Reading a Hog conversation that gọt a little warm about whether post processing removes the pure “art” from photography. It seems some think photography must be SOOC to be “real”.
It seems to me the post processing could be interpreted as being similar to what a painter or sculptor does. Is a blob of paint SOOT (straight out of the tube) more “authentic” than the final painting the artist does? Is the sculpture of less merit than the block of granite?
The color and the granite are both genuine, and can covey a message without manipulation, but the artist that changes them also brings us something from his/her mind and heart that conveys or evokes emotion.
A photograph never captures the view exactly the same as experiencing it in person. It conveys something of the photographers interaction with the scene (think Impressionism). And I enjoy abstract and highly manipulated photos that are completely unidentifiable as to the subject, just as I do an abstract painting.
So, I say let each person do and enjoy and share photography however they want. All approaches are equally valid.

Please critique my first home studio portraits taken this Christmas with an actual human being and not a mannequin head. These high-key portraits of my niece were shot with a Canon 80D, EF50mm f/1.4 USM lens, and 2 Flashpoint speedlites: one key and one fill triggered by a Flashpoint R2 Pro. The speedlites were attached to a Godox 32x32 inch softbox diffuser and a 30-inch silver umbrella. I also used a 32-inch round reflector, to fill the shadow under her neck, in the shot where you can see 3 catchlights in her eyes. A JTL 160 strobe blasted the white seamless paper background. PortraitPro Studio 18 helped smooth her skin tones as I'm not yet up to speed on related Photoshop techniques.

Be as brutally honest as you care to be. As a retiree, I'd love to channel this hobby into a small business.