Drew, no one took Mauricios words out of context, he provides the context himself and makes it broader than the original topic. He says there is absolutely no space for altering of an image digitally in natural history, and that all effects should be done in-camera.
I dont think anyone would disagree that a tame wolf, or fake smoke during a war, are indeed unacceptable. Manipulating the content of the image is a deadly sin. Like i said earlier, the photographer means to deceive. No one disputes that that is wrong I think. But there is more to it than adding smoke or using a tame wolf. The photographer of the Abu Ghriab images could have said to himself 'you know what, I dont remember these shadows in these dark halls to be so harsh, im going to lighten them up a bit so you can see more detail'. It changes nothing to what the image is about. It adds no prisoners, angry dogs or fake blood. Yet, it was 'altered digitally out-of-camera'. Im not sure how this works in photojournalism. Will a war journalist be brought down if he selectively adds a mask to brighten, darken, or whatever effect you want, a certain part of an image without changing what the image is about? Anyone know how this works?
In nature photography this is obviously the case. In many contests they dont allow these types of selective changes, and you feel an undercurrent of disrespect to someone who does. And when you ask why, it's usually about the art of getting it right in-camera, like old-skool. But, really, when old-skool made print, thats all they did. Dodging, burning, to make the image closer to what they remember, and thus better. But in the digital age when we make our digital prints (ie: screen) we're now saying, dodging and burning (and other selective skills) are a sin, and anyone who uses them is highly suspect.
Why is this? It fascinates me. Why was it ok for Ansel Adams and other masters (and we actually see it as part of their amazing skills) but not for us?
Cor- Basic Raw processing not only acceptable but necessary to convert a RAW file into a final image. Levels (exposure), contract (curves) and sharpening are all ok and necessary to get the image out.
Similar effects from a negative to a print.
Again, this may be old school thinking but it really is not.
To maintain the purity in an image that represents a wildlife moment is essential for credibility.
The mastery in Ansel Adams and others was that they got the shot from the onset. He then had to (as we do) put it through some basic
steps (chemical or digital) to finalize the image.
Adams was primarily a landscape photographer. He picked the angle, the time and the moment to expose sometimes a single Glass plate.
This thread is about subject manipulation and has evolved into image manipulation.
You can manipulate all you want and gain the respect of your public and pears in the Commercial, creative, advertising and art world. Absolutely no issues with me on this.
These can include wildlife subjects and moments as well and its all fine with me.
To make it clear- what is not fine is to present a wildlife moment that has been manipulated, altered or interfered with in the
context of a wildlife photo competition that disallows these interventions.
That is all- no more, no less.
I have had some of my images (with written permission) altered an manipulates for example by KODAK who used one of my underwater shots to promote one of its
premium services. They wanted to color a single fish to set it apart from the school to which it was part of.
The purpose was to make a statement with commercial ends. I off course accepted and got paid to this...
The same finished image, although impressive, interesting and exciting CANNOT be entered into a wildlife competition.
I am all for creativity using the tools of our day.
But I am also for the purity of 'being there' and capturing an image the way you want it 'in-camera' and definitely without
interfering with the subject matter in question.
Mauricio
Im not talking about that. But ok, you're right, this thread is about subject manipulation, so lets drop it. If you'd like to discuss this further, i could start another thread specifically about darkroom vs. 'lightroom' editing. If not, thats ok as well. 
