Register here - as a registered user you get more features and fewer ads.
While I agree with much of what you have posted and have argued this many times before (http://www.headheritage.co.uk/headtohead/tma/topic/24664/threaded/282704/) this is not the beginning and end of the story as far as photography is concerned.
What you have to remember also are the last two critical criteria that every photographer must consider, due purely to the unique ability of photography to present an image so close to reality to be almost indistinguishable. The two criteria I would consider are context and expectation.
They are both sides of the one whole, if someone is browsing the web and happen across my website then they have no expectations that 'Ken Williams presents photographs as produced by a camera totally unaltered or corrected' and this is not a manifesto blazed across my homepage. If I did have this across my homepage then yes, in this case it would be dishonest not to disclose what had been done to a particular image. If I dont have that across my homepage and someone asks 'are they unaltered and corrected?' the correct response is 'yes, in order to closer match reality/my personal vision (delete as appropriate), I do the following..'.
To imply that it doesn't matter either way or is not a legitimate concern to the person viewing the photograph is not proper in my opinion and needlessly gives photographers a bad name. Honesty and frankness can be a friend to the photographer but being evasive ruins the 'magic' for everyone and betrays an agenda of trickery rather than self-expression.
Then there is the context of how the photograph is presented, quite similar in concept to the above. It is not considered appropriate for a Reuters photographer to photoshop in more clouds and burning buildings and present it as news, to cite a recent case. The argument that it matches what the photographer felt rather than saw does not hold up. Similarly the rules of the competition stated that 'fiddling' would be frowned upon, in that case I think it is not whether the photographer feels work done on a photo is justifiable, it should be stated what was done and the reasons why if the rules are being 'bent' for the people vioting and the editors to decide. People will assume that's what they are voting for unless otherwise stated. The competition is the context in this case, I asked if the photo was a composite and when asked for further clarification the subject was evaded. I felt it was a composite for very good reason and still do. I dont think you can enter a competition with your own idea of what is or isn't against the spirit of the rules or might lead to misunderstanding on the part of the voting Joe or Jane, or for that matter dishearten those who stayed true to the spirit of the competition.
Something is not right. This message is just to keep things from messing up down the road