Luminar, Photoshop, or On1: Who Has the Best Sky Replacement?

In the past few years, sky replacement software has exploded in both options and capabilities, and there are now several well-established options for photographers to choose from. On1, Luminar, and Photoshop all have varying sky replacement capabilities with different levels of performance, and this great video takes a look at all of them to show you which performs the best. 

Coming to you from Anthony Morganti, this awesome video takes a look at the sky replacement performance of different options from On1, Luminar, and Photoshop. Sky replacement used to be a rather tedious and often difficult process, making it something that you would generally reserve only for special photos. However, the new automated tools make the process far easier, making it more worthwhile to take the time to explore creative edits. While there is a lot of debate back and forth about sky replacement's legitimacy and place in photography, for certain genres, such as wedding photography, in which you simply can't come back and re-shoot another day, having the ability to quickly make a major improvement to a photo that might have been shot on a bland day can be a real boon. Check out the video above for the full rundown from Morganti.

Log in or register to post comments
1 Comment
Chris Summers's picture

I will admit that I have experimented with sky replacement, mainly using the older Luminar4 version. I spent a week in Amsterdam last winter and had nothing but blah grey skies so I added some nicer ones. I am seeing a lot more use of sky replacement, especially in architecture and real estate photography and all too often it's poorly executed. The direction of the light in the sky so often does not match the subject! Or the subject was shot in bright mid-day sunlight but the sky chosen was a Caribbean sunset! Reminds me of when the HDR technique was new and images were over processed to the point of looking like they were from another planet!

Then there is the ethical side of sky replacement. In advertising or composted images it's fairly common to use elements from other sources, like stock images. But if you are making prints of landscapes for instance for you to sell or to promote yourself as part of your portfolio does it lessen the image if you use a sky that you bought on line instead of a sky you photographed? Well, maybe ethical isn't the correct word but does it make it less than your work if you got the sky from some place like Ocudrone where that same sky is used in countless other works.