I'm not sure what good it will do to express my opinion here, as after 8 pages probably most aren't reading. And those who are proponents of "do anything you want" simply poo-poo my attitude anyway. But here goes.

I shoot reality. I want my pictures to reflect as closely as possible what actually was there. I want people who go to the spot where I shot that scene to see as closely as possible what they saw in my picture. I realize there are problems with that attitude. There's trash on the scene. There's a cable or a wire that interrupts the view. No, I'm not opposed to cleaning up the trash. And I do take out an occasional wire or cable. But I won't change the colour of a bird or oversaturate it to make it "more beautiful." I won't add anything to the scene that wasn't there. I did move an element some years back, but when I posted it I noted that it had been moved. And I did not call the resulting image a photograph. These are my ethics, not necessarily the same as those of anyone else. When things are manipulated beyond reality (changing colours, moving elements, adding elements, etc.) I think it might be a really nice image. But I can no longer call it a photograph. It now becomes digital art, which is fine - just not what I do.

And it's OK for me to be that way. Contrary to what those who PP to death their images might say, it's OK to deal in reality. And I think they should state that they have changed reality so that I, when looking at their image, don't think that it is reality. If it's a composite, let me know that.

Since I'm on my soapbox right now, I'll talk about something else. So many people point to Ansel Adams claiming he manipulated his pictures. So what? I really don't care what he did. He's not a god that made up all the rules of photography. He was a man that did pretty well within his own sense of right. The fact that I disagree with it doesn't make me wrong - just different.

OK, now you can laugh and deride me all you want. I'll stay true to me and what I believe is correct.