Yesterday I shared a pretty bold statement… You can click here to watch the video, but I’ll paraphrase below. I said that I believe the sky is one of the most important (if not sometimes THE most important) part of the photo.
Feel free to comment below how you feel about the sky or what you spend most of your editing time on…
So why is that? With so many things competing for attention in our photos, how could I say the sky is the most important.
First, before you run to your keyboard and tell me I’m wrong, I’m speaking in general terms for most outdoor and nature photographers. There are plenty of cases where the sky isn’t important and even times where a lot of genres would want to minimize the impact of the sky.
But for all of you landscape and nature photographers, let me share a simple statement that led me to feel this way.
Think back to any time you’ve been at a great location getting ready to shoot. Did you or some one near you, ever say:
“Wow… this is shaping up to be a great shoot”.
I’ve said it and I’ve heard it many times while out shooting.
So what does that mean? The rocks, or building, waterfall, trees, mountain, etc… aren’t going anywhere. They’re not shaping up for anything, because they were there and probably part of the reason you’re at that location to begin with right?
What you – or that person who said that statement above meant was:
“Wow… the sky and the light really looks like it will help give us a great photo shoot today”.
When I think back to my favorite photos and my favorite memories of “amazing” shoots, the sky, light and color is usually the common thread among all of those places.
Once I realized that, I realized I need to be devoting more time to getting my skies to look perfect. Whether that’s the way I remember it to have looked – or the way I wanted it to look, I started dedicating most of my editing time in a photo to the sky.
Sometimes It’s Easy… Sometimes It’s Not
As many of you know, sometimes a great photo just edits itself and doesn’t require much work. This is a perfect example where the photo looked like this pretty much right out of the camera. It was amazing and I barely had to do anything to it because the scene was pretty dark to begin with and there wasn’t a lot of highlight to shadow range in the photo.
But there are other times where you have an amazing subject and location, and the sky isn’t so easy to edit. With this photo below, it was hard to balance the sky and the mountains to look the way they did when I was there, because our cameras just can’t see those subtle shifts that our eyes can.
There was definitely a blue sky, and the mountains were separated and clear as can be. But they all blend together in the before photo, and editing (and balancing) the sky in this photo proved to be the hardest part. Trying to get the light and color in the blue sky (without making the clouds too dark) and balanced with the mountains and foreground was challenging. Then getting the mountains to look good, but still keep that depth we see, without removing all of the haze and how they interact with the sky is an important part to making this work.
Disclaimer
I know I have to leave a disclaimer here. I’m not saying other things, like composition, aren’t important. Choosing the right location or subject, in the right light, and composing in a pleasing way are by far the hardest part of any photo. But once you’re there and getting ready to shoot, how the sky looks is what takes that photo up a notch. And learning how to edit that sky to look beautiful is one of the few things we can do in post processing to make that photo look as beautiful as it can.
If you’re interested in this idea of how important the sky is in our photo editing, I just happen to have a course that can help 🙂 It’s on sale this week and a VERY time sensitive is available as well, so feel free to stop by and check it out. Enjoy!
Feel free to comment below how you feel about the sky or what you spend most of your editing time on…
I love teaching and photography... In that order. I feel that enjoying photography, and photo editing can get WAY too complicated. So my personal mission (and favorite thing to do), is to create education that simplifies the process of taking great photos, and how to edit them to get the results you’ve always wanted.
It amazes me how great skies seem to follow me when I’m on vacation. But, when they aren’t there, they aren”t there. Your insight is very helpful. Thanks
A good photo will always be a good photo, but a great sky will get it noticed. I’ve been a student of yours for decades and the sky replacement is one of the first things you taught me. I’m sure your newest lessons on skies and sky replacement have to be solid gold!
You make a strong argument. I take most of my photos when I am travelling and take photographs because I am there. As a result I have quite a lot of photos with ugly skies!! Although I have tried to improve the skies, I am frequently unsuccessful. The photographs are a record of where I was but are not artistically pleasing. I think I will have to buy your latest course and revisit some/many of my old photographs.
I know you don’t like Polaroid filters, but I think the real sky color should be half-way between the reflection and the actual sky. It would be interesting how it would look, maybe both of us might not like it
I agree, so much so that I have a folder of skies taken by myself. These are the only ones that I can import into any of my competition entries.
I fully agree and I have a folder of Skies as my Photographic Society will not allow imported skies from a third party..
Thank you,
Kevin
I agree with you. I often find myself in a situation similar to your before & after shots.
