I don't see why you are trying to distinguish between "acceptable editing" and presumably "unacceptable manipulation".
The same objection may be made of a photograph of a zoo animal is being past off as 'in the wild' as to a montage of geese flying across the moon, even though in the former no manipulation has taken place. However, as images per se there is nothing unacceptable in either.
If you take your still life example what fundamental difference is there in readjusting exposure, focusing, lighting, at the point of shutter release, and doing it in software outside of the physical camera? I contend that there is no such difference, particularly as in most cases the 'in camera' digital image is created by software anyway.
Also why would it be more acceptable to use a wide-angle or telephoto lens to distort perspective than to do it in software? In both cases you have manipulated the natural image as seen through our eyes. In essence every digiscoped image of a bird is manipulated, that it happens to have been done so via expensive optics doesn't make it any less so.
|