Usually I'm not really a fan of photomanipulations.
When I looked at your picture, I knew why. I don't like manipulations that look like they were real. Like a big yellow field with only one tree in it, I think "Wow, what a beautiful place" and then I look at the category and read "Photomanipulation". That really eases the amazement.
But your picture obviously is a manipulation, and yet some parts, like the grass in the foreground or parts of the tree still look real, that's what I like.
And then there's that glow in the middle of the picture, that attracts attention. Those little butterflies really make up the picture, as colourful and bustling as they are, compared to the darkness that surrounds them.
This is a beautiful picture in all respects and shows other skills besides photography you're good at.

I always think that photomanipulate using stock it's often too easy. Some people get two or more stock and try to get the best from them. The real problem it's that many people try to do that exaggerating everything. So, the result it's often very "kitch". But, ok, that's not really the case. The artist here managed to find some material and applied a lot of color correction in every level to cast a magical night and to match the green-blueish nebula-sky in background. You may argue that using brushes like that, to cast lights on those butterflies, is easy. But what emerges here it's the good taste. The artist was able to render almost perfectly the distribution of the light across the image.
So, I really liked this work and I can't really understand why BellalleB was so reluctant to post it here

P.S. When I've seen it the first time I was thinking that it was a drawing.