Not always just with photojournalism. Nature photographers professional and amateur alike adhere to a strict set of rules. I remember sitting in a meeting a few years ago when someone criticized one of the photos that were presented in competition for the night. It was a lovely, well-focused shot of a bird. The one bad part of the photo was the lack of a catch-light in the bird's eyes. It made the bird look dead or stuffed. One of the older and more experienced photographers said a highlight could easily be added in PP. There was a unified gasp as if someone had sucked all the air out of the room! That photographer was told in no uncertain terms by more than one of the club members that, that was totally unacceptable!

Sorry - I keep forgetting about that other type of photography, which is photography for achievement. I can see why the rules would be so important in that genre. How else could they make such a display of their technical know-how and the sheer extent of their anal retentiveness (which is seen as a badge of merit within that group). I wouldn't be surprised if they all walk around with magnifying glasses in their pockets so that they can micro-inspect every image looking for the technical perfection that they hold in such high esteem.

The key word there is "sometimes". You've described situations where accuracy is essential rather than just a nice idea, but that just doesn't apply to most people in their everyday lives. What's inappropriate is applying the same thinking to all photography as if technical excellence was the ultimate differentiator between good photography and bad photography.

Obviously technical excellence has its place and it's a necessary requirement for some, but for the rest of us it would be a mistake to think that that's what photography is all about. The history of photography is awash with examples of photos that are technically flawed but are nevertheless seen as iconic, and will continue to be held in high regard. Ditto for photos that have been extensively manipulated.

I was unaware of any strict definitions and would have said it depends purely on the content and the intended use of the photo. The use of captions IMO is purely a matter of choice regardless of what kind of photography is being pursued. It seems to me that photojournalistic photos can tell stories just the same as the more artistic type.

It seems to me that outside of the world of photojournalism most people are quite happy to inform the viewers that manipulative PP has been used and they will do so matter-of-factly because to them it's the quality of the result that matters.

Sorry - I keep forgetting about that other type of photography, which is photography for achievement. I can see why the rules would be so important in that genre. How else could they make such a display of their technical know-how and the sheer extent of their anal retentiveness (which is seen as a badge of merit within that group). I wouldn't be surprised if they all walk around with magnifying glasses in their pockets so that they can micro-inspect every image looking for the technical perfection that they hold in such high esteem.

I posted a few days ago asking whether you felt digital photography was a plus or minus to the genre of photography. A lot of people were not on the same page as me. They felt the post was about technology vs. traditional photo techniques. It was not. It was about where is the line between photography and illustration.
At what point does a photograph cease to be a photograph and become a different form of art. I'm not saying one is better than the other but I think we need to view photographs and highly manipulated photographs as two different genres.

Of all the responses I think gwilliams6's response was the most point-on (being a university professor of photography perhaps explains why). Here is what he wrote:

I started my photography journey in the 1960s and have used every iteration of the craft as an amateur and as a longtime professional photojournalist and Professor of Photography at a state University.

You can't stop the progression of technology and innovation in photography and in photo processing. But I do believe it is important to know what constitutes art and what is reality in photography.

As I teach my University Art Department photo students, anything and everything goes in art. But I also teach my University Photojournalism students that ethically there is a limit to what can be done in processing and still retain the truth which is to be preserved. That line should NOT be crossed in Photojournalism. But sadly many do.

With so many special effects and CGI in our imagery every day, it is getting harder and harder to know what is real and what isn't.

Yes, I have done layered photos, but then I call them photo illustrations and don't pass them off as reality. I would rather have the experience, adventure, hard work, and yes, some luck to find and capture a real sky than use any sky replacement.

Four examples: first a shot that is a combination of two of my photos to illustrate and advertise the X-Games in Philadelphia, Pa. This is a photo illustration pure and simple, art but not reality.

Second, a real sky found out on a walk along the marina at Disney's Hilton Head Resort, South Carolina. No sky replacement, Nature provided the colors.

Third, a real sunrise over the famed Monument Valley, a scene of countless movies, TV shows, commercials, Navajo lands, Arizona/Utah border. A real sky

Fourth, an actual time exposure, a single frame taken while driving down a New Jersey road at night. Not CGI or special effects. The adventure of imagining this shot, and then making this real shot with the camera set up inside the car was more enjoyable than if I had faked this shot in layers in PS.

To view the beautiful illustration photos he posted, go to the original post on this subject and look on pg.4.

Interestingly enough, I was looking through one of my photo books, "Techniques of the World's Greatest Photographers" and came across a photo by gustave le gray. The photo is a scene of a seascape. The history of the photo points out that the sea was from one negative and the dramatic sky was from another. This wasn't from recent past history, it was from the 1850s -- over 100 years ago! It also said his techniques caused a great sensation however it did not elaborate on whether the "sensation" was positive or negative! The book also told of nine of his prints being entered into a fine arts exhibit in Paris. A jury found the works worthy of displaying them along with lithographs but it was later overruled and the photographs dismissed as being products of science rather than art. Unfortunately, this narrow-minded attitude still exists. I approached a gallery in Bethlehem last year and inquired about hanging some work there. They informed me they do not accept photography!