More realistic skies

[amatula]

Hi,

I appreciate the help I received regarding image sharpness. My other issue has been skies... does anyone have any suggestions on having skies more realistic. Would a polarizer filter fix the issue?

Thank you in advance for your assistance! 🙂

Annie

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"In one category, what you depict MUST be reality.  In the other, you can be as creative as you want ..."

Of all people that should not be condemning post editing in any form, is an astro-photographer.  Plus, if you think all those photos Nat Geo uses in its magazines and other pubs are not heavily edited, I do have a bridge to sell you, too.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander! 

---

The two National Geo photographers my wife and I went to hear speak last spring were averse even to cropping. I don't know whether they were representative, but there it is.

BTW, it's "sauce", not "good". The slogan doesn't mean to imply that things end well for either the goose or the gander.

[ebiggs1]

"BTW, it's "sauce", not "good"."

Whatever, the poit is made.  Do you really think they don't crop?  Do you really think that?

Do as I say don't, do as I do.  That one better?

[Waddizzle]

---

@amatula wrote:
What camera did you use? My sky issues occur predominantly when the sun is shining bright...
(BTW, not related, I was born in New Haven; in CO now)

---

Who?  Me?  I used a Canon 6D. EF 50 f/1.8 STM, ISO-100, F/8, 1/800 sec. I did use a CPL filter on the lens.

I became curious when I saw an exit off of the highway called "Lighthouse Road", so I followed it.  This is what I found at the end of the road.  This shot was taken the same day.

Canon 6D. EF 50 f/1.8 STM, ISO-100, F/8, 1/320 sec

[TCampbell]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

The two National Geo photographers my wife and I went to hear speak last spring were averse even to cropping. I don't know whether they were representative, but there it is.

---

My understanding about "cropping" is that if the cropping is used to change the viewer's understanding of what's going on in the photo, then it's considered misleading and inappropriate.  For example... if you take a photo of workers planting a field, that's one thing... but if it turns out the "workers" were, in fact, forced-labor and armed guards were there to watch them but the image was cropped to cleverly eliminate any suggestion of the forced-labor aspect, then that would completely change the meaning and/or interpretation of the image and that would be dishonest.

But if the image is merely being cropped for composition, framing, etc. and the crop in no way alters the subject-matter or interpretation, then it's my understanding that the crop is acceptable.

[TCampbell]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"In one category, what you depict MUST be reality.  In the other, you can be as creative as you want ..."

Of all people that should not be condemning post editing in any form, is an astro-photographer.  Plus, if you think all those photos Nat Geo uses in its magazines and other pubs are not heavily edited, I do have a bridge to sell you, too.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander! 

---

Just to be clear, I'm not "condemning" post editing.  I promote the use of post processing tools.  

Also, if what you want to create is "digital art" then use of all tools to create a composite image from other image sources is also fair game... but to be honest, I believe such an individual should not attempt to pass off that work as a "photograph" but rather as a form of "digital art".

As for astro-images... we don't put substitute content into astro-images.  We do use stacking techniques to improve signal to noise ratios, reduce noise, correct for field vignetting, boost contrast, and depending on the object we might also saturate color.  

If an image is being entered into a contest, then a photographer must agree to abide by the rules of the contest.  The rules on documentary photography and photojournalism may seem strict, but they are made by people other than us.  So it doesn't so much matter what our opinions are because they make the rules.

If you are shooting for a client or for your own enjoyment, you should do whatever the client (even if the client is "you") wants to do.  

But recall that this thead was originally about how to fix the sky.  And going back to my original statement... use of physical filters changes the shooting conditions and can take a situation which is beyond the dynamic range (physical limits of the camera sensor) and change those conditions so that the image is now safely within the dynamic range of the camera.  But once the image is captured... you might still want to perform some post processing to make a good image even better.

I sense that you think I condemn the use of post processing and that the image must come straight out of the camera "as is" and that's certainly not what I believe.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"BTW, it's "sauce", not "good"."

Whatever, the poit is made.  Do you really think they don't crop?  Do you really think that?

Do as I say don't, do as I do.  That one better?

---

How could I say no? The position of the comma (though I guess it should have been a semicolon) is hilarious. 

[ebiggs1]

Oh, good lord, Biggs the Fat (fingers)!

"The position of the comma (though I guess it should have been a semicolon) is hilarious."

Do as I say, don't do as I do.  That one better?   

[ebiggs1]

"Just to be clear, I'm not "condemning" post editing."

And, just to be clear, whether it is filters or post, the photo is altered.  And, astromony photographs are probably the most altered photos of all. The fact that it is altered does not make it "digital art".  It is a photograph, is a photograph, is a photograph.  I repeat, "Do you actually think we never did this in the darkroom?".  Photoshop is nothing new except it is easier and even more powerful.

Almost from day one and glass negatives, editing was in full process.  They are still photographs.  They depict what the "photographer" wants them to.

As to the OP's original post, just like any discussion this has become what it has.  A lot of posts drift to related subjects. Whether that is good or bad, interesting or not, is the reader's decision.