An interesting discussion. I can't really speak for anyone else so....My own view is that unless I state, and it's usually obvious most times anyway, that a photograph has been manipulated (combined images, changed colors etc.) I try to get a photo, whether it's "in camera" or "in Photoshop" to look like it did to me when I shot it. Trying my best to get the crop I want, the lighting I want etc. "in camera" but not always successfully...so then do what photographers have always done...adjust the image...not so much to obtain impact or to try and be "creative" but more or less to try and get something to look like it did. Think that "adjust" and "change" are sort of key words. Have done obvious digital manipulation..combining photos for abstract effects, or 'artistic' effects, and stating so, if not obvious.... but like to keep the two entirely separate. A person for that matter can actually create unrealistic effects with only the camera, camera movement, low shutter speed on moving subjects (like water) control of DOF, even the chosen framing or crop... can be used to create scenes the eye can't see (even macro photography does that unless our eyesight is
very good
). To some degree it seems too there are certain traditions within photography that aren't looked so much as changing but rather adjusting. Sometimes adding a slight vignette or a grain overlay, or a tasteful tone, or mimicking a contrasty B&W film in digital such as could be accomplished in film , seem acceptable to many. To me, if I'm taking a photo as a straight representation of "reality" I try to make it look like it looked, within certain bounds, with the camera or later with an editor if needed...and that in itself is subjective, since we all see or perceive things a bit differently. Regards