The image above has, like many photos, a story behind it. Often non-photographers look at photos and do not understand what went into the making of a good photo. When working with the microscope, things are even more alien as there is a bunch of additional considerations that need to be taken into account before you can even begin turning on the camera.

Lets start at the beginning. Not all good photographs can be had at first attempt. Sometimes you have to fail (many times) before you can succeed. Here is the best I could do 4 years ago:

Finally! I am not alone in this world...

There are more arguments about photo editing and processing than there are photos in this world. Ok, that might be a slight exaggeration. But still, it is an argument that has become especially prominent with the rise of digital photography due to the easy manipulatability of photographs.

Some people believe you can do whatever you want to a photo, it is all about art. At the opposite side of the spectrum are the purists - who believe that the only changes you are allowed to make are basic exposure, white balance and sharpening. I am more specific in my beliefs.

If you ask me this question, I would say that it depends on the purpose of the photograph. If it is to document something formally like a crime scene, biology, photojournalism etc., then it is paramount that any adjustments be limited to those that improve the quality of the image and improve the correlation between it and the real world. Take note that I did NOT say it should be limited to basic exposure. My reasoning can be understood by realising that when you press the shutter button on any camera, especially a digital camera, before that image is stored on the memory card it had undergone a huge amount of processing. Some of these processing steps are:

(paraphrased)

Client: Would you please restore a file I accidentally deleted? I know you can only restore to yesterday's date, but we did a lot of work today and need it to be current.
Me: Doh!