Can there be a balance between the two?<p> Just recently I stumbled across an image of a King Fisher in the c-o forum. The artist admitted to cropping the image and doing some minor editing here and there (mostly brightening, from what I can tell), and went on to essentially state that this was a form of "cheating" in his/her field.<p> It got me thinking... Personally I have nothing against any kind of manipulation, digital or other, because as artists I feel that photographers should be "allowed" to edit their work to whatever extent produces the desired effect or "look". <p> Yet it seems to me that certain forms of photography are more accepting of manipulation than others. Wildlife photography in particular, but certainly Photojournalism, Documentary, and others forms aswell seem to have this intrinsic bias against manipulation and the photographers that use it to their advantage.<p> In your opinion should manipulation be considered a form of "cheating"; where you "trick" a viewer into believing in a false reality, or is manipulation more about enhancing and bringing out the best possible attributes in a photograph using the tools available to today's photographic artist... <p> How important is authenticity, and where does one draw the line?