If I can do it in the wet darkroom (cropping, dodging, burning, filtering) then it's completely legal; adding to or subtracting from the photo I feel are iffy, they take away from the art of photography...that's certainly not to say that I have not photoshopped hundreds of contrails out of beautiful blue sky...but adding objects that do not exist is a no-no in my mind.
I know a lot of people go with this. But to me it makes no logical sense. What was so special about the wet darkroom that means photography can't progress?
The idea that "because light has gone through a lens to hit a sensor" so its a photograph makes no more sense to me. Whats so special about that?
I'll bet Mr A Adams would be happily photoshopping away if he were here today.
To me its a case of I'm trying to make an artistic image. I'm not saying to anyone that I'm making photographs, I'm an artist using a digital camera and computer to produce images. That way i'm not misleading anyone.
Some people will think its all computer generated and that makes it fake, and easy. Am I misleading them because most of it is done in camera and the computer part is not easy at all?
Do what you want to produce the image you want. Be honest with people. That might involve telling people how its done in detail, or you could just say I don't disclose details.
I too fail to see why doing something in darkroom is legit and doing it digitally not! Yes, I like the idea about not disclosing facts, the lesser said about a photo, the better. A photo should speak for itself.