I am OK with compositing or cloning and other PP processing as long as all the images or components where shot by you.

I am curious how you precisely did you composite or combination of the two images. What tools did you use? Did you use a Clone Stamp? Content Aware Tool (Which)? Layer Blending? Image Stack? Whatever?! it will make the most sense to me if you used Adobe Photoshop. I have exceedingly rarely tried a substitution combination like yours. I mainly use a Clone Stsmp to cover things I don't want.

How can you say that “converting images from color to monochrome, selective color, black & white” is in any way “just to show a good/best representation of the SOOC file”??? Doing that is manipulation! – not SOOC at all. And “removing scars, creating background ….., using liquefy to make eyes bigger, smaller tummy etc. ….. Removal of pimples, strings, power lines ….. Removing elements via cloning other parts of the image” also are nothing but manipulation – not that which really was there at the moment the picture was taken.

“using lens correction, stretching, perspective & horizon adjustments” are true editing – meant to correct the representation of the subject as it actually existed (from the flaws produced by the equipment and/or the photographer).

In addition, “adding decorative elements such as borders, text/signature and the like” certainly have absolutely nothing to do with “processing”, “editing” or “manipulating” of a picture!

Creativity and artistic expression are in a completely different realm from the foregoing and may have their own norms and expectations!!!

Loren – in Beautiful Baguio City

Ethics??? I consider myself an ethical guy. I do not wake up every morning and decide to fool anyone in my photographic work- commercial or otherwise. I will never misrepresent a retouched or manipulated image as a totally authentic capture. To do so would be childish, useless, and insulting people's intelligence.

In many kinds of commercial photography, we are required to idealize various subjects- people, places, things and situations. We are asked to create moods and environments. With the skilled application of lighting, makeup, camera angle, and post-processg manipulations. retouching and other techniques we produce images of all of the aforementioned subjects that, frankly, never look that way in real life- faultless skin tones and textures, a plate of pasta with every noodle in place, and everything seen in its best light and eye-catching composition. We are asked to idealize everything just about every day. Our clients, art directors and, ad agencies all demand these interpretations of whatever they are advertising, promoting, or bringing to the public eye. "Aesthetics and cosmetics" are buzz word we hear every day. I won't say we engage in fakery but we certainly glamorize stuff as much as we can do- legally!

Art is another story. You are the artist and have a vision that you want to express. You may not find the interpretation in a scene, wildlife situation, portrat of a person or whatever you are shooting. So, in order to create your vision, imagination, and interpretation you set out to add and subtract, elements for your basic image. There are numerous techniques in your toolbox- y'all know what they are and you may use one or two of them or pull out all the stops! You create your image and show it to whoever, the word, the forum, you enter it in a competition. Unless there are contest rules or specified restrictions, you have no real obligation to accompany your image with a disclaimer. You put it out here and if you have done a good job or created a botched-up mess, you have to live with the accolades or the criticism respectively. On a photographic forum- nobody is foolin' anybody! If things don't jibe, someone will find it out and probably call it out! My advice is not to create false ethics or rules where the real ones don't exist- it will mess up your creativity and your encouragement to experiment and venture into new things. Just like literature, your image can be fact or fiction.

Of course in legitimate photojournalism, there's no place for composite applications that will alter the story. I preface the term "photojournalism" with the word "legitimate" because there are lots of media out there that are propaganda and sensationalism and not the real stuff.

I think there is too much time wasted on speculating or worrying about what others will think about the art photographers produce. Just put it out there and let it "speak" for itself.

So, if your landscape foreground does not match the light direction and colour of your replaced sky, that is a boo-boo! Etc. etc. etc!

As far as I am concerned, you did nothing wrong - did NOT "PhotoShop" your picture. Improving focus, sharpness, depth of field, making panoramas, etc, did not change the total reality of that which was there. It just made it easier to see it well. On the other hand, putting a hat on one of the birds, adding a rainbow to the sky, and changes of that nature are "PhotoShopping", as would be having one of the birds positioned as a hood ornament on your car. The same goes for changing eye color, slimming body or face, adding objects not in view when the picture was taken, and the like. Depending upon where the picture is to be exhibited, the changes then may need to be announced - or not. It might be noted - actresses and models routinely are "PhotoShopped" with makeup BEFORE the photo shoot even begins; they are TOTALLY unrecognizable from any "before" picture - even those who really do not need the makeover! Of course, that is well known, but never announced.

Loren - in Beautiful Baguio City

I'm really squeamish about composites. When I see a great photo with wonderful background, two birds in perfect focus, and great overall clarity, I think that the person behind that camera is a really good photographer who is in complete command of his camera. Then, I learn that it's actually a composite. My opinion of that creator changes. He's no longer a great photog, but a good computer person. Since I strive to be a good photographer, I hold a higher regard for someone who is a good photographer than someone who is a good computer person. I don't mean that to be offensive, so please forgive if you're offended by that remark. The resulting image can be wonderful, but to me it's not a photograph but photo-based digital artwork. I think there's a difference.

As far as such effects as changing a sky, I knew photographers who had negatives of different types
of clouds. Years ago I took a class from a professional business/industrial photographer. He saw some
clouds in a print from a scenic taken in the states. But refering to his time in the service in the pacific islands,
this photo had clouds printed in from that part of the world. When he asked the photographer if that was the
case he confirmed his hunch. Personally, if a manipulated scene does not change the content I can see no harm
being done.

I wanted a picture that sort of summed up a convention I attended (Car club. mid coast Maine), but in the hundreds of photos I shot, nothing really stood out. But I did have a photo of a car on a scenic hilltop with an uninspiring background, and a photo of the scenic harbor taken from a couple hundred feet away. Hmmm... both were taken minutes apart, facing southeast, looking down at about the same angle... So I did a background replacement and submitted the photo to a national car hobby magazine with my article, telling their editors what I'd done. It got published. Even the National Geographic publishes assembled pictures, so why not?