The sky on the walk was a flat gray sheet. The sky in the proposed edit looked as though a celestial events team had hired a lighting designer. The street was the same street. The claim being made by the picture had changed.
I do not object to an invented sky simply because it is invented. I object when the picture asks me to believe that the weather was there.
The recent disagreement about requesting a non-AI re-edit has a removed original post, so its comments cannot establish the full circumstances. They do show people arguing about expectations, second chances and what a client should ask for. Those expectations deserve a conversation before the result arrives.
In my own neighborhood notebook, the weather is part of what I went out to see. Gray light changes the walls. Rain changes the pavement. A dull afternoon can produce a picture worth keeping without being upgraded into a sunset. If I replace the condition that interested me, I may still create an image I like, but I have stopped describing the same experience.
Another project might have a different purpose. A clearly presented illustration can transform a place freely. A playful composite can make the transformation its subject. The useful distinction is the promise made to the viewer, not whether the tool sounded fashionable.
At exhibition work I often think about the caption as part of the image. It gives the audience a starting point. If the caption implies an observed moment, the picture needs to respect that implication. If the work is constructed, a plain description of the construction can become part of its interest.
I would rather make a good invented picture than an invented picture pretending to be evidence. And sometimes I would rather keep the disappointing sky. It was what the morning offered, and I was there to notice it.
A thought worth keeping?
