I thought the same thing. But it's not the case, at least among artists.

For instance, when doing intaglio printing using etched plates, it is never proper to cut the paper to size. It is always torn, leaving the ragged edges.

When you get to the point of being allowed to "see behind the curtain," you begin to learn that the artistic fraternity is full of tradition. Following them is a means of paying respect to other artists and artists who have gone before. And yes...there are rebels and outliers. Sometimes they make a lot of money. But they are not well-respected inside the community. In fact it seems that the choice between respect and prosperity is one of the key decisions that artists face.

Think about discussions on this forum around Ansel Adams. Few argue his commercial success. But there are a large number here who loudly proclaim him as a commercial hack.

I was educated to believe…

> That "never" and "always" are dubious conditions, outside of math and the hard sciences.

> That traditions are all too often barriers to innovation and understanding.

> That "being respected within a community by following its norms" is not necessarily a virtue, and may hinder the progress of that community.

> That the concept of art is much greater than the opinions of experts and critics.

> That art is not a specific medium, but a message or emotion communicated or evoked.

If that makes me an outlier, so be it.

What is the photo being used for? If it is, for example, a forensic photo to be used in a legal context, accuracy and honesty is important. If you are taking a portrait and use available tools to , say, remove blemishes from the subject, perhaps only the subject should know, . (Hopefully it was at their request.)

As Jerry pointed out, even in the age of film and plates, photos were processed. A photo is processed the moment it enters a camera, based upon exposure settings, focus, film speed, sense, etc. Once film went into the development tank it was processed by solution and time. Printing the negative involved additional processing. The difference now is that we have much greater ability to make significant changes.

I spent two cloudy, dull days at Arches NP. The photos were bland. I was able to make them more interesting in post processing.

The controlling question is whether you are trying to deceive the viewer with your photo in a harmful way. If you are not, then the end product stands on its own merit, because there is creative skill involved from the time you frame the phot until you publish it.