I reached a kind of catharsis by posting this thread and reading the replies. I was feeling some guilt about using the sky replacement tool. I think it was a step to far for me to be comfortable with. It was to damn easy. My opinion has changed and I will be comfortable doing it, as long as I don't proffer it as a photograph, but offer it as a digital image, with all that it suggests possible, or as digital art. Thank you all for your input! I'll probably post a few more of these soon.
jim allison wrote:
I reached a kind of catharsis by posting this thread and reading the replies. I was feeling some guilt about using the sky replacement tool. I think it was a step to far for me to be comfortable with. It was to damn easy. My opinion has changed and I will be comfortable doing it, as long as I don't proffer it as a photograph, but offer it as a digital image, with all that it suggests possible, or as digital art. Thank you all for your input! I'll probably post a few more of these soon.
Is a photograph in which the actual sky is included rather than a substitute not art? Is it not digital?
What is the difference between photographs and "art?"
camperjim wrote: I am curious, why do you feel the need for "full disclosure" and what is that?
Agreed. I am amused by the handwringing over this "moral" dilemma. No disclosure needed. You hang the "photo," "digital art," "wall decor" or whatever you choose to call the work in the art gallery and the visitor is the final arbiter as I said earlier, "Do I like this and, if yes, do I like it enough to buy it?"
Full disclosure is akin to asking the close-up magician to reveal how he performed the sleight-of-hand that just mesmerized you.
If the gallery buyer has questions about your work feel free to disclose as you wish or simply wink and say, "Ahhh... that's my secret."
P.S. - We never question Albert Bierstadt: "Hey, was that deer really there when you made this painting?" Why should we question photographers who are "creating" art? Caveat: Does not apply to photojournalists.
You produce some beautiful work as evidenced by your postings here and the Featured Thread wins. Philosophically, I couldn't care less what you call them or how you made them. I like them. Nothing more about your methods needs to be explained to me.
You produce some beautiful work as evidenced by your postings here and the Featured Thread wins. Philosophically, I couldn't care less what you call them or how you made them. I like them. Nothing more about your methods needs to be explained to me.
I don't have a problem with people compositing parts of different images to make another image...but don't place the composited image into the Landscape Photography forum as it's not a photo anymore. It belongs in the Digital Art forum which states:
"Dedicated to smart phone pictures, experiments, abstracts, montages, & collages"
I don't have a problem with people compositing parts of different images to make another image...but don't place the composited image into the Landscape Photography forum as it's not a photo anymore.
Just curious. If the OP had simply posted the photo without raising the cheating question, would you have surmised the sky replacement tool had been used?
If not, wherin lies the problem? As photographers these are simply attractive images to be enjoyed. We are not curing cancer here.
Chaz wrote: chez wrote:
Just curious. If the OP had simply posted the photo without raising the cheating question, would you have surmised the sky replacement tool had been used?
If not, wherin lies the problem? As photographers these are simply attractive images to be enjoyed. We are not curing cancer here.
For me, maybe not for everyone, it has to do with honesty and integrity. Take for example a photo of an bald eagle sitting magesticly on a branch. If the photo was taken of stuffed eagle placed on the branch by a taxidermist versus a photo of the eagle at the zoo versus a photo of the eagle in the wild...wouldn't that matter to you? Is the end result all that counts?
chez wrote:
...wouldn't that matter to you? Is the end result all that counts?
I agree with you. Honesty and integrity are important to me as well in my personal work.
However, the viewer of all three of the hypothetical eagle photos may like all of them. So, in that regard, the end result IS all that counts. And, I haven't said anything to them about the circumstances surrounding each.
Of course, for example, I couldn't and wouldn't tell them I spent hours stalking the bird through snake-infested terrain while they were viewing the zoo shot.
Again, there is really no reason to say anything unless they ask. Then be truthful.
We are merely presenting pleasant images that serve as an enjoyable diversion. We are working in a visual medium, not a verbal one.
After a wonderful trip to Ireland, my wife came back with a beautiful silk tie purchased at the site of the Blarney Stone. She was told it was hand-made in Ireland.
After thanking her I turned the tie over and saw a label said 100% silk, made in Italy.
The tie is still beautiful.
The experience, amusing, but perhaps a little less beautiful.
