Replacing Bland Skies In Photoshop [Archive] - AusPhotography:: Australia's Premier Photography Forum::

Plays With Light

29-07-2017, 10:31pm

Just learnt how to replace bland white or grey skies in Photoshop CC by using a blue coloured gradient.

Wondering if others do this or even paste in photos of skies into their bland sky images?

Here's the end results, which I'm undecided on at the moment. Both shot at ISO 3200, so the birds are a little noisy to my eye.

https://photos.smugmug.com/Images/i-g3JVc9N/0/f003e3ef/X3/_MG_4902-Edit-X3.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/Images/i-ZfvbFnX/0/6d4985b8/X3/_MG_4940-Edit-X3.jpg

farmmax

30-07-2017, 12:20am

Yes, I regularly replace bland skies with a two tone radial gradient in photoshop. Depending on the lighting on the bird, I usually make the centre of the gradient towards the birds head and the lighter colour in the centre to give a backlit effect. The hardest thing is trying to choose blues which don't look artificial.

Geoff79

30-07-2017, 2:04am

It's one thing I've always wanted to learn but for whatever reason have not. Is this technique only in cc? Not cs6?

I came up with my own little dodgy method, but it's too dodgy to use on a serious photo. Would love to know better technique.

Copying and pasting a sky from another image has always appealed to me. Not to grab a stunning sunrise from a photo and paste it in an otherwise blown white sky from a dull grey day, or the like.

I know I have several otherwise decent shots with blown skies, but then other normal shots from that same day. As my love for photography is mostly about securing accurate memories, I'd love to be able to replace those blown skies with the sky from another shot taken that same day.

Any tips for foolproof "easy" ways to do this, in cs6?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Glenda

30-07-2017, 6:44am

That worked well Alex, doubt if you hadn't said many would pick the sky had been replaced. Personally I would prefer a sky colour with less cyan and more towards blue but that's just a personal preference.

Geoff this should be doable in Cs6. I, and many others, often blend exposures to cope with high dynamic range in landscape shots. By memory I think Jimmy McIntyre has a tutorial on using a gradient to blend in a sky and Phlearn has this one, which is more the method I use https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qC4u-IPCryY.

ameerat42

30-07-2017, 8:53am

It wold be instructive to see the original image that prompted the desire to "replace the bland sky", even
as a processed jpeg. Sometimes the raw file does contain enough info in the sky for a less bland rendition.

I sometimes try just: select and copy the sky and "paste into" the original selection. This makes a layer over
just the sky. Then use a suitable layer blend - usually "Multiply" if it is originally rather bland. If the effect is
too much, you can fade it to taste.

I last did one like that in this thread (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?152970-The-home-of-the-Hobbits&highlight=hobbit), but took it back a fair bit.

Just a tip when selecting like that: switch OFF the "Contiguous" option. That way you get bits of sky
in tree foliage, etc. If feathering, use about 1 pixel, depending on image size. You then have to go and
carefully de-select areas you do not want included from the rest of the image.

- - - Updated - - -

PS: I don't like to just "replace" a sky if I want the photo to represent the scene. If I can't
suitably enhance what was there I tend to just leave it.

Plays With Light

30-07-2017, 4:10pm

Thanks all for your feedback in this regards. It's much appreciated. I feel you are right, Glenda, too much Cyan and not enough Blue for realism. Thanks also for helping Geoff. Thanks, AM for the doubling up tip, I'll use that if there actually is some info in the sky.

Here are the two bland skies in the originals.

https://photos.smugmug.com/Images/i-2QVhHMc/0/665d563b/X3/_MG_4940-X3.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/Images/i-3dXKWLm/0/80086651/X3/_MG_4902-X3.jpg

Dan05

30-07-2017, 4:13pm

For the learners here, how do you change the background without cutting the subject and pasting over the background?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gazza

30-07-2017, 4:42pm

Wondering if others do this....
Guilty your honour!...I change the colour all the time to match a feature of the bird using "Adobe Color(their spelling) Themes' (under 'Window' > 'Extensions')
In your case above, I would've sampled on his beak using 5 by 5 average, look up the 'Complimentary Color' and off I'd go.

