The Sky is Burning

[Tin Can]

After I loaded focus stacking in my minds eye

I was directed to PS 21 Sky Replacement

https://youtu.be/cdjsUlOxvrU

Which will be a handy shortcut for Digi Neg Makers

Old tricks for new folks

[Old_Dick]

This one works.

[Tin Can]

Yes, I know

The other may be blocked

When I get time...

Thanks for trying!

This one works.

[Drew Wiley]

Disgusting. But why bother? The sky is burning over much of the northern hemisphere already. No need to fake the shot.

[pjd]

Disgusting. But why bother? The sky is burning over much of the northern hemisphere already. No need to fake the shot.

Total agreement here. I skipped into the middle of that video, the "sky replacement" looked disgusting (best word for it) and pointless.

[Tin Can]

Analog sky replacement is very old

[pjd]

Analog sky replacement is very old

So is syphilis, it's still best avoided.

[Tin Can]

I suppose nobody touches up anymore...LOL

Actually I seldom do, it is more 'authentic' to show our warts...

btw, I posted in Digi processing, which is HERE

Dr Drew goes on and on about masks and claims to be an expert

even the Dr, now admits Digi copy camera, including an editing computer, pure as the driven snow

Eadweard Muybridge’s Secret Cloud Collection

[Tin Can]

so far so good

So is syphilis, it's still best avoided.

[Drew Wiley]

I have an optional digital camera for use on a copy stand in order to make reasonably faithful catalog copies of extant prints themselves - not to alter their look. Get that part straight. If I even wanted to dub clouds in the sky or alter the hue of the sky in a color image, I'd do it the old fashioned way in the darkroom - that's easy enough. And if you understand what I just stated, masking is a darkroom operation, and I don't try to replace it digitally. A digital catalog or web presentation is just a stand-in, a general reference potentially useful to my heirs or my own print sales later in life. I'm not trying to re-invent images that way. I don't even go near any of the optional "fun" or "creative" apps. It's used just like my film Nikon on the copystand, but just doesn't need an intermediate scan to get the image into cataloging storage.

But what I find so disappointing is that I've actually got a couple of 8x10 shots of true apricot-violet skies from back in the Mt Pinatubo volcanic eruption year. Nobody would probably even notice that today, and just crow that they could do an even more dramatic job in a split second using Photoshop. But what they can't do is actually experience that with their own eyes. Might as well have faux eyeballs too.

Old timers from the blue-sensitive film days like Muybridge often routinely kept underexposed cloud negatives for dub-in purposes. That's no secret. But if you want to see something really egregious, but more seamlessly done than anyone can do in Photoshop, look at Fatali's huge immaculate Cibachromes with a brilliant sunset replete with crescent moon adjacent to a lowering sun in the same scene. Astronomically impossible, exposure-wise utterly unrealistic, and where else have we seen that same crescent moon in the exactly the same position in the sky? - well, over there on that print, or over there on another, and yet another. But stacking three different 8X10 negatives all registered together in a carrier along with appropriate masks beats PS any day of the week in terms of sheer detail simulation. I just wish the magician didn't try to hide his hand using brilliant violet and pink smoke and mirrors - but that what the tourists who pay his bills apparently want.