There are 10 groups of people in the world. Those who use binary notation and those who don't. In photography, there is a difference of opinion on postprocessing.

Recent threads (and lots of past threads) expose the dichotomy of opinion on postprocessing. "Photoshop is lying". "Photographs are art".

When I studied with Ansel Adams he said “the image captured by your camera is only the starting point for creating the image that is in your mind” - enough said - Michangelo chiseled away every bit of marble that he didn’t feel contributed to his vision

There are reasons for both opinions, but the reasons do not overlap much. I'm in the "art" group and I will let everyone know that my photos are processed, sometimes just a bit, sometimes a lot. It's the difference between a pleasing photo and photojournalism, which eschews changes to the "original" image, whatever that is.

I would like to support the "art" group with an example from a recent wedding I attended. I have a photo that was taken by someone else (since I was in the wedding party I did not take any photos of the ceremony). I am presenting the photo to illustrate a point: it is my opinion that wedding photos are NOT photojournalism (unless there's some unusual newsworthy aspect of the wedding, which does not apply here). Wedding photos are to please the family. I don't have permission of everyone in the photo to post this so I have blurred all the faces, but I think my point can be seen here.

The original photo was taken as the bride and groom (now husband and wife) walked down the aisle away from the officiant. The wedding was outdoors on a sunny day, late in the afternoon. The photo shows most of the family so it is of interest to the family. Since it was late in the afternoon, some trees behind the photographer shaded half of the group. So the original photo shows a bunch of bright faces on the right and dim faces on the left. In my opinion this detracts from the value of the photo to the family (particularly those on the left).

I ran the photo through Photoshop and brightened the faces on the left. I only had a jpg to work with so the dynamic range wasn't really great, but I got something that I believe is better than the original as far as the left group is concerned. The left group is not as bright as the right, but they are not heavily shaded as much as they were.

My version is not reality if you only consider the response of the camera sensor to the available illumination.

My version is reality if you consider that the human eye can adapt to differences in illumination much better than a print of a photo can realize.

My thesis is that Postprocessing, even relatively heavy processing that Photoshop can produce, is a way to approximate the reality of a photo.

The intent was to generate discussion. The thread did that. I could possibly have made a stronger statement that I was not defining the ethics, only stating my opinion on the subject. But it was not my intent to lay guilt on anyone. I hereby state that I'm cool with whatever floats your boat. My boat floats on afterexposure work frequently. I reserve the right not to float my boat your way and I grant you the same privilege.

I don't claim innocence. It's been a long time since I could be defined that way.

Unless you are a photojournalist, your photos are free game to make whatever you want from them. I consider my raw files to be a resource or a building block for making a piece of art that is pleasing or useful in some way. I consider myself to be an artist of the same type as a painter or pencil drawer. Art is whatever you hang on the wall. I’ve made doughy women look slim and toned. Who does that hurt? I say the women feel better about themselves and the viewer enjoys the photo more. Photoshop is just a tool, so use it. ( now this applies to artists, photojournalism exists in a very different world.)

All of this is my opinion, not a fact.