Lately I've been using Jimmy Mac's Luminosity masks and paint the colour on a D&B layer, but there's heaps of other ways to do it.

This may help...? Have a very very faint hint of the new background colour on your subject as well, helps sell-it to the subconscious mind I reckon :grinning01:

Just had a quick play with your image and came up with a very similar colour, great minds ah? :grinning01: :grinning01:

Cheers - :beer_mug:

tandeejay

30-07-2017, 4:56pm

I've done it a couple of times... once when I was being tricky, and turning a 1ft high sandcastle into the base of a full sized modern light house. The 2 images had totally different toned skies, so I used the colour picker to set the sky colour from the horizon of the sand castle at one end of the gradient, and the colour from the sky at the top of the sandcastle photo at the other end of the gradient. The result is here:

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7144/13898874301_3c66cf82ba_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/nbcn6P)

ameerat42

30-07-2017, 4:57pm

Assuming you use Photoshop, start at post 5, above.

I'm not sure of the question, as any such process will involve some selection
of the areas to be changed. Does your cutting refer to the original image?

My approach would be to use something else from another image to paste
into the image you want to change. Again, that means making a selection.

feathers

30-07-2017, 7:39pm

farmmax

31-07-2017, 1:03am

Using gradients has been around in Photoshop from at least version 6, which is what I started with, so I'm sure CS6 will do it fine. I'm still using CS5.5

To remove backgrounds we would normally use something called "layer masks". They are very powerful and allow us to edit any part of the image we want without affecting other parts. In a bird photo such as above I add a new blank layer under the original bird photo layer. The gradients will be put onto the under layer. On to the bird layer we place a layer mask, which we can paint black or white onto. Where ever we paint black on the layer mask, the under layer with the gradients will show through. It is totally adjustable. If we make a mistake, then we can paint white on the layer mask to bring back the bits of bird photo.

Google something like "basic photoshop layer mask tutorial" and see if you can find tutorials which suit you, particularly youtube videos.

Dan05

31-07-2017, 8:27am

Hamster

31-07-2017, 8:59am

Not photoshop, but something similar. This pic had a white clear sky, so l overlaid some clouds from one of my other images.

https://photos.smugmug.com/My-First-Gallery/i-8XpxVMM/0/73a45e69/XL/DSC_1618_pe_pe_pe_pe-001-XL.jpg

Well blended around the rocks. The only problem is the ocean is reflecting a much brighter sky than is now above it.

bobt

31-07-2017, 9:29am

Yup ... I've been doing it for years - especially with photos taken in the UK where skies are often dull and featureless. I don't use Photoshop, I'm a Paintshop Pro person, but the techniques would be similar.

It has become a matter of "have to" given that competition is so intense these days. There are fewer photos straight out of camera and if you enter comps you're going to be up against lots of manipulated images.

Always easier and better to do it straight out of camera, but if you are only in a place for one moment in time, and that moment has crap skies, then you do what you have to do.

Plays With Light

31-07-2017, 10:10am

Guilty your honour!...I change the colour all the time to match a feature of the bird using "Adobe Color(their spelling) Themes' (under 'Window' > 'Extensions')
In your case above, I would've sampled on his beak using 5 by 5 average, look up the 'Complimentary Color' and off I'd go.

Lately I've been using Jimmy Mac's Luminosity masks and paint the colour on a D&B layer, but there's heaps of other ways to do it.

This may help...? Have a very very faint hint of the new background colour on your subject as well, helps sell-it to the subconscious mind I reckon :grinning01:

Just had a quick play with your image and came up with a very similar colour, great minds ah? :grinning01: :grinning01:

Cheers - :beer_mug:
Interesting technique, Gazza. Thanks for sharing it. I have Jimmy's Luminosity Masking plugin, but am yet to use it. I'm basically just starting to learn to use Photoshop, so will get there in good time, eventually. :o

The technique I used did have you add a faint hint of the background colour over the subject, I applied it very sparingly, but it is subtly noticeable. :D

Now that is a worry! ;)

- - - Updated - - -

Yup ... I've been doing it for years - especially with photos taken in the UK where skies are often dull and featureless. I don't use Photoshop, I'm a Paintshop Pro person, but the techniques would be similar.