Totally agree with the idea that the sky and light are the most impactful elements of a photo. I would add that editing using Lightroom’s HDR mode amplifies the impact with added brightness and details.
I agree 100%
In your “Inside the Composition Course” you said that the general rule in landscape and nature shots is that the shot contain 2/3 foreground and 1/3 sky. You tried to convince that the sky is to be kept small and is just a little bit of context. Aren’t you completely changing your point of view?
At the time I thought that, living in Florida, you took the local sky for granted. Living in Belgium, we get overcast sky quite often this time of the year. So every day and every shoot starts with “What can I achieve with this sky?”
Still I’m a huge fan of your courses. Thanks Matt!
Hi. Don’t mistake the size for importance. I still believe that for most photos 1/3-ish sky is appropriate for composition purposes. That doesn’t mean that 1/3 of the photo isn’t incredibly important.
Living in the Pacific northwest where overcast skies are very common, I mostly do macros and forest scenes which work best on overcast days. In conifer forest (what we have) I minimize the sky and let sky is in the frame blow-out while exposing for the trees.
So, yes, there are some of us around.
I just rewatched Lesson 1, module 2 of your “Inside the Composition Course” where you said that in landscape and nature shots the general rule is that the shot contain 2/3 foreground and 1/3 sky. You indicated there that it was a general rule and there were reasons to break it. Are you now saying that you think the sky always deserves more of the frame since you say it’s the MOST important? Please reconcile this for me. Thanks Matt, I’m a huge fan of your courses!
Yes and No. Your words: “once you’re there and getting ready to shoot, how the sky looks is what takes that photo up a notch.” Sure, once you have proper exposure and sharp focus, a nice landscape and good light what’s left is the sky. I’ve heard people excited to shoot in Iceland, Banff NP, the Dolomites, the Tetons, etc., but never heard them say they were headed there because of the sky.
Can the techniques introduced in your course be applied with Luminar Neo? I’m an avid wildlife and nature photographer just beginning to enhance my photos with AI. Thank you
Nick
If nature can improve upon itself, I don’t see the harm of a photographer doing the same. If you take a closer look at Matt’s original photo, look closely at the reflection in the water. You might note (as I believe that I did) that the reflection has more clarity & definition than the actual sky itself. “Mother Nature”, the original Photoshop!
I’m an enthusiast and mainly shoot landscape and travel photos. I’m in your camp,because I agree with your opening statement. The first thing I look for is whether the sky is right for a good shot. I’m not motivated enough to get up before dawn to be onsite and ready for a photo that may or may not present itself, but I do recognize when the sky is “right” for a great photo.
I definitely agree. The sky’s the limit!
So, you’re outdoors, the composition works, the leading lines are in perfect harmony.
Everything inside the frame should be there and everything not in the frame doesn’t matter.
So all you need is to flip on the lights and you’re ready to go.
Oh wait, no strobes, no overheads, no fill lights, nothing.
Where’s the light coming from again?
Oh yeah, the SKY! I almost forgot!
I think you nailed it.
Let these folks ignore the sky, especially in monochrome. I’ll enhance it and win the photo competition.
I think it’s the light that you all may be thinking about.
As it is the light that we mostly capture and outside comes sky and sometimes the sun.
We should wait for the right conditions with film we mostly had to we used filters.
I was told when leaning to look at the light. So I well, I will leave it for now.
I really do like to replace skies in my photos. I do it all the time although I don’t always get the best results. I just wish you would teach sky replacement in other photo editing programs besides Photoshop and Lightroom.
I agree with Matt. The sky can make or break a scape image. It’s a fine line to ensure that the sky doesn’t steal the composition but it can sure enhance the image. We need to be careful replacing skies that the color still looks like it belongs to the foreground
sorry, but disagree – kind of!
For me, I have to decide what I want the viewer to focus on.
If the suject matter is just so-so, I would look for a dramatic sky. I must admit, my taste in photography leans to the minimalist style. I have seen so many pictures that have a terrific subject, and adding a dramatic sky just complicates it. For me, the picture has to yell at me -“look here” – not look here, and here, and here, etc. I suspect I’m in the minority on this view.
I agree the sky in much of your images is a big part of the composition and adds to the image and can really elevate an ok shot into something amazing. I’m curious though your thoughts on, you’ve just got the perfect shot in front of you with a plain sky, do you put one in that adds to the image in your mind or come back another day when the sky has interest?
