[throwanem]

Well, sure; I'm not suggesting otherwise. I'm also not trying to argue aesthetics in any direction, but rather to make the point that - however hard some may find it to imagine that such photographs can be achieved purely with a camera, a tripod, and a careful use of light - they absolutely can be, and there's not really anything here to suggest they were not.

Perhaps "trickery" was a poor choice of words. Until very recently, I haven't really had much involvement or interest in photography since being taught the basics on a Nikkormat FTn in childhood; as a recent amateur armed with a low-mid-end DSLR and very little idea of what on Earth he's doing, I have to say that the modern photographic hobby, at least in its online exponents, seems in many quarters very much more concerned with hipsterism, gear fetishization, and tearing one another down, than with anything that seems more directly involved with actually taking pictures at all.

While I have very little respect for this sort of attitude, I do try where possible to avoid needlessly antagonizing anyone and I suppose the possibility exists that I might at some point need to get along with one of these sorts of jackasses, and so I'm in the process of refining my vocabulary and fashion of speaking on the subject in order to meet that need should it arise. 'Trickery' is the sort of word I'm under the impression such a person would use in similar circumstance, and so it managed to slip out here as well. Such errors will cease as I get this rather unpleasant style more accurately dialed in.

[ska]

That seems to be projecting rather a lot onto a comment that boils down to "looks a bit too much like a render for me"