It has become a matter of "have to" given that competition is so intense these days. There are fewer photos straight out of camera and if you enter comps you're going to be up against lots of manipulated images.

Always easier and better to do it straight out of camera, but if you are only in a place for one moment in time, and that moment has crap skies, then you do what you have to do.
That's interesting Bob. I know what you mean about the competitions, but I have a heavy preference for my colour images to be realistic rather than having artificial lighting effects applied. With my black and white long exposures however its usually all gloves are off! :rolleyes:

ameerat42

31-07-2017, 10:13am

I dunno. There's gotta be a reason for this stuff.:confused013
I think "bland skies" might be a smokescreen some of the time.
If just to manipulate an image, OK, replace sky or the like, but
often there is detail there that can be brought out and that can
even make an image look "natural". A critical look at the raw file
should tell you if the sky/other bland feature is a lost cause or not.

Plays. I had a look at the original images and tried some enhancement
in Pshop. However, banding soon appeared, so I reckon there's little to
be done with these resultant 8-bit images.

PS: Just thought of a comp: "Post your best Bland Sky":p

bobt

31-07-2017, 11:22am

Interesting technique, Gazza. Thanks for sharing it. I have Jimmy's Luminosity Masking plugin, but am yet to use it. I'm basically just starting to learn to use Photoshop, so will get there in good time, eventually. :o

The technique I used did have you add a faint hint of the background colour over the subject, I applied it very sparingly, but it is subtly noticeable. :D

Now that is a worry! ;)

- - - Updated - - -

That's interesting Bob. I know what you mean about the competitions, but I have a heavy preference for my colour images to be realistic rather than having artificial lighting effects applied. With my black and white long exposures however its usually all gloves are off! :rolleyes:

My current club has a special group devoted to manipulation of photos ...... I figured if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. I actually don't do skies with graduated fills or any other fill. I use real skies that I collect for just that purpose. Every time i see a nice sky, I take a photo and file it away under "skies". Much better to have a genuine sky than to use artificial stuff - same goes for grass actually. :lol:

Plays With Light

31-07-2017, 11:35am

Plays. I had a look at the original images and tried some enhancement
in Pshop. However, banding soon appeared, so I reckon there's little to
be done with these resultant 8-bit images.

PS: Just thought of a comp: "Post your best Bland Sky":p
These ones are definitely lost causes, at the time there was just a grey mass in the sky with no detail, so there's nothing to be salvaged in them. I will have a play at replacing the skies with some better looking skies after I take some images of skies with interesting cloud formations, as Bob mentioned just above.

Oh, have I got some winning skies for that comp! ;)

- - - Updated - - -

My current club has a special group devoted to manipulation of photos ...... I figured if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. I actually don't do skies with graduated fills or any other fill. I use real skies that I collect for just that purpose. Every time i see a nice sky, I take a photo and file it away under "skies". Much better to have a genuine sky than to use artificial stuff - same goes for grass actually. :lol:
That's good that they created a special category for manipulated images, Bob. Would be nothing more frustrating than entering comps where manipulated images are the popular opinion and yours is realistic or understated, so doesn't stand a chance. :nod:

bobt

31-07-2017, 11:45am

That's good that they created a special category for manipulated images, Bob. Would be nothing more frustrating than entering comps where manipulated images are the popular opinion and yours is realistic or understated, so doesn't stand a chance. :nod:

Sorry, I might have expressed that badly. The special group is for teaching members how to do it, not for a separate comp! They accept anything in comps, basically because there's no way of drawing a line in the sand between a modified image and one straight out of the camera.

I remember being struck by an excerpt from the comp rules of a club in NSW a few years back. It said something like "We know that pigs don't fly, but if you take the photo of the pig and you also photograph the wings then put them both together, then that's fine by us!"

