Okay, I did some digging. First, let me state that I don't have the skills that Steve Bloom does. I'm not trying to say that his work is of poor quality. However, is work is *not* pure photography, or even photography with a *little* digital manipulation to clean it up.
It's been pointed out that even Steve Bloom himself admits to manipulation of his photos. Translated quote attributed to Steve:
"Photographs are raw materials, which I shape to archieve estetical perfection. The computer offers me all possibilities of the traditional darkroom and at the same time some advantages of a studio. Where necessary I change vague backgrounds and remove disturbing lights. I remove elements from a scene or add aother ones. Sometimes I change the angle of light a little to archieve a lighting effect that is only possible in a studio and not in nature. With some photos I make minor changes, with others significant changes.
The thought that there would be a perfect photograph is strange to me. Thats why I try to change the visual harmony in each of my photos before publishing"
Thus, I'd consider what he does to be exceptionally beautiful and skilled art. But, I think it still crosses the line when calling them photographs. Well, some of his work probably qualifies as photographs... other pieces probably qualify as digital art. It's a shame that he doesn't distinguish which is which on individual pieces.
So, the dolphins jumping simultaneously from the ocean... was it 2 dolphins jumping simultaneously at SeaWorld? Or was it two separate jumps by 2 dolphins at different times joined together digitally on a computer? To capture such a shot in the real world would be absolutely incredible. To create such a shot electronically? Well, that just takes a tremendous amount of skill. Do his photos show that he's an incredible wildlife photographer? Or do these pictures show that he's an incredible photoshop expert?