True as an artists, we are free to do what we may. But most who read OP are not of the cut and paste ilk. If the moon wasn’t big at the time, se la vie. Just because you made a double exposure at the same time does not give that picture any more credibility if you found a moon somewhere else and popped it in, IMHO.

I’m fine with bending pixels in Photoshop (to a point) or bending light with filters, but for my aesthetic, a picture equals one click of the shutter. If the main elements are not there at that time, then take your medicine and move on.

I do remain a huge fan, just expressing my honest opinion.

I am exited to see there are still people who care about truth in the editorial use of photos. Of course anyone can do what they wish with their own imagery. A picture on a gallery wall, or in a art book (remember Migrations)is quite different than a book or magazine doing editorial work on a wildlife subject or any other.
Digitally perfect images with extreme alterations, and yes I see them all the time, serve no purpose in telling the story of the natural world. The viewer/reader at least needs to know that every feather in a bird and every ounce of the land is not perfect. I am thinking of the best known bird photographer in the U.S. as I write this.

I have always been a fan of Art and his work continues to lead the way.

I mark my calendar as to when Travels to The Edge is shown.

A lot of people share your sentiments. However, I believe that an artist may do anything with an image as long as there is no intent to deceive, no misrepresentation. The image works as art or it doesn’t. In painting there was an outcry when the Impressionists distorted reality, but everyone is free to paint in the older styles if they choose. As long as we are honest, all is fair in my opinion.

I guess I’m one of those excitable people. Seeing and obviously synthetic image on the cover of a supposedly reputable magazine did wind me up a tad. The whole point of outdoor photography is to take pretty pictures of places you’ve been. If cutting and pasting becomes acceptable, why bother with all the hassle of traveling? Just grab some random images off the hard drive and layer ‘em up! Presto, instant ‘masterpiece.’

As an occasional lightning photographer, I roam all over Arizona searching for storms in scenic locations. This entails hours of driving, risk of electrocution, risk to camera equipment due to blowing dust and rain, rattlesnake fu, etc. The reward for all this effort is the occasional ‘wow’ picture. I can’t count the number of blatant lightningshop fakes that people try to pass of as legit. While there are thousands of lighting photos out there, over time the more popular and/or spectacular bolts become recognizable. It kills me to see a known bolt pasted onto someone elses landscape image. The losers who claim ownership never even left the driveway. Grrr!

In short, I find the whole cut-and-paste mentality downright disrespectful to those who care enough to take legitimate photographs.

-Grumpy!