I had a conversation here a while back, and also with another club member with a string of letters after her name - because I was concerned that today's filters introduce things into images that are not real. Both effectively said that there were no boundaries any more. I tend to think that there are boundaries, but I'm not sure where that line should or could be drawn, or how you'd police it. It's a can of worms if ever i saw one !!! :eek:

Gazza

31-07-2017, 12:21pm

....Every time i see a nice sky, I take a photo and file it away under "skies"....
I do a very similar thing...just realised I spelt 'Skies' wrong! OK, now I do the same thing...
We should have a buy sell or exchange one day :grinning01: :grinning01:

Plays With Light

31-07-2017, 12:24pm

Sorry, I might have expressed that badly. The special group is for teaching members how to do it, not for a separate comp! They accept anything in comps, basically because there's no way of drawing a line in the sand between a modified image and one straight out of the camera.

I remember being struck by an excerpt from the comp rules of a club in NSW a few years back. It said something like "We know that pigs don't fly, but if you take the photo of the pig and you also photograph the wings then put them both together, then that's fine by us!"

I had a conversation here a while back, and also with another club member with a string of letters after her name - because I was concerned that today's filters introduce things into images that are not real. Both effectively said that there were no boundaries any more. I tend to think that there are boundaries, but I'm not sure where that line should or could be drawn, or how you'd police it. It's a can of worms if ever i saw one !!! :eek:
My misunderstanding, Bob. It certainly is an interesting one, with Photoshop composites in the right hands being impossible to tell. Whether they should be judged against folks that prefer the straight out of camera look and approach is a conundrum indeed. I seem to be amongst a minority on the interwebz these days that doesn't really enjoy colour images with the selective artificially and overly lit or the unrealistically illuminated images that are loved by so many. They tend to look too CGI for my eye, rather than photo-realistic, but each to their own I guess. When it comes to B&W long exposures, I do enjoy the unrealistic lighting that is the current trend for it. And that's the beauty of photography, that everyone can explore and further refine what they enjoy about it. :cool:

Gazza

31-07-2017, 12:26pm

...I have Jimmy's Luminosity Masking plugin, but am yet to use it...
Did ya get 'InstaMask' as well? Think it came free if you had already paid out for 'Raya Pro'

I'm now finding 'InstaMask' slightly easier to use as long as ya don't want to radically change things, just enhance what's there.

Cheers - :beer_mug:

Plays With Light

31-07-2017, 12:31pm

Did ya get 'InstaMask' as well? Think it came free if you had already paid out for 'Raya Pro'

I'm now finding 'InstaMask' slightly easier to use as long as ya don't want to radically change things, just enhance what's there.

Cheers - :beer_mug:
I haven't grabbed InstaMask as yet, Gazza, but can get it for free as you mentioned. One day, when I feel a lot more confident with Photoshop I'll play and learn how to use them to full advantage.

bobt

31-07-2017, 12:44pm

My misunderstanding, Bob. It certainly is an interesting one, with Photoshop composites in the right hands being impossible to tell. Whether they should be judged against folks that prefer the straight out of camera look and approach is a conundrum indeed. I seem to be amongst a minority on the interwebz these days that doesn't really enjoy colour images with the selective artificially and overly lit or the unrealistically illuminated images that are loved by so many. They tend to look too CGI for my eye, rather than photo-realistic, but each to their own I guess. When it comes to B&W long exposures, I do enjoy the unrealistic lighting that is the current trend for it. And that's the beauty of photography, that everyone can explore and further refine what they enjoy about it. :cool:

Yup ... the whole range of options available to us is mind boggling. I think photography must have a broader capacity than just about any other hobby. Young or old, fit or handicapped - there is something for everyone. Except young attractive nudes .... my wife has an embargo on those.

feathers

31-07-2017, 6:23pm

Well blended around the rocks. The only problem is the ocean is reflecting a much brighter sky than is now above it.

How did l miss that?:scrtch: Thanks Hamster

- - - Updated - - -

Yup ... the whole range of options available to us is mind boggling. I think photography must have a broader capacity than just about any other hobby. Young or old, fit or handicapped - there is something for everyone. Except young attractive nudes .... my wife has an embargo on those.

