NewYork_210308

This is true. Craft has always been a part of art as well. Just because something's been done and accepted by artists doesn't mean that everyone who does it or tries it is making art. Our community here on PN would do well to remember that.

A strong graphic piece, but instantly recognizable as a composite and not "a photograph (read singular)" in my book. Though I could be wrong, and therefore have an airplane size foot in my mouth, but the light sure doesn't look right.

@ John A.
Maybe we should have to write on the face of our images that we "faked" them?
Yes, absolutely. Certainly if it's chosen as a POTW

--

GREAT IDEA, WELL DONE.  I MIGHT TRY IT OVER THE POLICE GUN

RANGE NEAR CITY ISLAND or at FERRY POINT PARK at WSB

In a pre-9/11 world I may have liked it a lot...

There's a slight halo around the place and pretty heavy halo around all the buildings too, would help the overall impression to redo the sky darkening.

I talked to my wife about the this image. She is NOT a photographer. She said that if she were to have purchased the image, and then later found out that the plane was digitally inserted, she would be pretty disappointed. I think it's hard to get past the notion that when people see an image, they expect that what they see was actually there in front of the camera. I feel that composites definitely cross the border between photography and digital art, and should be represented this way.

Somebody said that the image left them cold, after the novelty value wore off. I tend to agree, but maybe this is just a question of my taste versus the photographer (and judging by the multitude of former comments before POW, obviously others). Technical perfection is not why I would want to look again at this image, or whether or not it is a composite, or its angle or symmetry (or lack thereof).

It has to trigger more than that for me. I don't find any particular reason to want to go back to the image, not for its composition, or its architecture, or its story, or any emotional or symbolic value. It is a nice shot, technically quite well done. If the author wants to say something about the presence of low flying jets in the city he might want to consider the use of less colorful everyday skies and colors, less detailed architecture, and the use perhaps of selective contrast and indistinct areas, perhaps black and white imagery, or forboding atmospheres and clouds, rain, or whatever might symbolize that story line or compatible visual atmosphere. As it is, it appeals to me on the level of a voyage advertisement from one of the airline companies. Sorry if I am a bit negative, but I hope it is a constructive negatism at least and I realize that the photgrapher shows imagination which is at least a good steppingstone to further evolution and realisations.

Excellent point, Rob. I mean, aesthetically, it really doesn't matter if an image was or wasn't manipulated. I've seen beautiful "fake" images and beautiful "real" ones, but composites (and heavily manipulated photos) and photographs are (to me) two different things.

We can get down to the basics and quote from Oxford Dictionnary

In sales/copyright issues, this might be a legal issue: the product you are selling is a photograph or not?

Regarding this photo, we can think at two scenarios.

First would be a photographer walking on the street and seeing planes flying over. He has the "vision" of the image so he starts working: takes the camera, choose his lens (yeah, the one with barrel distortion, because that's his vision - he likes that and he wont care about others say), carefully compose and wait. At the right moment, he shoots and transform his vision into reality with the camera.

Second would be somebody with photoshop skills walking on the same street and having the same "vision". He snaps two pictures (or he goes home and browse for some) puts it in photoshop and here we go: same result!

I (and dictionaries, too :) see the photographer in the first scenario. And that's why I consider fair to mention how the image was obtained. And I think that it would be a good idea to have the elves asking the author about that before publishing a photo to the POW.

Arthur, possibly you're refering to me. And yes, it is for the reason you mention. I cannot find much flawed in the shot (apart from the lack of symmetry I mentioned before), but it just doesn't tell me much. After I've seen it, I've seen it. And that's it. Surely I am not saying this to talk the photographer down in any way; it's my perception of it, and yes, as you say, that's largely a matter of taste.

Alex, yes, I can explain why the distortion does not bother me too much. To me, the curved buildings are like hands trying to grab the plane. As I said before, I typically dislike fisheye effects, but in this photo, I do find it quite effective. To me, the buildings become fingers, stretching out. They shouldn't be straight, they should be grabbing.
So, I disagree any aesthetic value was ruined here. I think it adds a dynamic, which straight lines would not have given. Just another opinion and another way to look at an image.

It's nicely done for a pasted in airplane in a postcard photograph.

My bottom line reaction is a yawn.

Enhorabuena León, me alegra un montón :)

With the effect of 9/11 am surprise they allow aircraft to fly that low still in NY. Nevertheless, great short.

I am pretty sure this is a composite.  Direction of the light on the buildings is from the left, while for the plane is from the right.  It is also extremely unlikely to have the plane fly exactly parallel to the buildings.  In addition, these buildings suggest the location to be Manhattan.  I don't think planes fly over Manhattan.  Nevertheless, this is a clever idea, and the result of the composite is eye catching.