inspired. Afterwards you find out it is all a fabrication. Would it matter to you? To me it sure as hell would, I would feel lied to. Could I still appreciate the book? Yeah, maybe to a certain extent. But the motivation mainly came from the fact that I thought somebody really lived like that.
Same with photography. I am not interested in landscapes, that I can't actually visit and experience myself like the photographer depicted.
I’m seeing a lot of ‘I don’t subscribe to post processing but I don’t mind a bit of sharpening, a hint of noise reduction, a splash of clone stamp...’
You’d have to only use software to export your image if you really want to be a purist? Also how do you take into account the cameras Color profile? Canon won’t be the same as Sony etc. So which profile is more real??
My thinking is there are no purists, we’re all photographers who use a different the level of post processing.
There are purists in a sense that they think theres a certain threshold of purity in the process. But you're right. No such thing as a pure image except for the raw data that our eyes won't see as an image.
Don't compare luminance editing with sky replacement
It's true. It's always interesting for me to see where everyone draws the line, like while editing in Lr and blending in Photoshop is fine, you should never clone anything out! These days, the post-processing begins as soon as you click the shutter.
I think Luminar is a great software and also the Sky Replacement is a useful tool for a small group of users e.g. for commercial use. Nevertheless, I think that this feature harms the landscape photographer community at the moment. For example, people who buy a thunderstorm package, put a USA supercell over a local photo and upload it to social media without mentioning that it is not a real photo. And people are going crazy thinking that this is real...
As a (hobby) landscape photographer who loves colors, I'm always on the hunt for great light situations and try to have the best sky possible, even if I have to visit a place five times or more. And I think it's a bit unfair when people improve their bad-sky-photos with Luminar Skies and put it online. For me, this is NOT photography and it instead harms photography. I really can't see these default Luminar skies anymore, as well as the well-known Luminar birds ;-)
And I think it is a bit sad when respected landscape photographers support this negative trend. But I can understand them a bit, the Corona year is not easy for all and selling skies to Skylum is another way to earn some money.
Luminar is a tool. Photoshop is a tool. And all they do is provide ways to make certain things happen. Everything after that is totally up to the user and your opinion is valid. Someone who uses it in the wrong way could be harming photography in general but it shouldnt make the tool generally a bad thing.
I agree with you in most points, Skylum is doing a great job and Luminar is a fantastic software. All these new AI-driven functions are great especially for those who doesn't want to spend hours in front of Photoshop. I used the Sky-Replacement two times already but with a sky from a photo that I took right after the normal photo. It worked great and saved me some time I would have spent with Luminosity masks. If this is the correct way, then using default/bought skies is the wrong way. And Skylum unfortunately supports the wrong way by providing and selling skies.
The abandonment of reality will bite photographers in the ass eventually. Because they will become obsolete. Just as there are "virtual models" already, there will be virtual landscapes. And by that I not only mean entirely made-up landscapes but also landscapes that actually exist (like the horseshoe bend etc.). Only you won't have to visit those landscapes anymore. Even a five year old will be able to tell the A.I. how it should be altered: "Okay, put in an epic solar eclipse there and make it look like somebody is swimming in the river". Done.
But I also predict there will be a counter-movement by those fine people who appreciate subtley and reality.
I wonder how you feel about abstract photography, or even forced perspective...
I agree in principle that _some_ fields of photography will be commercially challenged by technological advances, but that's the way of the world and instead of fearing that change, we should embrace how it can make our lives better - That means changing how we work.
Counterpoint - There will always be a market for "artisan" products, in this case what was a large market will contract and surviving players will charge more per piece to offset reduced throughput.
In both of my above points, the degree of veracity is a moot point considering the golden rule: He who has the gold makes the rules ;-)
I think that the final output is what should be judged, and not what the process and effort it took to get to the final result. Like I see online with photographer saying they did focus stacking, edited for 3 hours, ect to get a very mediocre shot of flowers with no thought for composition or lighting.
True! The foundations remain to have more weight than anything else. A crappy photograph with a replaced sky and all is still a crappy photograph
Its not that complicated. If you want to call yourself a landscape photographer you find a landscape, wait for all the elements to come together, shoot it, and edit the photos. You do not add in any other element that were not there when you originally took the image. Being a digital artist is also cool, but don't tell me you saw that scene unfold before your eyes if you used something like Skylum to replace the sky and add directional light where there was none. Put in the work and be honest.
It is a fool's errand to try to stop people from doing things they want to do in any endeavor.
In art especially the entire point is to create.
Getting all huffy about "authenticity" or "reality" is telling the rest of the world they need to dance to your tune.
