Two points:
1) As I have said many times before, Photoshop makes NOTHING repeat NOTHING possible which has not been possible since photography was invented 170 years ago. It simply makes things easier.
2) The generation of photographers concerned has now passed into history, but I can remember the older pictorial guys who would as a matter of course print clouds into their landscapes from other negatives or, if they fancied their skills, would paint clouds directly onto negatives using a dilute red masking medium called photopaque and even add other features. It was not usual for the photographers in question to draw attention to this explicity (or to deny it). Was this dishonest too? (I readily recognize there is a much stronger intent to deceive in the train/animals picture).
1) As I have said many times before, Photoshop makes NOTHING repeat NOTHING possible which has not been possible since photography was invented 170 years ago. It simply makes things easier.
2) The generation of photographers concerned has now passed into history, but I can remember the older pictorial guys who would as a matter of course print clouds into their landscapes from other negatives or, if they fancied their skills, would paint clouds directly onto negatives using a dilute red masking medium called photopaque and even add other features. It was not usual for the photographers in question to draw attention to this explicity (or to deny it). Was this dishonest too? (I readily recognize there is a much stronger intent to deceive in the train/animals picture).