Majestic Eagle

How do you like this picture of an eagle I took?  There's just nothing like an eagle flying free against billowing clouds.

Now, let me spoil it for you.  While everything in the image is something I captured, it just wasn't done at the same time.  In other words, the eagle photo was taken at a different time than the clouds.

Does that change how you feel about the image?  Does it diminish my "talent" in your eyes?  These are valid questions and issues photographers wrestle with all the time.  How much manipulation is too much and should the viewer be told about it?  Do you think you would feel better if you could see the original featureless sky as the background of the eagle?

Journalistic photographs (i.e., actual events shown in newspaper and news magazine photos) are expected to be unretouched.  Even photographs shown in a magazine like National Geographic are not expected to be manipulated.

Personally, under circumstances similar to this image, I don't have a problem with manipulating the photo. I would let the viewer know it was altered, however.

Realize there is some degree of change made to virtually every photograph you see through cropping, altering the tone curve, cloning out dust, and the like.  This isn't something new, but has been going on since the beginning of photography.