Yeah...I find I almost always do one or more intersect, subtract, or add filters along with Select Sky. Probably most common for me is a linear gradient to smooth out what it does across the horizon; but like you said, it all depends on the image. Anything that helps me avoid using the Brush tool is great. 😄
OK, I hereby admit, even after using PS/ACR for years and years, that I didn't know you could click and drag the eye-dropper tool to select a range. Mind blown. 🤦🏻♂️ Thank you!
If I opened a photo in to Photoshop, bypassed camera raw and added a dark gradient on top (not on a layer) anyone would call it destructive right? How is a GND any different. It’s a permanent undoable change to a photo before it ever even got to be seen.
@Matt Kloskowski people could argue a blown out and unrecoverable sky is worse. GND isn't destroying, it's balancing which can give more dynamic range in the areas you fix. It also allows you to lower shutter speed to balance the darker parts of your photo out more. This is all assuming we don't have the capacity to HDR shoot like if we don't happen to have a tripod.
I disagree but that’s what makes all of this fun. You can shoot however you’d like and if the final photo is great nobody will care (or know) how you got there. Btw... if you're savvy enough to know how to use a GND and balance the photo - and know how it affects shutter speed, you're smart enough to know how to turn the blinkies/highlight warnings on in camera, and shoot the photo without blowing out the sky - Knowing you'll be able to more accurately adjust the sky in post in the same amount of time it took you to put the GND on in the first place.
@@MattKloskowski it's not really a matter of disagreeing or agreeing. There are facts and then there are preferences and opinions. Factually, you can use a GND to darken areas with too much light, like the sky, while lowering shutter speed or increasing iso or lowering aperture to brighten darker areas of the image like backlit trees, buildings, or mountains. It might not be perfect but an overall more balanced image is always a better starting place for editing. If you think it saves time then that's fine and that's your preference but don't then say it "destroys" your image. All this being said, I don't use a GND ever lol but I can't deny its benefits.
I didn’t say it destroys your photo. I said it’s a destructive adjustment to it. And it is without question. Just like my example in Photoshop a few comments above. It is definitely a destructive change to your photo that cannot be undone. That is the definition of destructive. All that being said… I don’t use them either ;-) and I can 100% deny a GND’s benefits - because I used to use them.
