Granite Chief

The sky is composited from an image taken about a year later

It seems to me this photo would be best suited for photo-art. If not, what in the world are the standards for this gallery these days?

I think we're about to find out Luke. I think a few composites have been allowed to stay in the past but I cant remember the specifics. If this image gets bumped I'm perfectly fine with that, just felt like stirring the pot.....it's the outlaw in me

Bruce - can you provide a bit more information about the photo and what your definition of "composited" means? To me it implies that the sky was "created" using several skies - and was the sky at the same location (close)?

Luke....the sky is a single image I shot specifically for the purpose of replacing "boring" skies. However I would never post an image like that without stating it was a composite. I sometimes shoot "sky only" with that in mind, and no the sky in this image was showing off over Enumclaw, WA. I live in the PNW where skies are gray most of the year and blue for a couple months with only the occasional exception so I have to get it when I can. I agree this image is closer to photo art than simply documenting a scene. But many of the photos posted on this site and many others don't' accurately depict the scene. Hue and saturation are often created and objects removed. Uh-oh here we go again........I'm just playing the devils advocate here and this post and my comments were never meant as a troll.

No worries Bruce - just wanted a bit more information. Thanks for clarifying!

Bruce, you rabble rouser, you...

Bruce, I think there are a couple of distinctions that separate this image from others I have seen on this site. Many shots that are submitted here use more than one image for the sky and foreground. Having said that, i think there is a difference in using a completely different sky compared to using a sky that may have been taken earlier in the day or evening with the same tripod settings. I feel that it may seem as though we are splitting hairs but there is,to me,a difference. Additionally, the halos in the blend are very obvious. I'm not trying to take away from the *outlaw* in your presentation, I'm just sayin'

I really dont like sky composites. That kind of ruins it for me. Sorry. Otherwise it is a cool image.

I absolutely love composite photos consisting of a sky from a totally different location as the ground. I love that we have the ability to do so with the wonderful software that is available. I love that as a working stiff, with only one week vacation per year, I no longer need to cry about not experiencing the best skies. Although I still do….

I too collect skies for this particular use. The challenge of making the composite look natural is half the fun.
However, IMHO these photos really need to be posted in photo art, not landscape, even if the poster has stated that the sky is from a different location.

One of the reasons I always return to this site is the expectations of real photos in the landscape section.
I can get plenty of fake stuff from 500px and others.

As for this photo, not bad for a composite. The transition from rock to sky looks a bit cut and paste and somehow the light on the rock does not match the light in the sky.

I hope our mod places this in Photo Art.

Photo Art is a great place where folks can post their work and share useful info on making the photo look natural, if that is the intention of the photo. I think most would agree.

Gary-I think the halos are actually just the result of a poor selection and/or edge refinement issues.

The halos are a problem and I'm also seeing a lack of sharpness in the large image. I would vote for Photo Art for this one.

Even if you hadn't noted that this was a composite, the tell-tale sign is the direction of light. Your sky has the light coming from behind, but your foreground is lit from the front. That is what screams out to me with this image. It's hard to enjoy the image when my brain is screaming at me that the image doesn't make sense. Also, the focal length of the sky shot seems like it was taken with a telephoto (maybe between 70mm and 150mm), but the foreground shot looks like it was shot with a medium wide angle.

I'm sure that there are many photos posted on this forum with fake skies, but many of them are seamlessly done with agreeable light angles, focal lengths, etc. I'm sure your original shot has plenty of beauty to be found in it. I'm guessing there was a cloudless blue sky? That color contrast between the blue and warm light on the mountains may have a quiet sort of beauty that is under appreciated these days. So many people feel the need to process the heck of their images to make their photos have instant shock value, but often times something is lost in translation. I'd love to see the original image.

It's a cool image, but given the disclosure that it's a composite of two images taken at different times, it really belongs in Photo Art.

Bruce, I do appreciate that you disclosed the fact that this is a composite--very honorable.

--P

Very neat image, but I agree that this belongs in Photo Art. Moving it there now.

Congrats on the WP! Nicely done...

Bruce,
What ever you did and in whatever category I Like It !,
Congratulations on the WP . . .

Stunning - and honorable to have fully disclosed.
Congrats on the WP!
Sandy

Hi Bruce Congrats on a well deserved WP

Albert Darmo
Canada

Thanks for all the honest, straight forward comments. I'm a little surprised and humbled getting the WP. Thank you.

Way to go, Bruce! Congrats on the Pick, too.