I saw this recently and it raises the question of just how much image manipulation should photographers be allowed to get away with. Personally, I have nothing against tidying up an image to remove unwanted or visual distractions but I wouldn't insert something into an image that wasn't there in the first place (unless my intention was to create a piece of graphic art). In this instance, a frog was put into the birds' beak in an effort to make the shot more "interesting" and then passed off as a "nature" shot. When it was discovered that the photographer, Bryan Patrick, had manipulated the image, he was suspended and then, subsequently, fired from his job.
The question is: Do you think it was reasonable for the photographer to be sacked for doing what he did?
The biggest issue that this story raises is that, with image manipulation being so commonplace in photography, there is an increasing trend of general scepticism by the general public that is becoming more evident. Will our eyes cease to trust what they are seeing when viewing a photograph of nature which has not been labelled as having been manipulated? Should there be some sort of requirement (legal or otherwise) for manipulated photographs to be labelled as such? Your thoughts please....................