This is an example of how the venue or how the image is used is a key factor as to identifying a photo as having been manipulated or not. I have never objected to the idea that in some areas (journalism, legal forensics, and to some extent advertising) manipulation of an image without acknowledgement is unethical at best, and criminal at worst.

Advertising presents a perplexing situation because while some manipulation may involve no more than a few aesthetic touch ups, other manipulations can be (and may intentionally be) misleading to the point of purposeful deception. Where the line between the two lies, is not always easy to define. However, if an advertiser or publication wishes to demand such upfront notification, the more power to them. I appreciate their efforts.

Where I generally take objection is when people carry this beyond this type of venue, and suggest that those creating photographic art also be required to identify with a label whether they have manipulated the image. Unlike journalism, legal services, or advertising, there is no harm that can be done to the viewer via “deception” in an image presented as visual art. As such, I see no justification whatsoever for creative photographers to identify beforehand when they have used PP, and especially if that is to be done with a physical marking on the print.

The OP sounds like he's saying just that. He said in his first post, "On my comments on "Photograpy & Reality" earlier yesterday I suggested that the icon's OCC (out of camera) and PP (post processing) be used on photo's to acknowledge to the viewer what they are looking at...original camera/lens shot, or photo with post processing (manipulation). "

The implication of that statement is that images straight out of the camera are more pure and less manipulated, and post processed images should be marked with effectively a Scarlet Letter, and could therefore be considered less legitimate. I'm saying jpegs coming straight out of the camera are also post processed by the camera, which is why I thought his premise was ridiculous. And today some cameras can crop and create special effects, removing vignetting, change sharpness, contrast , color tone, straighten verticals affected by barrel distortion, remove chromatic aberration, create HDR images, as well as other things. Only, the in-camera settings usually don't work as well as third-party software. I think it's hypocritical for people to suggest that images straight out of the camera are somehow more legitimate. Or perhaps it's just ignorance of what's happening to the images in camera. As a result, I do not believe my earlier comment was irrelevant.

As a follow-up to yesterdays thread "Photography & Reality" here is an interesting development from a major retailer that doesn't surprise me...and in fact, I was surprised that someone had not done it yet.

"CVS Health plans to announce Monday (1/15/2018) that it will ban manipulation in its store brand makeup marketing and promotional displays amid growing awareness of the harmful nature of touched-up images."
"...the decision reflects an acknowledgement that 'unrealistic body images' are a significant driver of health issues, 'especially among women.' "We're all consuming massive amounts of media everyday and we're not necessarily looking at imagery that is real and true," To try to hold ourselves up to be like those women is Impossible because even those women don't look like how they appear in those photographs" The retailer will place an icon with a "digitally modified" warning on any marketing materials that don't comply by 2020*

On my comments on "Photograpy & Reality" earlier yesterday I suggested that the icon's OCC (out of camera) and PP (post processing) be used on photo's to acknowledge to the viewer what they are looking at...original camera/lens shot, or photo with post processing (manipulation). This article by USA TODAY seems to suggest an awareness of misrepresentation by presenting a photo as reality, when in fact, it has been manipulated without acknowledgement, which in fact, supports my earlier position on representation/misrepresentation on the prior thread. I have been surprised that a challenge to the "truth in advertising" clause has not been applied and enforced on the visual media by consumer and product (visual) users. Interesting development. Please respond and please stay on topic!

* see USA TODAY by Nathan Bomey posted 1/15/2018.

This is similar in to the ban in France.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/fashion/photoshop-models-france-ban-2017-october-a7975351.html

In the US there are supposed to be laws involving representation of and claims about products. When I was studying media law in college I was handed the following case study as an assignment.

http://hoaxes.org/archive/permalink/sandpaper_test
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTC_v._Colgate-Palmolive_Co.

Advertising can make things look better but there is a line in terms of making false claims. As standards of beauty has triggered a health crisis. I think that such actions are necessary for consumer protection. However, again this has no impact on photography when used as artistic expression.

This reminds me of when CDs had a "signal chain" mark (ADD,DDD,AAD) to indicate where analog or digital was used in the process of making the disc. Never mind that all recorded sound starts and ends as analog. and every recording medium adds or removes something of the "real" sound. - The record industry gave up on such labeling.

What is a "real" photograph? I don't know. Even selection of film type and speed changes "reality". Does altering DOF, or using wide angle or telephoto lenses produce "artificial" images? IDK that either. - I'm not a philosopher.

Photography isn't a religion with "holy scriptures" that must be followed. It's about making images.

As a follow-up to yesterdays thread "Photography & Reality" here is an interesting development from a major retailer that doesn't surprise me...and in fact, I was surprised that someone had not done it yet.

"CVS Health plans to announce Monday (1/15/2018) that it will ban manipulation in its store brand makeup marketing and promotional displays amid growing awareness of the harmful nature of touched-up images."
"...the decision reflects an acknowledgement that 'unrealistic body images' are a significant driver of health issues, 'especially among women.' "We're all consuming massive amounts of media everyday and we're not necessarily looking at imagery that is real and true," To try to hold ourselves up to be like those women is Impossible because even those women don't look like how they appear in those photographs" The retailer will place an icon with a "digitally modified" warning on any marketing materials that don't comply by 2020*

On my comments on "Photograpy & Reality" earlier yesterday I suggested that the icon's OCC (out of camera) and PP (post processing) be used on photo's to acknowledge to the viewer what they are looking at...original camera/lens shot, or photo with post processing (manipulation). This article by USA TODAY seems to suggest an awareness of misrepresentation by presenting a photo as reality, when in fact, it has been manipulated without acknowledgement, which in fact, supports my earlier position on representation/misrepresentation on the prior thread. I have been surprised that a challenge to the "truth in advertising" clause has not been applied and enforced on the visual media by consumer and product (visual) users. Interesting development. Please respond and please stay on topic!

* see USA TODAY by Nathan Bomey posted 1/15/2018.