I would like to free my polemical and inquiring mind. I was just responding to a comment on one of my photos when the following questions popped up in my mind. I will paste the exact words I used, with just a few adds between , for practical purposes: I see a lot of visually strong images that are "muscled up" by heavy digital editing as to create a reality that is better than the original. A good and easy example is the contemporary production of landscape photography (but also other fields), that shows the most incredibly beautiful, sharp and super-saturated panoramas that do not correspond to the real at all and are mostly realized with thousands-of-dollars-worth gear. Reality is not like that! And what's the point in showing a reality that is not real? Why do we have to improve what is real? Is the real so visually weak to our eyes? [Why do we always have to overwhelm nature with technology?] Is nature not good enough for us that we must [look at] it it "improved" and sharper on a HD screen? The real is already so beautiful and spectacular, we just have to find the best way to capture IT on film. Nowadays, we never have enough of special effects...I would like to add something. Many painters used the real and transformed it according to their artistic vision (Van Gogh's corn fields or starry sky) but we are not talking about painting or visual art here. We are talking about photography, that is very different. Visual art and photography are not the same; visual art is art and photography is something else (I don't really know what...). If a photograph looses its nature of being a photograph (representing the real, even if interpreted), it becomes something else. So, why do we need to "muscle up" and often ruin the essence of what could have been much more pure and powerful in its original state with not much editing? What do you feel about it? Please do not feel offended by my words, I am here to get answer to my questions and find out if I'm missing something. Thank you.