Scott McCoskery found this interesting shot on Gizmodo. According to the caption it's a $1.5 million yacht that slipped out of its sling and plunged nose-first into the ocean. In Scott's words, the picture "...just made me think of you and the whole digital photography/imaging debate. I don’t really know how or if it adds to the discussion, but this is a real photo that, ironically, looks totally photoshopped. Had I not known this was real, I would have quickly written it off as a weak PS job."
Regardless of your theoretical position, you've got to admit it's more impressive once you know it's not a weak PS job, isn't it? It's got more (ahem) impact. And in case you're curious, according to Gizmodo the guy up there having the major "Oh, sh%#!" moment was fine.
Mike (Thanks to Scott)
UPDATE: The original page, "Riding Down the Marquis" (thanks to nextSibling). And it was me who corrected the color. (It was too blue.)
And don't miss "Between a Yacht and a Hard Place." Ouch.
Featured Comment by Adam Isler: "Perfect illustration of one of the points I tried to make during the furious 'Photography is Dead' debate. This is a real photo that we look at and say, 'must by Photoshop.' So photographs aren't what changed so much as our reading of them. You can forget the debate about whether you can 'write with light' on silicon the same as you do on film or whether Photoshop dodging and burning are analogs of darkroom dodging and burning. At the end of the day, it's we who have changed more than the photograph-artefacts themselves. Some have argued that computers, hypertextualism and the internet have killed literature, but most would accept it has only changed our reading and expectations of literature. Similarly the new technology available to photographers has not killed photography, it has changed the way we view and interpret photographs and what we expect of a photograph (a Snopes certification, evidently!)"