I love traveling and don’t mind returning to special places like the Tetons or the Big 5 Utah parks hoping to capture awesome skies and light in camera. But some places I know I’ll only visit once, like Porto Portugal. I try to capture my targeted locations in the best light, but there are secondary locations I have no choice but to shoot mid-day, and clouds are always a matter of chance. So, if I need to “cheat” a bit to save the shot, that’s what I’ll do.
I fully agree with your statement about the sky being the most important part. I live in a retirement community, my ability to travel is limited. The view from my home is limited. But with the limitless variations in the sky, my ability to capture the scenes is not limited.
A great sky can definitely enhance the image, and I’m totally fine with enhancing the sky that existed at capture.
The Grand Tetons is a great example of what I think is acceptable editing. You did a great job, and I feel it is still considered photography and an accurate depiction of what you saw and what you captured.
When it comes to replacing the sky or using AI-generated skies, the result is no longer a image you took. It’s a composite made up of different parts. You didn’t capture this image, only part of it. The rest of it (the sky) was made up or added. The new sky (clouds, stars, moon, etc.) didn’t exist within the frame at the time when you took the photo. This is creative digital art, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Just be up front about it.
Matt, I think you’re spot on. I predominantly shoot landscape photography and I’m adamant about my photography looking as natural as it possibly can. If a sky is to play a significant role in the photo, it will definitely make or break the appeal. During exhibits, classes, and speaking to students of landscape photography, I have always said I will replace and edit skies before I otherwise let a good photo go to waste because of a bad sky.
The caveat if entering an exhibit, contest and the like, enter the proper category and if requested always disclose.
Absolutely the sky can make all the difference Boring, blown out vs vibrant interesting sky with clouds. Pretty hard choice theee!
I’d say the bulk of my photos from Africa have an important sky. And it’s often what grabs me when I shoot
I’m with you on the importance of the sky in most landscape photographs. I have many photos where I spent significant time on the sky, bringing it back from the blahs. Other times when I didn’t even bother to click the shutter because the sky didn’t cooperate. Yeah – for certain – sky is critical to a memorable landscape photograph.
I agree the sky is the attraction when I show any photos the show the sky
Your pictures are to say the least beautiful. It is also your picture, it is how you see it. Not everyone is going to see it the way you do. Up until I looked over your example of what looks like the Titons, in Wyoming the first picture (you don’t see the others util you scroll down) my first thought was now nice is this except I would have made the trees a bit more obvious. I scroll down and you did just that. We are very much on the same path I can see now. But as I said it’s still a matter of personal taste. Nice picture
I do believe the sky is one of, if not the biggest thing in your images to get right. For me you can have the most appealing image of lets say a big city, but if you mess up the sky thats the image gone as far as I’m concerned, it draws you into the image.
The sky is definitely important as it often creates the mood but I think of it more as working hand in hand with the other elements in a scene. I spend a lot of time making sure the sky is right and that the clouds are well composed, etc. I am interested in the first part of the course but not in the two other parts. If you ever decide to split up the course, I would be interested in taking in the first part.
Replacing the sky is one of my thresholds that changes the image from a photo, to digital art, and it should be declared as such.
To me a photo is what you told the camera to capture. Post processing can allow the maker to bring out how they felt about the photo.
My pet peeve is that makers do not provide guidance to the viewer that severe editing / object manipulation has occurred and the maker no longer considers it a photo. My watermarks are ‘Photograph’ and ‘Digital Art from Photo’
You have captured one of my photography dilemmas. For a long time I resisted devoting a lot of time to post processing, but now I am doing it on almost every shot. Much of it is adjustment of color, sharpness, denoising, but also removing things like background objects coming out of a subjects head. Some is dodging or burning, from my darkroom days, but some is definitely making use of some of the AI magic available. Even replacing the sky is a real debate for me, yet I have done it on occasion to improve an image. What I have avoided is bringing objects the are not present in the original image, like a bear of mountain lion in a shot of a forest.
You have touched a nerve and brought up a debate that will now be forever in the “world of photography”.
Your take on sky importance is pretty much how I feel too. However, I don’t usually pay much attention to how it looks, but instead tend to focus on the kind of light it’s providing for my main subject. After editing the main subject, my attention is then directed to the sky, if it looks interesting. Most of the time if it doesn’t look interesting (as in your “before” image of the mountains and lake above) I don’t do much about it and often reemphasize edits on my main subject. I’m thinking I should start giving the sky more attention after reading this. Hmmm, I might just buy that course you mentioned! 😎