Everybody - thanks for you thoughts - For the record I began my hobby over 65 years ago. I did my own black and white processing, enlarging etc. Worked on High school and college newspapers and yearbooks. Somewhere along the line I was taught that what I see through the viewfinder is what I print. If I want a different atmosphere then I work with the lighting. other words - I set the picture up before I snap the picture - and what I get I print - other than adjusting contrast or lightening or darkening the picture.
then in the early 80's I entered some exhibitions and had several rejected because of "extensive manipulation" of which I never even thought of doing. Today I see programs that alter the sky, among other things and completely change the nature of what you are shooting.
Yes the results are pleasing and works of art and can be enjoyed by everyone - but something is being lost. We are losing our skills as photographers.

When I first started photography as a hobby, the rules for exhibitions were simple - The photo I entered was a picture that was not altered in any fashion. Today with the software available it is possible to "adjust" or enhance any or all of the original exposure. The sky can be changed from clear, blue daylight to a dark and stormy evening.
Items can be added and or subtracted etc etc.
What are the standards for entering a photo in a contest / exhibition when it is not explicitly stated? Are there ethics that govern what we do - or has photography turned into a new art form where anything goes as long as it is pleasing or interesting?
Just something I have been wrestling with and would like some thoughts.