Wow, and I bet you didn't even pose this? Kinda maybe

pursang,

Lewis (my model) is not posed. I found him sitting in front of his house, in that chair, in that way. I introduced myself and asked him if I could take a few photos.

He's a retired musician...played the Whiskey-A-Go-Go in Los Angeles, when that was a hot night club. I didn't offer him money, but he asked for some after I took the third of three photos.

The church was a few doors down from his house. I already had this image in mind, but decided that it would cost me too much to get him down there, so this is a composite. I shot the church, including the perspective, after I did this shot, knowing I would put the two together.

This was actually my fifth and seventh submission to WeeklyShot. I've learned a lot since September 2006. I think this is the best of the three versions, and I'm *very* pleased that you like it.

Thanks very much for your apprecitive remarks.

afieldon, setaou, zorilla, mysight...thanks very much.

Well, the reason I asked is you and I have very different approaches to shooting people, with a camera that is! His expression is genuine which made me believe it was not posed! Nicely done. And I use to go to the Whiskey A Go Go in LA! Lots of good memories from that venue along with the Roxy Theatre! Wild times of days gone by! Nice shot my friend.

I should have known this is from King....:)

Amazing shot. It looks like its standard at your portfolio at weeklyshot :)

I remember this shot...I didn't remember it was yours, however.
I'm not sure I knew it was a composite, either.
Congrats

Cool, I love that it's a composite. Great work!

Great image King - i really like the kind of expression and feeling your subject (Lewis) projects - between child-like complicity and a tender irony - can't imagine it's a composite but "bravo" this is well done!

Tracy, Jen-s, bbonner, GeoS, Ana, Flatline, JIMJIM...thanks for the kind words.

When I first joined WeeklyShot, when this image was produced for the Urban Decay theme, I didn't know how composite images would be accepted and didn't reveal it--no one asked, either. These days, with so many composite images submitted, it seems not to be a big deal.

Love this.

Thanks, Mooch. I expect to discover some beautiful, bucolic images from you in this theme.

Wow, this is gorgeous. And you did a great job with the composite; I'd have never known.

@Judith...thanks! I'm been working on my masking skills.

This could be better, but reducing to 750 pixels helped hide the flaws. I think it helps that the composite was conceived before I took the background photograph, within minutes of the portrait, and with the light coming from the same direction.

King,
I agree with all the best comments here: great lighting, subject matter, detail, etc.
But...I have to admit I lost some of my love for the photo when I found out it was a composite. It's fine, and ethical (with full disclosure by you), and all that "kosher on WS" stuff; but I still feel a little differently about the photo now that I know that your awesome subject was not really sitting there in front of that spectacular church.
It's like that photo we've all seen of the guy in the kayak on the peaceful sea with that huge whale tale about to slap the water behind him. Very cool, awesome, fantastic...but what a letdown it would be if we found out that the whale was photoshoped in, no?
In any case, I still enjoy looking at this creation of your imagination quite a lot, but it's hard for me to say, "great composition." But I will say, "magnificent composite."

So far, the best fit for the theme. Beautiful, emotional shot. Well done!

eggplant, my esteemed colleague,
If I knew it would be such a letdown for you, I probably would have sprung for the $20 to get him to carry his chair down to the church. :>)

Now, are you open to an argument as to why this is not a case of playing around in the Photoshop sand box?

This is not a case of post-hoc, post-processing manipulation, but a deliberate, although ad hoc case of problem solving.

The pre-visualized concept is mine, and I can list numerous photographs on my user page, including at least one other composite, that were conceived without a camera in my hand, sketched on paper, then executed according to that vision. I'm not a street photographer.

My main mode is to get a concept in my head, design the shot (often using paper and pencil), then set out to get it done.

I don't consider this approach to be much different from how painters or sculptors work. I've worked in oil and acryllics, collage, clay, etchings and all kinds of drawing and don't consider the photograph above to depart from the norms of artistic expression. I also don't consider this to be far removed from this image, which was pre-visualized and executed on a single piece of film:

http://www.weeklyshot.org/theme/hands-2/featured/62/

Obviously not street photography, but not manipulated after the fact, either. At some level, I think one can discriminate between pre-visualized images (composite or not) and post-hoc pastiches.

What are your thoughts in this regard?

