It seems to be the rage these days (especially over on IG people selling workshops). Agreed it’s an artistic license, but shouldn’t that be disclosed to your attendees that something they are showcasing is a composite and doesn’t exist or students won’t be able to see and instead they would need to know layers/blend options etc in PS to put together.
Great question! I’m not sure I have an answer but I do have a followup question. Are you sure that view doesn’t exist? A good focal length blend might be a more realistic view than a photo taken at 12mm. At super wide angles, the foreground is super exagerrated while the mountain in the background is super small. Much smaller than it looks in real life.
I think I’ve always considered focal length blending as a way to achieve a more realistic view. Whether or not that constitutes a disclosure as a composite… 
I’m interested to read what others think about that.
I believe any composite should be disclosed as such. Why not? Yes the final product may be what is more a “realistic view” but that doesn’t matter. What really matters is truth in advertising. It doesn’t mean it is “bad” because it was a composite of any flavor, it simply means it is a composite.
2 Likes
I respectfully disagree with your premise that just because it’s a composite that it doesn’t exist. Focal length blends are probably more inline with reality than a single shot taken with a 14mm lens. I see no reason to disclose that any more than a composite for dynamic range. Now if I took a blue hour shot and then composited that with a milky way shot taken hours later, that’s a different story.