Upload & Sell: On
ben egbert wrote:
Hi Jim. I have done some sky replacement (see split rock) but it goes against my nature. The skill I want to develop is the skill of discovering and capturing the shot not in post processing it in later.
I understand that post processing is essential and have learned lots of stuff here, but I want to use it to bring out what was already there, not add what was not.
This is kinda where "plausible realism" comes into play for some latitude. My "plausible's" are generally targeted at lighting levels/colors, since lighting conditions vary @ minute/hour/day/week/month it's a tough tell as long as thing are congruous. And if you think about it, it is no different than a deviation form "standard processing" in the darkroorm when using D&B or masking, etc. while printing from a slide or negative.
My take on things like the sky switch ... while not a pure sooc play ... if done judiciously it kinda goes like this for me. If I'm at location A and capture a noon shot on a cloudless day, then I'm on a nearby ridge (location B) tomorrow at noon (essentially same lighting conditions), still in proximity of location A and happen to see that a cloud formation is over at location A, but I can't get to it as the winds are blowing them along, I stil know that it was very real that the clouds were present in conjunction with my original image, just on a different day.
From that, it kinda depends on my goals. If my goal is to show my viewer that such a time & place exists ... it may be that I need the composite to help render a creation to send a successful message of its existence (Christmas in August comes to mind).
The fact that it may be different tomorrow, is no different than taking a cloud out, to show blue sky alone. When the viewer comes to the place (predicated upon your message that it is worthy to do so) ... he does not expect to find it identical, and recognizes it may or may not be full of "puffy whites" or "clear blue" as your image contained. In that regard, "plausible realism" settles okay with me ... even though, I too, greatly prefer an sooc ... I can "tolerate" well executed (i.e. undetectable) plausible composites (especially when I don't know they are a composite ).
However, if my goal is to present my image as a "game trophy" that I shot while "on the hunt" ... then no, that would not be integral to make the composite and pass it off as my capture ... my creation, yes, my capture, no.