To the elder statesman from the South:
I'm appreciative that you did not see my comment as an attack on your heretofore stalwart performance.
Really, though, you obviously feel some of the same feelings that I do, or this would not stimulate such a thoughtful response from you.
As I said, I like the photo. Further, I fully appreciate that you saw this in your head first. I believe that the visualization of the composition prior to its fruition is the most singular magic of photography.
But the photo that you reference (the wonderful butterfly composition) is obviously the result of the photographer's handy work with multiple exposures. No one thinks this actually happened.
I appreciate your argument between post-hoc and ad-hoc intentions, and as I stated, I'm not accusing you of telling a lie. I can certainly understand that this setting "could have" happened. But, when you mention "street photography" I guess that's heading down the right street, so to speak.
This looks like photojournalism to me. When I first look at the composition and its elements:
the man, the flag (and all that goes with it), the chair, the dejected expression; and then juxtapose them with the church (and all that goes with that), the "sweet home" sign, the "no trespassing" sign.
...I am amazed that these things were all captured at the same decisive moment. It is only a very SLIGHT "letdown" for me to find out that, in fact, that moment never happened, really.
King, I also appreciate the analogy to sketching that you make, but I also feel a large part of the difference between drawing and painting and photography is that in many cases elements are not open for manipulation with the latter, to the same extent they are with the former. Viva la differance!
But, lest you be mislead by my humble and well intentioned criticism: the world is still a better place with this frame you have created. I think you should frame it and hang it in your home.
Good discussion...I'd like to others' points of view, as well.

Yes,photo-journalism.
Like when you see nothing but a crowd of protesters,or nothing but destruction.
When in reality if they turned their cameras 180 degrees you might see a totally different picture of the world.
I can make it look as if I live in a paradise or a dump,when the reality is somewhere in between.

eggplant,
I take only a single thing as an affront. I am *not* from the south. I am a Californian. :>)

Photographers started manipulating photographs as soon as they were able to create images on paper. Eduard Steichen literally painted the emulsion

http://aic.stanford.edu/jaic/img/jaic34-01-001-fig003.jpg
(1902)

and created famous composites

http://press.princeton.edu/steichen/rodin.gif
(1902)

For well over 100 years, landscape photographers have superimposed dark sky and fluffy clouds on otherwise dull skies (do you have an archive of cloud photos just for this purpose?).

Jerry Uelsmann was a master of b/w composites created in the darkoom long before I was born (he's still around, I think).

There many examples of work of this sort that are older than I am.

King, far be it from this southerner to get caught up in semantics, but are you from Southern California?

Ha! My apologies...at least Southern California? (I thought somewhere once you mentioned you were from Dallas...my bad.)
Okay, all that you say is true, and I am familiar with all whom you mention and the photos that you site.
No, I don't have a stock of cloud photos. That's just not my bag.
As an individual, one of my loves for photography comes from what amazing things people are able to capture in 125th of a second. A guy sitting in front of a church seems like that kind of exposure...when I find out it is not, I say, "Oh, that's not what I thought it was."
How does the whale photo I mention above affect you? Would you care if any photos were composites or not? Just wondering?

@mysight: Exactly. You said, "When in reality if they turned their cameras 180 degrees you might see a totally different picture of the world." I'm not sure, are you saying turning the camera 180 degrees is the same as creating a composite photo?

Anna, you silly. There can be more serious comparison between the "the South" and "southern California" than there can be between Indians from India and those from the U.S.A.

Thanks for being funny!

eggplant,

I don't mind composites...there is no escaping them. I also have tremendous respect for what happens in 125th of a second (e.g., street photography), and I'm fairly accomplished at capturing those moments myself. Of course, we all know that it may have taken 40 years to get ready for that 125th of a second.

I'm pushing hard on this because many W.S. contributors don't work the way I sometimes do (creating images in my head, then translating the ideas to film or digital thingamajigs); and many are probably not be aware of this branch (twig) in the history of photography.

By analogy, I'm attempting to draw out the difference between making an original thing from scratch and fixing something that is broken--although they may, in the end, look approximately the same.

Thanks so much for your thoughtful comments.

turned their cameras 180 degrees you might see a totally different picture of the world." I'm not sure, are you saying turning the camera 180 degrees is the same as creating a composite photo?
No King ,not at all.Just saying that there is sometimes dishonesty in photography.You said your shot was a composite,so you are disqualified from the dishonest category!
I only know how to point my camera,and I am still uncomfortable with photo-shop.Luckily I can take a lot of digitals,and sort through them later.
I know they do not look professional,but they are a moment from my life...blah blah blah

RE: the south,it is a very friendly place where I live.A neighbor from California thought the clerk in the store was being a smart ass when he greeted the Californian with,"Good morning ,how are you doing today?".

Carl,

I think you meant to direct your "turn camera 180 degrees" (2 comments above) to eggplant.

Regarding your story about the clerk...that was not a Californian, that was a Yankee.

Excuse me, I have to go hide now.

Doh! you're right.

This is a fantastic photo, composite or not. While being a composite, it's so convincing that I marvel at the work done and as you mentioned it's a composition that was well thought out and taken to be put together, it makes this even more intriguing. If I could rate it, I'd have given it all 5's.

I was going to write almost exactly what eggplant wrote about the man, the chair, the flag (and all that goes with it)...as was said by eggplant....He just beat me too it!

At first glance, this is a shot that stirs up many emotions. You wonder about the man, his life, if he's happy, hungry, does he have loved ones? Does he work, support a family, is he a vet?
He seems as if he's in a very remote and 'back woods' sort of place.
To find the setting isn't really where he was (albeit *close* to where he was and that you *meant* to make a composite) is upsetting to me, the viewer, as I have already made an emotional investment in the shot.

