[cosmic_ape]

Tbh, do not quite get the excitement around this picture. It was staged, and the stunt doesn’t appear to be particularly complex. A lot of logistics, sure. But seems like all there is to it is that someone just bothered to do it. So not clear what’s the additional value over photoshop.

[fxwin]

> So not clear what’s the additional value over photoshop.

I think photography might just not be for you (nothing wrong with that)

[jpfromlondon]

I like photography doubly so as a craft, and forgive me if a heavily shopped stacked comp isn't making my heart quicken.

[cosmic_ape]

Care to explain? I actually do take pictures with a camera from time to time.

Again, this was staged. Also, when Tom Cruise performed his own stunts in Mission Impossible, that value I can understand. That is better than photoshop. Because they were hard stunts. This on the other hand seems to be standard.

[Espressosaurus]

The difference is THEY DID IT.

Photoshop is not real.

This was real.

This was recorded.

The value is in the authenticity and execution of a cool idea no one else has done before.

[mvcosta91]

Try to reproduce it yourself, bro.

[cosmic_ape]

A lot of logistics, as mentioned. If you’d like to explain what’s in there beyond that, I’ll be glad to hear.

[jeanlucas]

the novelty, you didn't do or think of that before. It was well executed and novelty.

You can't do it, you also didn't think of it before.

What value are you adding?

[cosmic_ape]

This isn't about me though, no point in making this personal. I'm just trying to understand what's interesting about this picture. You are saying that just because nobody took that particular combination before, it is enough of a reason, right?

[jeanlucas]

What is interesting is the novelty on itself, but you already refused to understand that. You can't force someone to understand what they refuse because they think there's something else.