Sky replacement

Hi to all
What about a skyreplacement by using the raw files - or if this not works with tiff. I think this would be a great benefit and i do not have to work with another app and i can stay in DXO environment. I would pay for it.


Hi Dave welcome to the forum,
maybe you know all this but
there are in general two types of edit applications

  • raw developers
  • pixel edit applications.

DxOPL is a Raw developers application. the only real "pixel editing is in “Clone and Repair” the rest is manupalation of the colordata of the RGB pixelgroup

Replacing the sky would be a selection of color(s) and replace them with an other selection of color(s) ( your wanted sky) This is the field of pixel editors.

Photoshop does use the preview of a ARC and then use there pixel editing to implement things as replacement, moving people from left to right or use one image for person 1 and other image for person 2 to merch those to a “group” All that is pixel editing magic.
Photoshop does look like it handles RAW in those moments but it can’t it just imports the edited 16 bit tiff from LR/ARC in that workwindow when you replaces the sky.

up left you can vote for your request and if more people do that it get picked up by the staff.

as for me i think i would using a pixel editor for those moments and let DxOPL be concentrating on evolving there raw convertion and adjusting toolset.
But i understand your objective, i have sometimes also a image what would be “stunning” if i got the sky also right exposed instead of blown to bits with no detail or texture.

i use this as second best for those moments:
PSE13 replace a color.docx (2,4 MB)


Luminar 4 has, of course, set the standard for changing skies flawlessly with virtually no effort. I checked a review copy myself and it’s very interesting technology, but I would never use it

Unless you use your own replacement skies, you are essentially turning your image into a composite with someone else’s image of a sky, and with virtually no effort on your part. Furthermore, most of the stock images are highly dramatic and can move the focus of the image away from the original subject to someone else’s dramatic sky. Third, to work effectively, the overall lighting of an image would need to change to reflect the impact a different sky would make. Luminar does this automatically as well, making a significant alteration to you image’s lighting and colors. After all this completely automatic compositing with an image captured by someone else can we really still claim the final image as our own? While the results I got were quite attractive I never felt any satisfaction from them.

And a last thought. I am often able to identify when Luminar has been used to replace a sky without even being told first simply because the use of a relatively small number of overtly dramatic stock skies has become visually repetitive and therefore boring

I certainly hope that DXO continues to focus on serious image enhancements rather then dubious dramatic special effects like sky replacement.



DxO PL is not a RAW developer only. A “selection of color(s) and replace them with an other selection of color(s)” is something many DxO PL tools can already do, if you wish to use them like that (not automated sky replacing of course).

Not sure why you decided to argue against using sky replacement idea using stock images. You brushed aside “use your own replacement skies” idea – how about concentrating on that, as opposed to using mismatched stock skies. By the way, Luminar is not the only tool replacing sky (actually not even the best tool for that).

Yes and no.
Your color replacement (HSL) is indeed more then a WB or color toneslider can offer but it can’t replace texture or structure for a new part . Repair/clone does that , confirmed.
That is only for pixel editors.

Personal i am not seaking for those things. Recreating a image in pixel level. Adding a boat or deleting one move a person to otherside, replace a tree.
The present manupalation tools are quite good.
Not that i judge people who do. By the way.

If DxO PL was a “RAW developer application” only, opening a JPEG image in PL would not allow a user to do much, if anything at all. Clearly not the case.

PL is not a pixel editor, that’s what they meant.
Maybe in a future version, but first there’s other things to fix or be improved before it get there.

There’re 2 kind of image editors: pixel based and vector based.
A pixel editor works on a predefined image of x by y pixels by changing the pixel values. This can be done on individual pixels level or group level. The essence is that individual pixels are changed.
So I think a raw converter exists out of the conversion part, the creating of an RGB raster image and after that just the pixel editing part. Some tools can be greyed out in the converter or handled different when using a jpg like white balance or exposure correction.
I myself shoot pictures for their content. I try to archive a nice picture with the camera. A sky replacement is replacing a part of the content. In journalistic en documentary photography strict forbidden.


