Is it feared that digital images are automatically better and will beat out conventional images? Hasn’t happened yet. In fact digital images have only placed at this point.

Is it because digital imaging is viewed as an unfair advantage? With that logic, does that mean that someone who has a better lens than me (or simply, deeper pockets) also has an unfair advantage? What about custom printing?

Is it because digital imaging is viewed as an easier way to get a good shot? Any one who has dabbled with digital imaging will have a laugh on that. John Wasserman went from nothing to a winning photo in about six months. I’m sure he will tell you that he spent more time learning just how to operate his computer than he did learning how to take pictures with his camera.

Is it because the image has been manipulated? What image hasn’t been? Where does manipulation begin? Is manipulation not done through choices of film, lens, shutter speed, F-stop, photographic paper, filters, and presentation? What about custom dodging, burning and selective blurring? It could be argued that many of the choices made in the digital darkroom could also be made in a conventional darkroom.

Does manipulation occur only after the shot is taken? Is it manipulated if you get help in taking the picture? In such a scenario, someone else offered input into the final image.