marco_vdw

Super shot!

It is an edited shot...
I saw this exact image one morning in France, but I did not have my camera with me at that time. However, I figured the same plane would be passing the same spot at the same time the next day, and I was ready with my camera. The plane did pass by again, but the moon was in a slightly different position - with a bigger distance between moon and plane. I took the picture anyway, and then Photoshop'ed the image to move the plane closer to the moon again, as it was the day before.

I'm not quite clear about the ethics of doing an edit like that. Normally, I do not like substantially altering an image (only contrast, saturation and clarity). But in this case I feel I have some justification for editing: I did see the shot in this configuration, albeit a day earlier when I didn't have my camera with me. On the other hand, when I took the photo a day later, the scene didn't look exactly like this. Thus, the image is a digital manipulation or recreation of what could have been.
Ethically, it's a bit of a murky area. What do you ladies and gents think?

I read 'The Complete Guide to Digital Photography, 5th
Edition' by Michael Freeman a while ago (great book,
explains pretty much all the tech stuff with pictures),
one thing I thought interesting was how he talked on
the subject of ethics but stayed on the fence and still
described all the techniques.

So it's a composite, is it true to something you saw?

If so, and you tell ppl so, I think it's okay.

:)

WOW!
Great shot .