connor wrote:Bank the tiger moth to the right, soften the light a little and you'll be away.

I use EZDOK to try to get away from the default FSX camera view that plonks everything dead-centre. I can shift the aircraft up/down/left right easily. However - the downside is that the EZDOK cameras are locked to the axis of the aircraft, so if I bank it, the aircraft stays level - but the *horizon* rotates. If you have enough "spare" around the area of interest, you can usually rotate and correct in Photoshop, but not if it's a massive bank.
That Harvard shot is rotated about 30 degrees. If you look at the glacier below the aircraft, you can see it slopes up to the left.
So ... I could have banked the Moth, but couldn't do much about the light without playing with time of day and/or weather settings. I found if it looked OK on the aircraft, the scenery looked grey and uninteresting. Had it have been one of *our* comps, I could easily have isolated the aircraft, toned it down a bit, then maybe beefed up the background a fraction.
As to trying to make it "a level playing field" - and what degree of editing may be permissible - we've discussed this many times here in the past. You could set up a competition any way you like, but I think for NZFF, where we need the image to [also] work as a *banner*, then editing often creates images that a straight "V" capture could not create - eg. a "composite", like Marty's Christmas Airtruk, which I thought was a hoot - and made a tremendous banner.
ORBX want to use the winning shot(s) to advertise their product, so punters need to feel confident that what they're seeing is the real deal - and not enhanced in any way in post-production.
@Rob ... go for it! Have a go!
I agree that tones altered after the capture more often than not degrade the image substantially. Even the ENB "tweaks" often introduce (IMHO) ridiculously over-blown highlights or unrealistic focus effects. The only thing I occasionally use is "Shade" as I find the FSX palette at the extremes of the day (morning/evening) to be too "Disney-like". I don't even bother much with "Shade" either, to be honest.