To elaborate the above:
Have a look at my picture below. The story is true. There were planes flying over that forest clearing. I have eye witness to the fact the components seen in this photo occurred exactly like I framed them. But the record is done in IR so neither I nor the observers could see the scene in the manner it displays here. However, being pretty well versed in IR over the years, I easily could envision a final result like this being possible and that was what I was chasing for in the oak forest outside Copenhagen that bleak late autumn day. I decided the airplane was the detail needed to make the statement of the composition. I prefer to get everything of required material for a photo in-camera, but would not hesitate a split second to put a detail there from another frame if I failed to get it right. The photo is about conveying an idea, a visualisation of concepts, not about sterile perfection for its own sake.
It so happened that on the tenth attempt or so, all the components came together that day. Still I would have had the idea manifested in a similar photographic composite if not successful in the field. Thus, what is the difference?