Dance to your own.
Okay Christopher Thomas. Yep, you noticed, I have renamed you! I am a creative therefore I can do that.
That's really where the line is drawn. Based on how you see your craft and how you identify towards it.
That's what is sort of surprised me here, the judgment. And also the hypocrisy of saying, while this type of processing is ok, this other one is not.
https://twitter.com/EastmanMuseum/status/1288097712483819521?s=09
https://twitter.com/EastmanMuseum/status/1295364880309137409?s=19
It's been done for over a century. Suppose as long as you take a picture of something, then enhance its OK.
Dang, I did not know that.
Nothing new here. Definitely no hidden secret to any one who has used an enlarger and black and white. Try it with color negative and the difficulty level becomes much harder. Nothing wrong with the process.
I’m against it and try to avoid it as much as I can. But sometimes, conditions are terrible and time is limited. So this is another resource you can use. In the end, your vision is your vision. You determine what, and how you want to show your art.
On the other hand, I find some people’s comments very disturbing regarding the endorsement of brands towards artists. It is part of the business. Elia has always been extremely transparent in what he uses, why and how.
Cheers!
I absolutely agree. Your vision is your vision. I wish everyone would respect that. Unless there is deception and dishonesty, unless it harms anyone in any way, no one should stop you from exercising your creativity.
All digital photographs are edited - either by the camera, or by the photographer. People who post "this is SOOC" like it's a badge of honour are kidding themselves a bit; what they really mean is "I let the camera do the editing for me". If that works for you, then great.
Personally, I don't replace skies or add elements to photos, but I will:
* Change luminance of the whole photo or parts of the photo
* Change the balance of individual or ranges of colours
* Remove distracting elements (Mostly man-made ones, like power lines, signposts etc - my personal bugbear is "Acme Alarm Company" stickers on historical buildings)
* Crop and keystone
* Sharpen, clarity etc
But that's just me - people can do whatever they want and call it whatever they want - it's all photography to me; anything that involves capturing photons onto a light-sensitive medium using a lens is photography. I think we should be inclusive, not divisive.
I wouldn't compare basic image editing with sky replacement
"people can do whatever they want and call it whatever they want" - Exactly, but what if you omit to call it anything in hope it fits in a specific content and no one will question it?
All images are processed including film. There is no denial, that is the nature of photography. Film type, chemicals used and so on always defined the final rendering of the latent image simply because the camera and the film have two distinct functions. Altering the content of the latent image by introducing a variation at a later time that is not part of that moment is what we are talking about. There are no SOOC, it's a myth to assume you can show a latent image. Even jpgs are nothing but the result of a canned profile where the RAW that contain all the data is deliberately disposed of or disregarded. We are talking about what is altered afterward in the image. Not that it's bad or good but when do we admit altering or not. Say I post a picture of my kid here mentioning his name and age, you will trust me that it is original. In reality I post a picture of my nephew. Now you have the choice, you can be okay with the fact that I deceived you or not. Will you trust me again? If I post a picture of my kid saying he is three years old on the photo when he clearly shows being a teen, I am accurate, it is my son on the photo, but I doubt you would otherwise take me seriously.
If you label your work as something and later people see the content has been altered they will be disappointed. There is a point when some want to identify an image as original, realistic and accurate in the details presented, and then it can be okay to divert from it too at time but with no context, I'll have to assume both are a true representation when one may not be.
The idea of labeling your work and deceiving someone as to whether it was manipulated or not comes down to an issue of "rules". If everyone is playing in the sandbox with certain rules then part of the "game" is not falling outside the rules.
Expecting everyone to play by your rules, arbitrary or not, is unrealistic.
You can create in a rule based structure if it suits you but you are still expecting people to work in the same structure. If that is what you want, join a camera club. They seem to be rule bound.
You just decide if you want to alter the document or not, that's entirely your freedom of expression. The way people react to your process decision is what it is and you should accept it as is. Really all you do is set a new rule where you expect viewers to accept your interpretation.
When will foreground, middle ground and background packs be available?
Photographic diorama! I like!
YUP! Working on the epic foreground pack as we speak!
.
I’m not into sky replacements, however, don’t understand the get it right in camera crowd for landscape photography. As advanced as cameras are nowadays, they still don’t have the dynamic range of the human eye. Getting a frame to look like the eye sees a scene, requires post processing and sometimes blending to some degree. This doesn’t even begin to take into account conveying the emotion a scene evokes at the time.
Elia - could you team up with Lee and Patrick for more vlogs? I still rewatch the photographing the world outtakes and vlogs! We miss the 3 amigos!