Ok, lett me refrase myself.
There are raw applications which can stack images and blend then together like This one
You can change composition details by pasting two to six “workspace previews” on top of each other and create a new scene and there for i call this a hybrid. It’s equiped with pixel editing software but in the base jt’s a rawdeveloper.
Photoshop is the fullblown magicbox you can create a image by pulling stuff out other images and never go out to make the image yourself. You can edit pixels as in fill in a blank canvas. I call this a Pixel editor.

DxOpl is a rawdeveloper with some need tricks , which uses pixel manipulation software, but i my eye’s it’s not a pixel editor as in replacing and altering a scene out of reality. Granted repair and cloning and colorreplacement is also altering reality but hence every adjustment is altering reality. :grin:

Replacing a sky is photoshop area, enhancing sky structure, color and exposure masking objects out is developing skills.

Maybe DxOPL follows the rawdeveloper above and create some tools to stack and select in layers maybe not. Personally i find it difficult to judge if i need it or not.
If it’s there i want a good working tool not a “blunt shizzle” which ruining my work.
When above’s is brand selective and reduced in price i think i am tempted to find out. As in it never hurts to look over the fence to compare.
But my main developer wil stay dxopl, the improvements it does on optical level and noisereduction, which is key with m43 sensors, is outstanding. There toolbox is in the last two years expanded in a good direction so i am confident it will serve me well.

1 Like

Basic we say the same.
Every pixel editor is manipulating pixels, but when we talk about the difference between a rawdeveloper and a pixeleditor we refer to the fact that that pixeleditor can change the content of the image, is more developed for that. Working on the sky in PL doesn’t replace that sky and changes the content. Replacing does change the content. I would say leave that to other programs.


1 Like

Because using stock skies is how most people will likely use it. So far, the only Luminar sky replacement images I’ve seen anywhere have used the included stock skies rather than images captured by those using that feature.


I thought you could not use your own sky in luminar 4 but only those stock you get with the software or buy on their store.

Now you can instantly change the sky in your pictures. Smart algorithm even selects the best orientation for the sky. You can use many pre-installed skies, or easily add your own sky photos.

no blue sky replacement only some local controlpoints, and a DCP profile. contrast vibrance and saturation.

I totally second your opinion. You can get acceptable results with the tools we already have and in a reasonable time.
A luminosity mask would have made the process much easier.
As a personal opinion: this sky color only exists for a minute, a bit less saturated, early in the cloudy morning, like this it looks a bit dodgy to me :slight_smile: - also because of my pain trying to edit so that I show the proper color of that sky in the morning.

1 Like

your right, i was pushing it to the max to see if it’s holds credibility. :slight_smile:
saturated too much. too edgy trees. looked a bit if i got a UV polaroidglasses on of a dodgy salesstore LOL, here the rawfile _1060609.RW2 (18,9 MB) have fun with it

edit: v2 turn it down a notch:

What this all comes down to is whether it would be prudent for DXO to expend resources developing a feature similar to the one already in Luminar. My opinion is that it would not be a good use of their limited resources. There are many more important feature upgrades and new feature requests in the backlog that should take precedence over special effects like sky replacement.



Just bought Luminar 4 (with sale + discounts, £45, silly not to) and find the sky replacement is pretty good.

ON1 and Affinity can also cope with it, albeit a little more tricky and more work.

Quite agree that I also would like DxO to focus on bringing in luminosity masks, colour pickers and such like and leave the fancy image editing stuff to other programs, of which there are plenty.

1 Like

Not so, and not what Luminar recommends: “While the filter includes sample skies for you to use, many will want to use sky photos of their own creation”. Good advice how to capture your own sky pictures (and how to properly use them): No idea (and of little relevance here) how “most people” will use it.

Would be banned from contests if I didn’t use my own skies!

The ones supplied by Skylum are fine, but for many people they will simply be OTT and look ridiculous.

I have stock sky images I create of various sizes and both orientations and as long as they are the same resolution and approximate size (to avoid stretching pixels to fit) as the area you want to replace they will be fine as I have already found. Certainly far quicker than other software, and you can blend the sky just as you would in any other program.