I’m often dismayed by this recent trend where pristine bluer-than-blue skies are considered deathly boring (e.g. a major compositional faux pas) that must be corrected in post by replacing it with a sky from another time/location.
In my humble opinion, that would ruin this minimalist image where a tree waking up from its winter hibernation has ample breathing room to grow into. [Metaphorically speaking.]
Cheers, Franz
Feedback Requests
So what do you think? Should I have not taken this image and come back at at another time when the sky was much “busier”? Am I being overly sensitive to this whole “sky replacement” movement that is overpowering the landscape photography genre?
Pertinent Technical Details
Nothing special about the camera settings. Quite normal.
1/80 sec at f/16, ISO 64, 100 mm focal length
Hi Franz,
IMO the clear blue sky works beautifully with the emerging yellow spring leaves. I also find that the blue s and yellows make a wonderful color combination. I am more of a purist and would never replace the sky with another as I tend to watch the weather reports for a location to increase my chances of capturing the conditions I am looking for. That being said, I don’t have a problem with someone replacing a sky as long as they disclose it. It’s just not for me. My only suggestion would be to reduce the exposure by 1/3 to 1/2 as it looks a little overexposed. BTW, I like your metaphor.
Franz, the mix of spring yellow/green against the blue sky looks great. The clear sky complements the tree nicely and lets the tree be the main focus. I’m a major fan of showing nature as it is, rather than nature as someone wishes it were.
