I Did but forgot whhen I was writig a generic answer. Rather than a personal one. My answer applies to anyone doing what I would call imaginative compositions, rather than truthful ones.I don't think you read the article Terry,
She's a she.
I think you're being overly kind to the photographer.NG clearly (now?) lack the expertise to review the validity of photographs submitted.
The photographer has stated she takes the blame for any misrepresentation but with a couple of caveats. Sadly for her this will put the spotlight on any of her work where others could have done supplemental work for her???
Ah! a deeper & more extensive matter than I had initially 'clocked'.I think you're being overly kind to the photographer.
The first article in the sequence  questioned some repetitive detail in the Milky Way in one particular image. The photographer's response is that that particular image was stitched by an intern and the artefacts may have been created by the stitching process. She's accepted responsibility for a failure of quality control.
However the second article  demonstrates that her images are absolutely full of manipulation, up to and includung using a Southern hemisphere foreground and a Northern hemisphere sky. That's not just an incompetent intern and a lack of quality control. That's a systematic attempt to deceive. It's wholesale fraud. She says "I did not intentionally try to hide anything" but that is clearly a blatant lie.
She tried to blame it on an intern and she tried to get sympathy for her hectic schedule and her recent bereavement. How low can you get?
 This Milky Way photo on Nat Geo is raising eyebrows - https://petapixel.com/2019/05/07/this-milky-way-photo-on-nat-geo-is-raising-eyebrows/
Scientific errors in those Nat Geo Milky Way photos - https://petapixel.com/2019/05/10/scientific-errors-in-those-nat-geo-milky-way-photos/
I think I recall a while back a wedding photographer who failed her clients making similar'ish excuses as the reason(s) for a lower than usual standard of service.....so not unique in that regardPretty lame excuses if you ask me. Sad to see it got through the net too. At least it’s all out in the open now eh?
Some photos are art or taken for artistic purposes, so that feedback could be perfectly fine depending on the context and where you posted the image.Not surprising, I once had feedback on a Milky Way pic advising me to improve it with clone stamping etc and that it didn’t matter as photos are art not science.
I thing quite heavy post processing is the norm for shooting starfields. however packing them out with clones takes them from a scientific interest catagory to a purely artistic one. The lengths that astro photographers go to, to create their images is quite staggering, and what they produce in mind blowing But totally false and can not be seen by visible light.I happened upon this article a few days ago and was pretty shocked reading it. I don't get involved in taking such photos so perhaps am out of the loop, but the number of inconsistencies was staggering and as more of a 'consumer' than a creator than these type of images - anything beyond basic post processing should be declared, especially in a publication like NG. From a 'hobbyist' point of view, you may look at photos in publications like this as something to aim for and to learn 'interns' and quality control are involved and it all gets a bit demoralising. i didn't know interns etc were part of this world, so perhaps I am naive.
if it's a photo thats going to be mass produced, perhaps its 'ok' but in NG - then no, but i'd still expect such heavy post processing to be declared. Perhaps a separate category for such images...
Rubbish! It was making my sunset better at the same time, it's not possible to have two as they cause a standing gravity wave that would cause the sun to develop a black hole....Let's not condemn her too quickly. Perhaps there was a transient large-scale warp in the space-time continuum that created an otherwise astronomically impossible view, and she captured it perfectly innocently?
Was this Fstoppers critiquing Peter Lik by any chance, made me laugh, apparently he has come out since and said there may be some multiple frames used. But they are massively photoshopped anyway, pretty, but feel a long way from photographs, quite expensive and he has a few galleries apparently, so people must buy.I saw a video on youtube a little while back and they were challenging someones else landscape, claiming out they were impossible to shoot in camera (the guy had a lot of shots of moons in landscape), dammed if I can remember the names now though. Apparently the original shooter claims his work isn't photoshoped.
Yes thats the one, now you've given me the name I could find it again. I argree they look photoshopped to me too.Was this Fstoppers critiquing Peter Lik by any chance, made me laugh, apparently he has come out since and said there may be some multiple frames used. But they are massively photoshopped anyway, pretty, but feel a long way from photographs, quite expensive and he has a few galleries apparently, so people must buy.