What if he just boosts the color a tad, adjusts the contrast a bit so the sky pops, or looks more like what he thinks he saw instead of "the picture he took?" I get that putting your daughters eyes in her cats face is changing the picture actually taken, but so what? Most everyone agrees that pictures SOOC can almost always be improved in post. It can be minor, like changing the crop to fit the display and make it more pleasing. Fixing color and contrast to look better, or putting your girl friends head on a nude body of Brigitte Bardot, or replacing the funky sky available when the picture was actually taken.

When my daughter got married, her husband hated cats and she left her cat with us. I edited a picture of her cat and placed my daughter in her wedding dress in the cats eyes so it looked like her cat was looking at her leaving her. The picture was too sad for words and I never showed it to my daughter, I know it would have broken her heart. Edits can be good or bad. I have lots of sky replacements I like better than the original photo, and I really enjoy doing them.

The bottom line is if my picture comes SOOC or I edit the heck out of it in post, both are MY creations. How I pre-set the camera and frame the picture before snapping the release, or how I make adjustments in post matters not a lick, only the end result matters.

I think the point of the cartoon is obvious, and I think that you and others know the point: that it was not the picture he took, but rather the picture he made. So there it is. Plain and simple. Nothing more, nothing less.

The cartoon does not overtly place a value judgment on that, but I suspect it intended to show some bit of humor in how photos are taken/created nowadays. And perhaps on the whole process of processing.

Those offended by the cartoon or its message obviously have their own value judgements, and I leave it to others to speculate on exactly why they need to be so vocal about it.