Real skies instead of Luminar skies

First of all, your last photo isn't really real. if you take 2 photos and combine them, your photo isn't "real" anymore (especially if you use a long shutter speed to get movement in the water, but not in the sky). You're actually doing the same thing as replacing the sky in Luminar.

But I'm not against replacing the sky, I don't mind. As long as I see a beautiful photo, it's about the end product.

Because what is actually real in photography? Almost nothing, even people who say a photo is as it was are actually not right.
Yes if taking the photo, and editing it on the spot in terms of contrast, colour etc. then you could somewhat speak of "real"
If it's done at home then it is edited to what is in your memory of what it looked like. And that depends on so many factors.
If you're cheerful, the colours in your memory will be more vivid than when you're sad. And that will ultimately influence your photo.
Even if one were to do that, what is real. Is using f1.2 for a nice bokeh real? is a 2D photo of a 3D world real?

Donald Willemsen wrote on Tuesday 20 April 2021 at 11:14  | reply

I’m not necessarily against sky replacement, but there are enough pitfalls you need to watch out for. Especially if you use Luminar’s skies. I often notice that skies are chosen where the light in the original photo comes from a different direction. Luminar does adjust the whole image a little based on AI, but it won’t move shadows. So the base photo determines which replacement sky you can use.
Indeed, you get a lot of likes on social media, but what use are they to you? People don’t want to offend you by saying they don’t like it. Most people also won’t view the photo at 100% with a critical eye. So you get few or no comments that you can learn from.
Additionally, Luminar experts/users recognize the skies with ease and immediately see that it is a replacement sky. I can assure you, that gets boring and you’ll get tired of looking at it.
Replacing the sky is allowed, but do it sparingly and choose a suitable sky. Uncritical likes are of no use to you. If you like taking part in photo competitions or exhibitions, you’ll be exposed immediately.

Replace or enhance a sky? No way. I only photograph in RAW and use Lightroom to make the photo look as exactly as possible like what I saw when I took the photo. That is what I get my satisfaction from. The condition is that I look very carefully at how it was. How dark, how light, what is the color of the water and so on. In short: very basic photography, without any filter whatsoever. So pure photography, without the bag of tricks afterward. Great fun, you know. All that photoshopping or luminar-ing is fun as a toy but has little to do with photography.

Every digital photo is/gets edited! If it isn't done by the photographer, then it is by the characteristics built into the camera (a combination of hardware and software), the result of which is determined by the camera's builder(s). Replacing skies can currently only be done afterwards by the photographer (but who knows what is already on the camera manufacturers' drawing boards in that regard?). I see properly replacing a sky as a challenge, to do it in such a way that it fits the shot. But you do add a (personal) touch when it concerns a sky that you captured yourself.

Donald Willemsen wrote on Tuesday 20 April 2021 at 13:02  | reply

@Jan Kleinjan, if you only knew how many tricks photographers used in the analogue darkroom. There’s nothing wrong with Photoshop. By the way, if you shoot in RAW as you say yourself, you’ll have to post-process. You do that with Photoshop or Lightroom’s Develop module (stripped-down Photoshop). Luminar is one of the alternatives to Photoshop or Lightroom, nothing more and nothing less.

@Jan,
You try to make the photo exactly how you remember how it was when you took your photo. You always work from your memory, and that is guided by emotion etc. So you can never say it was exactly like that, because you did not edit the photo on the spot to how it is.
And how you felt at the moment you took the photo, and how you feel when you edit it in LR will partly determine whether it is lighter or darker, more saturated in terms of colors etc.

Myl wrote on Tuesday 20 April 2021 at 21:14  | reply

I keep reading here about Luminar and I myself have been working with Paint Shop Pro x8 for years. I do wonder now whether it makes sense to switch to Luminar or e.g. Lightroom.
who helps me get some clarity ?

@annette understands exactly what I mean. That is 100 % true

Donald Willemsen wrote on Wednesday 21 April 2021 at 10:47  | reply

@Myl, software-wise you’re best off with Lightroom, but that will cost you 12,09€ per month. You also get Photoshop and other software with it. Luminar is cheaper because you pay a one-time amount for it (under 100€). Luminar also has a Library section just like Lightroom, but with far fewer options. Editing with Luminar is simple and works faster partly because of the AI. Luminar also offers standard templates that let you give the photo a certain look with one click. In any case, you have many more options than in Paintshop.

Myl wrote on Wednesday 21 April 2021 at 20:48  | reply

Thanks for your support. I'll look on the web.
If I succeed there, I'll let you know in due course. Myl.