My philosophy as well, don't fret about what you have no control over.

Greetings fellow Uglies! I have a question, but first, I have to tell you I have been involved in previous discussions about the "Digital manipulation question." and have been slapped around soundly for stating my views. There are so many variables to consider in regards to the main question that there will never be an understanding that is universally accepted. Having said that, here is hypothetical situation that I would like someone to comment on. You capture a stunningly beautiful photo of the full moon, let's say, the Blood Moon, Super Moon or the Harvest Moon and you can't wait to get it out there for all to see. But the longer you look at it, it begins to lose some of it's original "bang" and you wonder if it is really as stunning as originally thought or is it just another moon shot. You've always wanted to be lucky enough to capture a moon shot with something flying in front of the moon as you take your shot, let's say an airliner, a flock of geese, your Mother-inlaw , whatever. It has never happened but now since you have discovered the wonders of post processing you have your choice of innumerable flying and non flying objects and it looks as if you finally got lucky. So you pick one out, paste it, publish your photo and an adoring public sings your praises! You know what my question is, Is this artistic expression that requires no explanation or is it just a flat out lie?

You missed the mark completely. Go online and find the CVS statement and read it. Their ban is on advertising that does not represent reality. It has nothing to do with printing customers photos. You're welcome!

Beautiful shots. I especially like the backdrop of the female wood duck. It looks as though she is resting on dark blue satin sheet. Nicely done!

That is a scrotum withering comeback there leftj! I bow to your superior verbal skills and yield the field!!

There, how's that moron?, see I can call people names also. You see one post from me where I made a mistake and you instead of offering help choose to attack me verbally. That happens a lot on here and why this thread took the direction it did. There are lot on here that fall into your category, guys/girls who bolster their ego by pointing out other's mistakes. Sucks to be you........

Trying again.

You're not going to let up until you piss someone off, are you?

You're not going to let this go until you piss someone off, are you?

This discussion is just going to go around in circles unless you answer the man's query in the spirit in which it was asked or ignore it if you feel you have nothing to offer. I participated in a discussion along these lines a few years ago and the only thing that came out of it was a lot of bad feelings. No one is going to change anyone's mind about religion on a photography forum. Peace.

Tis the season to be snarky, fa la la la la la la la la la.......!

BTW those photos are what most of us only dream of capturing some day. The one of the Red Tail coming off the perch is beyond excellent as are the shots of the subject in flight.

Is it good manners to ask someone to share info about submitted photos? Lens? Camera? settings?. This is a sincere question because I don't know and I don't want to offend.

Kudos to you sir! A very well thought out take on the questions posed by the original post. I don't agree with a lot of things about the present state of photography as a profession or an amateur pursuit. Disclosure is paramount when what you see in a photograph is not what it was when shot or what the shooter would have you believe the circumstances were when taken. I know I am in the minority but I think what is done to a photograph in what is referred to as "post processing" is nothing more than fraud. I don't trust any photo I see anymore to represent the scene as original. When I see a photo that I know is photo shopped or altered by any other method other than cropping, I feel as if I am being lied to by the photographer. Every photo that is presented anywhere for public consumption should be subject to strict disclosure requirements if it was altered in any way or shot under false pretenses. just my 2 cents!

Dark room development is not even remotely related to what is done to a photograph with Photoshop and all the other software that allows a person to add or subtract elements of the original shot in order to, in the manipulators mind at least, enhance the scene. The practice of digital manipulation in my opinion is nothing more than fraud. When a digitally enhanced photo that bears no resemblance to the original is offered for viewing and there is no acknowledgement of "post processing" then it is a lie.