— All photos herein ©Charles G. Haacker, Author.

And the Skies Are N̶o̶t̶ Cloudy All Day

Is it evil and wicked for photographers to swap in a better sky? (Asking for a friend.)

Inspired by a recent story by Michael Bryant

I love clouds.

Photographically, I do not care for a clear blue sky. To me, it is as bland as its opposite, dun overcast. Either lacks texture and interest. I find even wispy clouds more appealing than nothing, and even dense cloud cover is better with some form and structure rather than the smooth consistency of vanilla pudding.

The doubled-in clouds make the picture; the clouds are mine, not “canned.” — All photos herein ©Charles G. Haacker, Author.

I learned how to replace skies in Photoshop long before there were one-click sky replacement algorithms. Then it was complex, demanding, and tedious, especially making the delicate cutouts around trees. The refine edge brush was essential. Ruining your eyesight was optional. It still takes patience and attention to detail. I am googly over the sky enhancement and replacement tools in Adobe’s Creative Cloud Photography Suite. The latest AI software is incredible, relieving us of most of the monotony, but it’s not perfect; it is many times easier but not flawless.

The picture below was made in 2018. I had a brand-new camera, was beyond excited to use it, but the weather sucked (I think it was March in Nebraska). Undeterred, I went to a favorite haunt, threw myself prone in the hostas, made this shot and only last week succeeded in getting back up (I exaggerate but little).

The original raw capture was underexposed because the meter was reading the sky, and the photographer was not paying attention.

On the left is the edited and processed raw capture, but I think the blank white sky is, um, blank? Boring? The center picture is one of my own “cloud negatives” collected over the years. I did the tedious work of cutting away the old sky and substituting the clouds.

The sculpture is called Reveille, located on an upper level of Lincoln, Nebraska’s Sunken Gardens.

I think swapping the sky made an enormous difference, and whom does it hurt? The replacement sky works with a hint of thin sunlight. The direction of the light seems correct, and don’t overlook that any image can be flipped to make the direction of light match the subject.

Michael Bryant's subtitle reads: “Sky Swap: Just Because You Can, Doesn’t Mean You Should.”

My counter is, it also doesn’t mean you shouldn’t.

Ethics cannot be questioned if you disclose, which I do. You cannot alter anything in a photograph made for journalistic or forensic evidence, but that’s not a matter of ethics so much as a matter of law, but this is not that.

No Skies Were Harmed in the Making of My Photographs

I’ve written about the advantage painters have over photographers: They can put something in or leave it out, paint it where it is or move it, paint magnificent clouds where there were none, yet not suffer the slings and arrows photographers get when we do the same. How come?

IT’S NOT AUTHENTIC! IT’S DISHONEST! IT’S UNETHICAL!

It’s playing it as it lies, mandatory in golf. But photography isn’t golf.

Those clouds were there, not doubled in. They are the picture.

Same clouds as the header image, with a flying pine cone, because it was there.

Which is more interesting?

Did you know the current Lightroom Classic has adaptive presets specifically for skies? Below is a ringaround of all six offerings with the original:

Original raw capture by the author — 1. “Blue Drama” — 2. “Dark Drama”

3. “Neon Tropics” — 4. “Storm Clouds”

5. “Sunrise” — 6. “Sunset”

These Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic presets show how a single cloud image can be endlessly manipulated. I rarely use presets, but they can at least give a starting point. Any clouds can go from puffy and gentle to menacing with just a few slides. Modern digital editing offers photographers some of the tools and choices of painters.

A Torii Gate in Omaha’s Lauritzen Gardens on a dun-overcast day. I think the edited version is far more compelling.

Don’t overlook the cloud detail that may be there but wiped due to overexposure. The sky in this picture was enhanced by “selecting sky” and some slider magic.

If I were a painter, I would paint the scene as I saw it in my mind’s eye, not the reality. The added clouds are from my collection, not “canned.”

S.S. Presque Isle Downbound, Lake Superior, August 2015

A “thousand-footer” Great Lakes bulk carrier constructed as a self-unloading integrated tug/barge unit for Litton Great Lakes Corporation. So far as I know, her design is unique. She was inbound for Two Harbors, Minnesota, along the western shore of Lake Superior, a place we loved and visited often. I still stubbornly insisted on tiny-sensor compact cameras with fixed zooms, in this case, a Nikon P7800 with a maximum reach of (equivalent) 200mm. The big laker was at extreme range in August heat; you can see the heat shimmer. I made a pretty good silk purse from this sow’s ear. Credit goes to the new Topaz Photo AI for salvaging it.

Cranes at Sunrise: a Saga

Nebraska is on the Sandhill Crane migration flyway. They arrive here about mid-to-late March, and by mid-April, they are gone. I have to drive a little over an hour from where I live in the pitch dark to arrive at dawn. The stated mission is to get cranes flying against the sunrise.

The sun rises.

The (lazy) cranes do not.

The sun burns off the high fog, the cranes lift off, and our poor benighted, cold, miserable photographer stands ankle-deep in mud, taking pictures of cranes against a lovely, cloudless blue sky instead of the magnificent foggy sunrise — by a difference of twenty minutes.

Grrrrrrr.

But our clever photographer knows a trick or two!

The sunrise, the crane, et voilà!

If the damn’ birds don’t rise with the sun, shoot the sunrise, wait for the lazy slothful birds to get busy, “shoot” them, and composite them in later.

Unethical? Whyfor? All the pictures, both sunrise and birds, are mine, taken within the same hour, just not at the same precise moment. So?

Like most unpaid hobbyists, I am no Galen Rowell, able to pick a spot and camp for weeks, patiently waiting for all the elements to come together perfectly. Such nature and wildlife photographers get top dollar for their work — eventually. Us uncompensated grunts just get cold and damp.

I am entirely aware of the clear and present danger we confront with high tech, including the infamous deepfakes, especially porn. That is beyond unethical and should be criminal. This is not that. I am taking advantage of technology to make art. Sort of art. Even if it isn’t very good, it’s fun, and I think attractive. I try always to disclose, calling my composited works “photoillustrations” so as not to infuriate the puristas.

📸As always, gratitude for looking in. I sincerely appreciate it! 😊👍