[FozzFoster]

Hi everyone,

I'm working on replacing an overcast sky with a previously shot blue sky.

I import both photos in Photoshop as layers.
With the blue sky on the top layer, right click the photo, select blending options.
The bottom sliders can be moved to blend the two layers. Holding Alt key while clicking splits the slider for further refinements.
Only blend the sky/subject interface, as the blending occurring elsewhere within the subject can be masked out after...

However, it still looks really fake to me. It's not bad and on first glace it might get a pass, but it still seems to abrupt for me.

Any suggestions/feedback would be appreciated!
Thanks

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[c.a.m]

I think you've done a good job in blending the new sky into the image.

However, I find that the lighting conditions are somewhat incompatible across the two images. The base image of the residence has fairly flat, low-contrast lighting owing to the overcast sky, which results in diffused shadows or none at all. The new sky is bright and only partially cloudy, so one would expect to see higher contrast and more distinct shadows in the base image. I think that's why the result gives the "abrupt" impression. The difference in lighting (i.e., overcast vs mainly blue sky) can also affect the white balance.

I don't have any experience with such blending, so I'm afraid I can't offer any suggestions for improvement. Perhaps try a strong "fill flash" adjustment if the software has such a function. That might add brightness to the foreground, but I'm not sure.


- Craig

[cpk]

I think you've done a good job in blending the new sky into the image.

However, I find that the lighting conditions are somewhat incompatible across the two images.

My reaction as well. Even before I saw your final image, looking only at the original, I thought the merge would be problematic.

[ToddK]

I agree with Craig. I think you did a fine job blending them, but you might want to try and increase the contrast or shadows in the house image.

[Parallax]

I would try desaturating the blue sky just a little bit. What caught my eye first was the difference in color intensity between the sky and ground objects.

[AggieDad]

As others have mentioned, I think it is a sky saturation and tone issue. Here's a great tutorial from PHlearn.Com. They published a great set of free tutorials called 30 Days of Photoshop with each day covereing a different technique or skill. This tutorial (Day 30) is all about replacing sky and includes discussion and demonstration of correcting color and tone.

I hope this helps.

I really enjoy the PHlearn tutorials and have their annual subscription.

[BarryE]

As others have said it's the difference between the high and low contrast images that is the issue, I'd say. So desaturate the sky and then use the old and probably my favourite tool dodge and burn on the building.

Looking again I'd guess the light from the clouds is coming from the left, so flip the sky, then dodge in the highlights to suggest the light coming in from the, now, right. Don't forget to burn in some shadows too, to improve the local contrast, considering where you want the fake light to come from.

Could also edit out the light in the room, which suggests a dull day.

If you're processing in 16-bit and widest gamut, keep these until you're happy to reduce things, thus limiting unnecessary noise.

Hi everyone,

I'm working on replacing an overcast sky with a previously shot blue sky.

I import both photos in Photoshop as layers.
With the blue sky on the top layer, right click the photo, select blending options.
The bottom sliders can be moved to blend the two layers. Holding Alt key while clicking splits the slider for further refinements.
Only blend the sky/subject interface, as the blending occurring elsewhere within the subject can be masked out after...

However, it still looks really fake to me. It's not bad and on first glace it might get a pass, but it still seems to abrupt for me.

Any suggestions/feedback would be appreciated!
Thanks

I have looked at the pictures several times and I agree with most of the remarks of the others. What actually bothers me in the picture is that the house is too prominent in the picture. It looks like the picture is taken with a wide(r) angle, hence the prominent white fence. The clouds are to close to the house. If you take the picture of the blue sky you see that there is room above the houses and the far away clouds give a 3D impression. The edit lacks that sensation, the clouds are big and seem to be glued to the house, and I think that is why you experience it as being abrupt.

[FozzFoster]

Thank you all - will take this advice into consideration and will post a 'retry' when available!
Thanks again!

[sbh]

One more thing to consider besides the focal length is the angle towards the sky. The blue sky image is tilted more upwars looking at the clouds in a different angle than the original view. Together it looks unnatural. Also, notice that the sky changes as it gets lower and closer to the horizon. At lower angles the gradient is stronger.

[Bob 256]

Try selecting the sky area (in the finished result) with the lasso and enter a feather value (depends on the pixel count you're working with). Then selectively adjust the brightness/contrast of each area (select/select inverse). It appears that the contrast of the foreground doesn't quite match the cloud cover type which subjectively calls for increased shadows and contrast. A bump of contrast for the foreground and a bump of brightness for the sky might just work. Just my two cents for what it's worth.

Otherwise, you've done a great job and it would pass as is for most who see the print.