There's someone in the Kingsnake
forums claiming that using Photoshop as a post-processing tool for anything beyond resizing and cropping photos "makes them want to vomit," which is regrettable- along with being a claim grossly
exaggerated, it's just clearly misinformed. I don't know what they think people were doing back when digital photography was but a twinkle in Eugene Lally's eyes, but I'm pretty sure the Human Hand was involved somewhere along the developing process. Adobe did not suddenly pop up in the mid-80's and introduce the world to post-processing, thus ruining the art of photography forever; Photoshop has enabled some heinous things over the years, yes, but I don't think you can make the umbrella statement that use of the program is, by default, vomit-inducing.
Commercial snake photography ( or any product photography, really) walks a fine line between art and documentation, and I think that, rather than attacking Photoshop users for gilding reality, one should simply focus on accurate representation
of one's product. In this case, a snake. If I am made to choose between
1. a breeder who has set up a backdrop and bounce light for their shots and then white balances the RAW files in PS, or
2. A breeder who took a flash photo of their snake on a towel in a poorly-lit apartment and posts it just as their $150 camera crapped it out
...You bet your butt I'll choose the former.
Snakes are pretty, and deserved to be shown off as such. Don't up the saturation so that all of your albinos suddenly look like sunglows, sure, but don't act as if accessible digital photography is the pinnacle of reality just because your snake photos look greyed out and crappy.