I'm not sure I understand the problem. Various people have produced an image in a studio. They first manipulated the subject by placing it in the required environment, adjusting the lighting and background to suit. They then took a photograph of the subject and to a lesser or greater degree manipulated it in Photoshop or an alternative image editing application.
Both stages are manipulation. Why is one any better or worse than the other? If it can be shown that a particular studio technique is better than a software technique, then fair enough. But not everyone can afford, or has space for, a large amount of studio gear.
If the aim is to learn how to control the studio, then fair enough. After all it does make sense to learn how to use both the studio and the software.
I do object to deception whereby the intent is to deceive the viewer. This can be by manipulation of the environment (a zoo shot presented as wild) or manipulation of the image in software (changing the background).
Leif
|