[Bud]

I think you're confused. An original digital photograph is no more intrinsically "edited" than a photograph taken on film. Would you say a film photo is edited just because of the limits of the film grain? Because the limitations of a digital sensor's pixels are really no different.

So no. Not all digital photos can accurately be said to be edited; there is such a thing as an original digital file, and a distinction to be drawn between that file and an edited version of the original.

[Skibb]

You are the one confused. Do you understand the difference between analog and digital? Analog is a direct imprint of the photons that pass through the lense of the camera and have a chemical reaction with the film (simply put). A digital version is a COPY of the image that passes through the lens in the digital camera and by way of that it is already one time manipulated. In any case, I'm not saying I am the only one right here but that it's possible to look at it from different points of views. My overarching goal was to show that the whole claim of the edited photo not deserving a prize was irrelevant - photos are edited daily, every time and that does not take away from their aesthetic, documentary or other value if they are pulled off greatly. Short version: yes, even looking from your angle, the writer could have said the same about ANY photo, analog or digital, arguing that because the light in the photo looked different than what it would look in reality (and don't forget that a human eye is a sort of an imperfect camera itself) it isn't worthy of recognition.