One thing I was taught was if a sky is boring (as in plain), either cover it up or leave it out of the photograph. Well, on this particular day, in Acadia National Park, I had a boring sky. Other than a few clouds at the horizon line—way off in the distance, there was nothing going on. So, I used the overhang of the tree to fill in the blank, blue sky. It helped the image.
But was that enough? I wasn’t sure.
When I got home from my trip and processed the image, I decided to play around. I dropped in a sky that I had on file—just some high, wispy clouds. They filled in the upper right corner of the picture. My personal opinion is it was the piece that was missing. Had I had extra time to spend in Maine, I would have revisited this lake when these conditions actually existed, but having a limited amount of time, that wasn’t possible.
But what do you think? Is it okay for me to manipulate the image this much? After all, this scene is NOT what was available to me that day. Are you more of a purest who believes that things, such as skies, should not be added to a photograph? Some say, by adding the sky, it’s no longer photography and instead, has become digital “art.”
Playing around, I think I’m fine with replacing it, and I would hang the picture on my wall. But if you notice on my website, the original photograph is the one that I posted. Why? Because I don’t know how others feel, and I wouldn’t want to mislead anybody about what the image is.
So, what is your opinion? Share with me.
What Is This Page?
Since I love photography and teaching, I thought I would start a Blog page and share how I take my images, what I was thinking and about me.