When does photography cross over into photo-manipulation?

https://plus.google.com/u/0/104917551945390398786/posts/YLcp1yGCeg8

I'm sure my old photography teachers would argue that photography alone, even without any type of Photoshopping manipulation, is already art.  Whether art is defined as any human activity not meant solely towards physical survival (as per Scott McCloud) or as any (usually man-made) thing which (is meant to) cause pondering about the world---Either way, once we take a photograph, we're already focusing people's perceptions to emphasize a specific view(point), visually or emotionally or philosophically.  Once we take a photo, regardless of if it gets manipulated after or during (with controlled lights/angles/etc.), we are already imposing or expressing our personal "artistic interpretation of that moment". 

 With that kind of definition of Art, out of the way...

 I'd like to reiterate that at a certain point of complexity in the Photoshopping effort, the piece is more about the skill used in the Photoshopping, more than in-camera skills used in on-site framing, angles, and lighting control.  In that sense, sometimes the intention of the photography artist, as to which skill the piece is intended to demonstrate, may determine whether a picture is in-camera art or post-production art.  Both can be equally valid fields of art, though different. 

 But this "false sense of beauty" or "what is real", is an interesting point.  One could argue that even without Photoshopping, there can already be a warping of reality.  Maybe even argue that controlling angles, framing, lighting, etc. is already "manipulating reality".  Case in point, when I take a documentary type of photo to record the details of how my set-up was done, those photos look very different from the final shots that I choose to upload.  They look stale and informative, rather than emotionally striking (at least I think that's what we're all subconsciously aiming for in our uploaded photos).  Imposing our own emotional emphasises on a set-up/model, I think is exactly what we're intentionally trying to do, when we take a photo or recognize something as a "good" photo.  We could judge a photo completely objectively and sterile, by noting it's range of value, the dynamism of the lines or angles, the difficult effects achieved, given certain equipment, but I think that judging a piece completely objectively misses the point of art in general, which, I believe, should (also) be an emotional experience.  If a photo shows reality as it is, it would be able to fully-encompass all possible interpretations in the universe, because reality is free of its own point of view.  It's absolutely objective.  But if our weekly challenges prove anything, I don't think we want to pursue that completely sterile type of depiction.  (And anyway, it's impossible, as soon as something is framed in a camera, even unintentionally.)  But, further tangents about the nature of art aside, I can remember manually developing even film photos.  I remember, in the development process in the dark room, having the ability to manipulate the contrast, the size, and even "dodge" and "burn" techniques---on which Photoshop's "dodge tool" and "burn tool" are based on.  There is a lot of manipulation to be done in "old-school" photography, purely "point and shoot" photography, and digitally manipulated photography.   Perhaps feeling deceived by a "false sense of beauty" is a case of photo publishers miscommunicating intentions of a piece to the expectations of viewers.  I bet that if we knew something was Photoshopped, then we could appreciate it as a demonstration of photo manipulation skill.  But when a photo is merely published, with the general assumption that is digitally untouched or "real", and we expect it to be so, it is a great shock and deception to find that it was manipulated.  ...Though, in this world of make-up and lighting control, what is "real"?  (Check out pics of models and celebrities without make-up. Or, this TED talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Re53vgaVFvI )  I'd like to defer to the Asian idea that Beauty, like other ideas, is such a transcendent thing, that it cannot truly exist in our physical world.  The closest depiction of it, or the reality of any idea, is an allusion to its true nature or experience, through the use of symbols and emotional stimulation.  (The human mind just works indirectly.  That's why being told something isn't as effective as experiencing or discovering it.)  Because maybe all ideas, including Beauty, can only truly exist in their purest forms as an emotional experience or experience of thought, so it cannot truly be depicted.  (By the way, this is why Asian art, including anime, tends to favor stylization, rather than realism.)  Perhaps trying to create a non-"false sense of beauty" in the physical world is an oxymoron.  ...But we all know what people really mean when they say they're disappointed in "a false sense of beauty".  No one wants to be deceived into thinking a photo is a demonstration of, say, lighting equipment skill, when all the lighting was done with post-production digital equipment.  A different, yet equal field of skill, but a deception none the less.  (An aggrivating deception, not like the fun of suspended disbelief for a magician or fantasy movie.)  It can be annoying to waste time and effort in evaluating a piece for one type of skills and difficulty, only to find it was about another type of skills and ease, altogether. 

 So, if I've come to any answers in writing this, I guess any conflicts between photo manipulation and viewers' acceptance, comes down to the artist's intention, the success of conveying that intention of mediums, and the viewers' expectations.  With such open-ended factors, I'm glad I asked this community's tolerance of digital manipulation.  And I'm glad that some manipulation is accepted as "touch-ups". 

 But I'm even more glad that there isn't some vehement air of antagonism against even the notion of it.  So, thank you, guys.  Because, as slowly as I'm continually inching towards improving my in-camera skills, I am a perfectionist, and I want my photos to look their best---or rather, express/emphasize what I want to convey, as best they can...And my Photoshop skills are conveniently right there.  But I am aiming for not needing to Photoshop.  Frankly, a photo that does not need post-production is less work for me. 

 One of the reasons I was afraid of some "Purist" sentiment in the figure photography community, against post-manipulation, is that I know first-hand how vehement the cosplay community can be against Photoshopping.  I once posted a cosplay photo of myself, in which I loved the unduplicatable angle, but my novice make-up was way too pale.  I adjusted just that tone, and nothing else, and got harrassed for it.  It was so malicious, I almost quit cosplay, or at least, sharing my cosplay photos.  I'm so glad the figurine photography community wasn't so quick to crucify me like that.  Thank you.

 ...Wait.  Did I even answer the question?  "How much digital manipulation is allowed, before a piece is no longer a photography, and more of a Photoshop, display of skill?"  With the subjectivity of this world and all the different types of pepole/minds, I guess one really can't know without asking.  For example, I asked this community because my concern was the acceptance of this particular community.  Now that I know your preferences, I will tell you when I Photoshop something, yet strive to kept that adjustment absent or minimum.  ...Though, if there is some kind of generally recognized authority on this subject, that all of us in photography and/or photo-manipulation can recognize, then perhaps, only then could we all agree on some concrete guidelines about the borders and relms of photography and photo-manipulation.  ...Or we can keep chatting about it in growing circles, until we generate an "unspoken", general consensus.  '_'?