As an artist who has used a pencil for as long as I can remember, it is a tad unnerving to use a 'photo sketch' software program to 'render' my photos into 'sketches'. Overall, yes, kinda cool, but without question something is lost in the translation. I think mostly it is the capriciousness of the human hand. These compositions are pleasing enough in their own right, but again, something is missing ... like the ACT of putting pencil to paper and integrating with THAT eye-hand synergy. The above 'illustrations' have been calculated by the push of buttons - and, again, yes, kinda interestin', but also, no, not really. Photography 'documents' moments in time in a way that is very different then a REAL pencil sketch. This effect - like so many other 'special effects' now available with and for digital photography - are just gimmicky. There, said it.
The issue of our age seems to be the whole concept of TIME: past, present & future, finite, infinite, nano-seconds, clock watching TIME. It's taken me a few hours to get these 'photo sketches' to a state that I am willing to publish them on the net as 'digital renderings' that can now be 'reproduced' ad infinitum globally. Enough TIME, in fact, to have done at least 4 finite paper sketches from start to finish that would stand as tangible material culture from this spot on the planet.
.... hmmmm. Not convinced. ... Are you?
Postscript: For fun, I linked this item through to the Fine Art Photographers Group on LinkedIn. The response was very interesting. If you are a LinkedIn member, you can access the dialogue/debate here.
(I'm not sure what happens if you try to access the thread if you're not signed up.)
Conversely, Paul Cadden is pencil drawing images of photographs. Samples here