Yes this could be done in photoshop today. But I think doing it in an analog fashion involves a lot more thought and understanding of the materials one is working with. Doing digitally you're just working with something that is virtual. The difference between the two is craftsmanship. But both take imagination and execution.
My thought exactly! It looks too perfect.
I am just sayin'.
Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!
Nothing beats a great piece of glass!
I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.
According the the National Gallery of Scotland (who hold a number of his prints) in many cases he hand painted other aircaraft into the picture. I am not sure whether this was onto the negative or the print itself. He was certainly a superb craftsman as well as having balls of titanium. He crashed nine times during his career. The most serious crash cost him his voice box and killed the pilot.
Like mpirie I too am not a native of Edinburgh but have visited several times and as recently as March this year. Edinburgh from this height hasn't changed much since the twenties and I'd go further than mpirie and say that the whole picture looks wrong for Edinburgh in its orientation except for maybe Arthur's Seat in the background. It is spectacular however and he needs acknowledgement as a forerunner of Jerry Uelsmann.
I think the manipulation goes further than simply transposing another sky with a biplane in it onto a simple aerial shot of central Edinburgh.