"the quality of your images" is a phrase sufficiently vague as to be meaningless, as nearly as I can tell.
The trouble is that a landscape which more or less captures what it really looked like is one thing, and a photoshop job is another.
In the first instance, the photographer ought to be judged (roughly) on their ability to see what is in front of them, and to select the right vantage point, moment, and so on. The photographer's ability to translate that wonderous real world at that moment into something we can see and feel for ourselves.
The fabricator, on the other hand, should be judged perhaps on the power of their imagination and their ability to turn it into something we can see and feel for ourselves.
The two, really, are not comparable. If we don't know which one the picture is, or perhaps more accurately where on the spectrum it lands, or at any rate roughly where it lands in the multivariate space of possibilities, then we will end up judging it by the wrong criteria. If, for example, someone paints in a decisive moment, we need to know that, lest we judge them instead on their ability not to paint but to anticipate. Painting being in many cases easier than anticipating, we might overrate the photographer's skill. Conversely, a straight photograph that looks like a painting deserves to be judged on the former standard, rather than the latter.
One does not enter a walrus into the hog competition at the fair.
