I really can't stand compositing in natural-looking photographs. If you're going for surrealism, or abstract, or some other synthetic aesthetic, or you're fulfilling a commercial contract like make the product look good, then go for it. Composite away. But when I see a photo that looks like a natural scene, and then I find out it was composited, I lose respect for that "photographer."
Why? Because the emotional power of a photograph is in the implicit promise that it captures and portrays a real moment in time--not just in matters of technical merit like color, composition, and sharpness. What makes a strikingly original natural photo impressive is the effort that it takes to really capture that moment.
Gluing a moon into the background of a nice photo is like walking around wearing a Google t-shirt and telling people you founded Google. It's fake. And it's not fair to the people who really did the thing you're claiming.
You can tell the matter of authenticity is important because of how many photographers lie about their compositing work. If compositing is indeed a valid artistic technique, why not lead with that in the title or photo description? But so many people and institutions, even very top folks like National Geographic or Art Wolfe, have failed to disclose compositing--and that's done on purpose. Even worse are folks (like apparently Peter Lik, based on this reporting) who invent stories (i.e. tell a lie) about the personal efforts they went through to get a particular photo.
Folks, please: don't composite natural-looking photos. And if you do, be 100% honest and up front about doing so.
Why? Because the emotional power of a photograph is in the implicit promise that it captures and portrays a real moment in time--not just in matters of technical merit like color, composition, and sharpness. What makes a strikingly original natural photo impressive is the effort that it takes to really capture that moment.
Gluing a moon into the background of a nice photo is like walking around wearing a Google t-shirt and telling people you founded Google. It's fake. And it's not fair to the people who really did the thing you're claiming.
You can tell the matter of authenticity is important because of how many photographers lie about their compositing work. If compositing is indeed a valid artistic technique, why not lead with that in the title or photo description? But so many people and institutions, even very top folks like National Geographic or Art Wolfe, have failed to disclose compositing--and that's done on purpose. Even worse are folks (like apparently Peter Lik, based on this reporting) who invent stories (i.e. tell a lie) about the personal efforts they went through to get a particular photo.
Folks, please: don't composite natural-looking photos. And if you do, be 100% honest and up front about doing so.