There have been a number of interesting discussions in this forum regarding the ethics of presenting a computer generated illustration as a photograph, and a recent posting here uses the term "fauxtograph" to describe this practice. I have never understood what would lead a person to misrepresent their work. But it seems we have now reached the point where respected organizations will publish fauxtographs by weasel wording the definition of what is real and what is not. Many folks may have seen the 2010 National Geographic Photography Contest images. There are some truely remarkable shots in this collection - some the result of pure luck, some the product of a great deal of skill, and some so photorealist that they are painful to look at. But the ones that really caught my eye are several shots of the night sky, brightly lit with stars, with some interesting terestrial object as a counterpoint. Every one of these is obviously a fake. Anyone who has tried to photograph the night sky under the best conditions (high altitude desert, no moon, dry cloudless night) knows that even with the fastest lens (f1.4), with the fastest film (ISO 1600 or equivalent sensor thingy), these uber-bright skies require somewhere between a 1-2 minute exposure. Since a 50mm lens will show star trails at 30 seconds, these shots can only be made with a tracking mount. This, of course, requires another stationary image of the foreground to prevent the mount movement from blurring the "stationary" earth. It seems that all that was needed to transform such a composite image from a direputable trick into an art form was to give it a fancy new name - High Dynamic Range. Now you can take as many shots of a scene as you want, keep what you like, get rid of what you don't - basically piece it together like a jigsaw puzzle. Voila, it's a photograph. Don't get me wrong. This isn't a criticism of the image, per se. Some of these are very creative and interesting. I certainly don't have the patience or the skill to sit for hours, blending together pieces on an image. So why do some folks deny their creativity with one medium (Photoshop, et al) by misrepresenting their work as photographs?