....then to find it's a composite (even if planned that way) takes away my first impression. It's wiped away. Gone.
Now I have to re-evaluate it based on the new facts.
And now I see his knee is very obviously PS'd...
and I wonder if he'd be bothered by being planted in front of the church... and if he even has any business being there.
It changes everything I gathered in my first impression.
This doesn't make it a bad photo, or wrong or even slightly unfair. But to me, it changes how I see this man, the situation in which he was photographed, and my feelings surrounding the shot.

Ana,

I don't see anything obvious about his knee vis-a-vis Pshop. I didn't do anything to his knee.

You guys are investing a lot of energy in this photo. If I took this exact photo (the man) in the studio in front of a seamless paper sweep, would it be so much different?

I don't think this composite is worth such a deep discussion. I feel singled out as for a public scolding. Composite photos are common on W.S. Give me a break.

Not angry or upset, but get over it, please.

oh.
ok.
sorry for giving input, joining the discussion, and sharing my thoughts.

Really.

Really, my friend. I thought you encouraged this sort of discussion. If you think that composite photos are "common" I think you are mistaken (I would call common 20% or more).
I realize that your background in photography has been, at least to some extent, commercial where, of course composite shots are common. But otherwise, I would say added elements (such as whole new backgrounds) to photos, unless it is quite obvious (like Jerry Uelsmann who you mention) is not really "common".
And...only two of us have, quite graciously, commented on this. Your shot is admired and featured. Must it only be adored universally as well?
Ha! Now I sound angry, but I'm not...just a bit surprised that you would ask us to "get over" discussing your photo with you.
Again, I like the shot.

eggplant, good points...noted. Will respond later.

Ana...sarcasm is last retreat of those with nothing to say. Stop whining, put together a cogent argument and I'll respond.

You're right...I couldn't really think of anything to say after being told to 'get over it.'
You totally befuddled me with your reaction to our comments.

Like eggplant said, I thought you enjoyed discussion....welcomed opinions.

I'm sorry that my opinion wasn't welcome.

@Ana. That's better. I'm off on an errand. Later I'll let you know what set me off. And eggplant is right. As Ricky said to Lucy, there is some splainin to to, although you may not like it. Should we take this offline?

eggplant,
My impatience last night was in reaction to Ana's long comment and was directed entirely at Ana. It had nothing to do with you. My explanation of my impatience will remain between Ana and me.

You are so right that I encourage this type of discussion. I'm regret that I was intolerant of Ana's comments, and that you mistook my response as intolerance of your position, which I found to be distinctly different in tone and content from Ana's, even though she claimed to be supporting your position.

So let's talk about your comment! Tell me, my wise friend, where did you get the notion that common means equal to or greater than 20% of all W.S. postings? So anything below 20% is uncommon?

In my case, 17% of my submissions have been composites of one kind or another, so I'm getting close to your definition.

Aren't Photoshop layers a kind of composite? This is just two layers.

As for whether I expect my photos to be adored universally, one only needs to visit my W.S. user page to put that idea to rest. I think I get as much flack for my contributions as anyone. And as my friend Mooch said to me recently, "I like you and loathe you in equal measure." I can take it.

Last, to beat a dead horse, if it were possible I'd be happy to include a caveat under the thumbnail of certain of my postings: "Open with Caution. Contains composite images. "

eggplant...and I can see how you thought I was including you in my remarks to Ana. I didn't phrase my comment carefully enough. Sorry.

King,
Hey, thanks for the retort...that explains things. I've been out golfing today (shot a 91...blah), but had a great time, and actually thought about you while I was out and was eager to hear your reply. So, thanks.
Okay, here my stance on the semantics here:

common - adj.
1. of or relating to a community at large : public 2. belonging to or shared by two or more individuals or things or by all members of a group
3. occurring or appearing frequently
Really, King, do you want to argue that photographers in the artistic realm "frequently" or "often" take a human subject and plop him/her down in an entirely new environment because it is more expedient than actually getting the photo the way you picture it in your mind?
Sure, lots of artists make collages, and do composites (like Uelsmann) with strange and wonderful results, but very few say, "I have this photo of a sailor, but he would look better on a battle ship, so I'll just open up Photoshop, put the two together and call it good."
The "layers in Photoshop" argument is just too flimsy...that's like saying the layers of emulsion on the film make it a composite.
You know what would be really bad? If I said it was common for me to get a birdie...it happened once today, but believe me, it is quite rare!
So, there's your semantic argument, and I'll stick by my hoping that composite photos that I think are single frames are rare occurrences.
And I'll also stick by my admission that I like the photo, and I don't think you did anything wrong or untoward.
And now, I need a Martini, up, three olives!

Kinger: p.s. to answer your question about how I came up with 20%: did you know that 75% of all statistics are made up?
:-)

eggplant, Congratulations on your birdie from a man who has never swung a golf club in anger.

P.S. - your remark about film emulsion being a composite?...only if it's Kodachrome. :>)

Well done King - Alaska :)

Thanks, Lemmingstone.