>>4127549Photography is an artistic medium, it shouldn't have to always be as close as possible to "reality" (that of the photographer anyway).
Obviously if your goal is to document something, as a journalist, documentary, wildlife, sport photographer, then you have a moral obligation of "neutrality" to your audience. I.e. you shouldn't deliberately edit your photo in a way that alters significantly the meaning of your image.
But keep in mind that in any case the medium, your camera, lens, film, will make some choices for you in terms of contrast, colors, distorsion etc. Framing is already cheating with reality in a way. Is it okay to keep an element out of the frame, but not okay to remove it in post?
Again, the main questions are 1. Does it significantly alter your image and its meaning? 2. Does it matter anyway?
Personally I am not a professional photographer, I don't pretend to give an accurate and neutral account of reality, my audience intrinsically knows that. I produce images, photography just happens to be my medium.
I remove/add (most often just remove) things from my photos when it improves the image, I can remove signs, birds, cables, etc. Sometimes I combine two photos taken at the same place moments apart, for example to get people exactly were I want them to be (latest example pic rel). I wish I didn't have to do that, but unfortunately I don't have hours and hours of free time to stand somewhere and wait for the exact right people to walk exactly at the right place at the exact right time, so I consider this a necessary "evil" that doesn't really hurt anyone. I can also move some elements a few centimetres from where they actually were to make the image pop. It doesn't alter what I actually saw in any significant or meaningful way in my opinion, but that wouldn't fly with a professional documentary photographer. Again, no one takes my images for a neutral account of reality, so I don't care.
