Hi Roman,

It seems to me you didn't read my comment just before this one.

I know my English is not perfect, but I wrote: I'm not calling digital photographers cheaters!

This sentence is so simple, it is impossible missunderstanding, even In a same comment I explane what is a cheating! I wrote that, even a digital manipulations are NOT cheating, if the picture is not called a photo anymore!
because if it is called a photo, the viewers expect it as captured image, not a manipulated one!

This explanation is so clear it is impossible missunderstanding, unless if some one want it to missunderstand it. I know my English, I know my limitations, but also I know which of my sentence is probably missunderstandable and which one is not.

Quote:

---

Sure, some of the less professional people rely on photoshop to make up for lack of skill...but you know that it actually shows up in the end product. I can spot a bad photoshop job a mile away.

---

I didn't want to mention the name of the photographer, but looks like I can't avoid it.
What about this "photo"
You said you can spot a bad photoshop job a mile away! So I think you gonna see on this one too! And the photographer is not a "less professional"! And chek the comment under the picture! All of them so amazed by the photogrpaher! Looks like this picture is the "Mona Lisa" of all photograph, but in fact this is not even a photo it is a composit picture.
Chek the aura around the horses, chek de mark of the blure tool on the closer horse mane, and chek the edge of the chin of the closer horse. Both the sky and the closer horse was added later to the picture! Even I suspect the closer horse wasn't a wild one so needed to clone out something, and the bluring was used to cover the clone stamp marks.

And this is not the only one from only one photographer! Lot of composit picture are still called as photograph, so the viewers believe they are a captured photos. Don't mention all the manipulations, what are just fix/cover the lack of photo skill!

And what about the good PS job, what you can't spot from mile away not even from closer looking? That an other thousands of fake photos, because many can do a really good PS job!
I saw a picture, you can notice any PS job on it! The picture is looks like a "one of a million" shot, featuring a kind of swallow catching a feather in the air. The only mistake the "photographer" did that, he added the feather in a picture in a wrong way, actually "upside down". The curve of the feather wus upwards like an arch, but the feather never falling like that! curved feather always falling with the curve is downwards, like a valley.
And this picture is actually an award wining "hoto"!

We are a real and honest photographers, who are not cheating (digital or film) can't compete with this kind of pictures!
And let face it, before the digital, it wasn't this large amount of fake pictures. Yes, may be there was a few fake/manipulated pictures before digital, but just a few and those was only prints, because only those was able to do it who had they own darkroom. Dealing with commercial photolab, was a had ace! That is why the best way was to shooting on slides, because on slides, there was no automatic adjustment or anything. So before digital, this kind of cheating/manipulations wasn't vailable for the mass, just for a few. And don't forget, the negative or slide, always was there to prove the truth!
But with digital, there is no original picture, because even the RAW file is manipulatebale. So this fact is open the door for easy and "undetectable" cheating. Least for covering the lack of photography skill. Also the Photoshop or other manipulation softver are even provided with digital cameras, but if not still we can say least a 90% of the digital photographer has some manipulation softver! So the cheating/manipulation, became so easy and widely available! If I compare the accessibility to the manipulation in a film and digital era, we found out it is about 90% to 10%
In film era it was accessable for about the 10% of the photographers and not acssessable to 90% of the photographers. In a digital era, 90% of the digital photographer have manipulation softwer on they own computer, and the rest of the 10% still not buy it yet, but will!
So this huge amount of fake photo came with the digital, becouse easy to do, easy to accsess to the manipulation tools, and hardly decetable the cheating.