I probably am naive, but I like to think it's only in relation to the domain which has been corrupted with fakery. I use the word corrupted to mean that it's so

I probably am naive, but I like to think it's only in relation to the domain which has been corrupted with fakery. I use the word corrupted to mean that it's so competitive that everyone at the top is bending the rules or misrepresenting their work--and becoming disconnected from their audience. FWIW, this photographer fully documents that the golden light was an off-camera flash. But when the image gets published in magazines, I bet that detail is not included. I'm still curious if that information was included in the submission for the photo contests. Here are 2 images of his where it's clear he used artificial lighting: https://500px.com/photo/1053642/Full-Moon-Mesa-by-Marsel-van-Oosten https://500px.com/photo/1053642/Full-Moon-Mesa-by-Marsel-van... https://500px.com/photo/1053782/In-The-Dead-Of-The-Night-by-Marsel-van-Oosten https://500px.com/photo/1053782/In-The-Dead-Of-The-Night-by-... You see those pictures and you think "light painting." And then there's this one where you think "capturing the last glow of the sun in just the right place:" https://500px.com/photo/17176603/Double-Light-by-Marsel-van-Oosten https://500px.com/photo/17176603/Double-Light-by-Marsel-van-... But now that one also looks like artificial lighting. To me, adding sun-colored light that is otherwise absent no longer qualifies as "nature photography." It might make a nice image, but that it wins nature photographer prizes just makes me cynical of the whole industry. Seems like you're saying I should've been cynical all along, but there always comes a day when the realization happens.