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

[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.

[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.

[ebiggs1]

One question? Do any of you really think we didn't do anything to film in the dark room? If so I have a bridge to sell you too!

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:
One question? Do any of you really think we didn't do anything to film in the dark room? If so I have a bridge to sell you too!

---

Sure, and Ansel Adams (just to name one prominent photographer of the film era) was famous for his darkroom tinkering, But everybody knew that, and he never tried to pass off his photographs as something they weren't. (Well ,,, almost never. There was that photograph in one of the Boston area Adams exhibits a few years ago where it appeared that one of his pictures of a waterfall had been converted into a double exposure by using a mirror image of the original.)

And if Adams were alive today, he'd surely be every bit the Photoshop enthusiast that Ernie Biggs is. 

[Peter]

Dual ISO would have fixed that sky without more exposures than one or any copy paste. Require a Canon with Magic Lantern.

[amatula]

"Dual ISO would have fixed that sky without more exposures than one or any copy paste. Require a Canon with Magic Lantern."

Hi Peter,

Thank you for your reply!

Where do I find out more about this? Sounds exciting!

Thank you, Annie

[Peter]

You have to search for it and also read about the risks 😉

[ebiggs1]

"Require a Canon with Magic Lantern."

Stay away from ML.  It can have serious consequences and Canon won't fix them if it damages your camera.