Curious, I agree – I don't think it's that strange that someone would object to the spread of manipulated photos as a photographer. But I do think there's a pretty big gulf between "curiosity" or "objection" and the sort of… wild-eyed, frothing-at-the-mouth tone of this poorly-written article.

I think a good example of this sort of analysis was that piece from earlier in the year about the "fake pro cyclist" Nick Clark https://cyclingtips.com/2022/04/exposed-by-a-strava-kom-the-...

I guess everybody is pendantic about something different. To you "It's absolutely fucking wild [...] that somebody would invest this amount of effort", but I can understand the point of that magazine, too.

Besides a somewhat harsh tone, they are presenting really solid facts, and kind of forensic work, to prove that nothing is like it seems in those images. And if you care a lot about life in/around mountains you are pendantic about local animals and where they appear (or can't appear).

This might be especially true if people have searched/visited that area a lot over the years, and never seen a snow leopard and then somebody comes along and just has that one in a million experience that nobody every had in that place.

Also the digital artist has tried to deceive the viewers into thinking that this is not a composited image: "Squinting through my camera’s telephoto lens, I noticed something in the shadow of Mount Pumori. At first, I thought it was a rock, but it was exactly what I was looking for."

So, was there a snow leopard _at all_ in the end or is that just another (stock) image? What is to be believed by that digital artist? I think this can anger people if they care a lot.