Was it what I saw when I was there?
Does it instantly transport me back to how cold and misty and magical and still that morning was, watching the sun rise on the snow covered mountain peaks?
The creative choices available to us in digital imagery mean we can edit our images in so many different ways. Some people argue that a realistic version of a landscape scene is the only true way to do that – and I see their point.
When a landscape is heavily edited or even composited, it could be considered false advertising. If you are posting images like that and people *without* full disclosure that its edited well beyond natural limits, then there are consequences as a result.
I always advise that my images have been edited when I share them, and if its creatively so, beyond what could be expected in nature, I would note that.
Nature is however, a wonderful thing, and I have seen light like this – even scarlet crimson skies.
So while it isn’t what I saw when I was there, it *could* have naturally happened.
Its an interesting topic, the definition of “true” representation in a digital image.
I used to be a purist until I got better and understood the capabilities of what editing can do.
How do you feel on the subject? Is creative editing OK so long as its disclosed?