Karl: further down your link it read: "I am sorry the other exhibitors should be annoyed. They must have been asleep not to have read the Advertisement as I did, and I must say that very few of them are capable of taking advantage of it. To make an absolutely invisible join down the middle of a landscape is difficult to accomplish." Amazingly, with PhotoShop CS2 now costing 500 dollars (and 300-dollar annual upgrade fees almost de rigeur), most photographers today still cannot master the "invisible join" technique. Indeed, the more "automatic" they make it the worse the results seem to become ... presumably because the users don't fully appreciate the nuances of what they are trying to achieve. Only on Wednesday after our (England's) footie team costing 100 million was humiliated by the Northern Ireland team (list price 3.5 Million) a picture of our Swede-ish (deliberate mis-spell) appeared in two papers under completely different credits (photographer and source). The backgrounds were different but the man himself (head in hand) was absolutely identical - pixel for pixel. Minor details in one had clearly been badly concocted (with no apology for the deceit) ... the "blurred edge" retaining the tones of background features in the original, and the background seen through the glass of his spectacles clearly wrong. I'm wondering if anyone else noticed: I'm sure the deceit was to make it look like the shot had been taken from a different angle. I wonder if he paid or just did it? Bob
