> Cameras are physically incapable of capturing as wide an experience as our eyesight+mind so photographers must compensate. True. > On the other hand, how be

> Cameras are physically incapable of capturing as wide an experience as our eyesight+mind so photographers must compensate. True. > On the other hand, how best to capture the awe-inspiring nature of an undulating aurora than by making it fluoresce against the night sky in your photo? If the image weren't processed then you would see nothing at all... So what you're saying is that if you were standing where the photographer was, you wouldn't have seen this image? It required an additional creative process to bring it out? That's totally fine. That's _art_. Art is a fine thing. But if you start showing art to people and try to claim that you just snapped a normal photo, getting all upset when people claim it's unrealistic (like the article's author), you shouldn't be surprised if people call it fake.