I'll try and answer the question
Stephen,
I think robski's comment of "intention to deceive" is as good a one-line summary as you can get. I found it difficult to add anything of value to this so didn't answer earlier.
If the changes are simply things such as dust removal, tweaking the contrast a little, adjusting the brightness, correcting a colour cast or similar, then that is editing rather than manipulation. There are times when a picture opportunity cannot be recreated. For example, portraits, candids, snapshots taken at family events, these are once in a lifetime events usually. Under such circumstances, removing the image of leering, drunken great uncle Albert in the background that is otherwise spoiling a beautiful candid portrait of cousin Charlotte (names changed to protect the identity of the culprits) would, in my opinion, be acceptable manipulation. It is capturing the moment, even if the moment has undesirable elements.
Adding or removing objects to create a false impression can be used to enhance the picture, dropping in a new sky to a landscape has been used as an example. I would most definitely classify this as manipulation rather than editing. Sometimes the scene you want just isn't there when viewed though the eyepiece, manipulation can make it happen. If the scene is there, but you can't be bothered to make it better before you press the button, and tweak it later then there is room for improvement on the part of the photographer. Don's tweaks to my K1000 are a prime example. I blame this on familiarity with the subject and a lack of objective thinking on my part. I saw what I wanted to see, not what was presented in the viewfinder. Under such circumstances, I'm glad that constructive critique has been given and editing applied to show how improvements can be made. This is showing that editing is a useful tool.
I can now try again and hopefully get things closer to correct "in camera" first. I think it is important to get things as close as you can to the desired end result before the image is captured. There will be areas that need tweaking in post-processing afterwards but as long as you are using these tweaks to improve technique in the long run then I see no problem. Editing should not be used to cover up for poor technique, but we aren't all blessed with the eyes of a passive viewer.
Duncan
|