LOL:D

Mark L

31-07-2017, 9:16pm

Why is the white sky any more bland than the sky you replaced it with??
Brighten the eye a bit to help draw attention away from the sky.

Plays With Light

31-07-2017, 9:59pm

Why is the white sky any more bland than the sky you replaced it with??
Brighten the eye a bit to help draw attention away from the sky.
I personally find white or grey skies more boring than blue ones and then find plain blue skies more boring than blue skies with clouds.
I did briefly wonder about lightening the eyes. Thanks for the confirmation that I should have, Mark.

Cage

01-08-2017, 9:13am

I found this very helpful tute by Steve Patterson great because he takes you through the process step by step. http://www.photoshopessentials.com/photo-editing/replace-sky/

Plays With Light

01-08-2017, 9:58am

I found this very helpful tute by Steve Patterson great because he takes you through the process step by step. http://www.photoshopessentials.com/photo-editing/replace-sky/
Thanks for linking to that one, Kev, it seems to be very effective using the 'Blend if Blue' feature! I'll definitely give it a try, now to create a library of cloud images to draw upon.

Cage

01-08-2017, 10:03am

Thanks for linking to that one, Kev, it seems to be very effective using the 'Blend if Blue' feature! I'll definitely give it a try, now to create a library of cloud images to draw upon.

I'm about to do the same and was thinking I'll have to do them at different times of the day and multiple directions to allow shadows to look right.

Plays With Light

01-08-2017, 10:07am

I'm about to do the same and was thinking I'll have to do them at different times of the day and multiple directions to allow shadows to look right.
Good point, Kev. Wouldn't want the light on the clouds to be coming from a different direction to the subject of the image!

ameerat42

01-08-2017, 10:51am

:th3: I didn't notice that mentioned in the tutorial.:confused013
(Is that because it goes without saying? Pretty important point, IMO.)

Cage

01-08-2017, 11:20am

Good point, Kev. Wouldn't want the light on the clouds to be coming from a different direction to the subject of the image!

I was also thinking about how to name the files so I can find the appropriate one when I want it. Like 'AugNW1600' taken in August, facing North West at 4pm.

Dan05

02-08-2017, 9:10am

enseth

21-08-2017, 4:57pm

Plays With Light

21-08-2017, 7:22pm

I came across this tutorial today. It works really well. It uses the channels in PS. No fringing or other artifacts. So good I thought it was worth sharing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHo9kb9gVF4&feature=em-subs_digest
That's interesting, Enseth, thanks for sharing it with us.

I discovered this new tutorial (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqKDqhXtOS0) from Serge Ramelli which uses the 'Multiply' blend mode and is really simple and quick, but so effective.

ameerat42

21-08-2017, 7:28pm

...which uses the 'Multiply' blend mode and is really simple and quick, but so effective...

But not for everything. AFAICT, Multiply "multiplies" the "value of the pixel" by itself, so...
Brights > brighter
Mids > "Midder" (actually a bit darker).
Darks > darker.

That brights > Brighter and darks > darker could lead to blown highlights or irretrievable shadows.

Plays With Light

21-08-2017, 7:32pm

But not for everything. AFAICT, Multiply "multiplies" the "value of the pixel" by itself, so...
Brights > brighter
Mids > "Midder" (actually a bit darker).
Darks > darker.

That brights > Brighter and darks > darker could lead to blown highlights or irretrievable shadows.
Thanks for the warning, AM, I tried this 'Multiply' blend technique today with a couple of different skies and had no blown out sections, but I'll definitely keep an eye on it in the future.

NikonNellie

21-08-2017, 10:11pm

I have replaced the sky in one of my bird photos with a gradient but I have also used sky images in some of my portraiture. You can buy sets of skies on the web or you can photograph your own to make it cheaper. Just one thing to remember when you do use an image of the sky that you make sure the tones in the rest of the image match the ones in the sky. When purchase some sky images they come with a photoshop action to help with placement and blending.

The image below had a horrible grey sky (it was taken in England). I chose a sky image that had similar tones to the lavender and the grass and then used a photoshop action to warm up the skin tones in the portrait.

132010