How acceptable are "doctored" photos to you?

[FJ and G]

First, all images are doctored, from the lens and filter you select to the developing room, where time in chemicals determines image contrast etc.

As for digital, contrast and color can be controlled, as well as cropping and even rotation.

Normally, these are not considered "doctored," at least in my line of work for the Army.

However, some go beyond mere "correction," to the dark area of "doctoring."

Getting rid of the telephone pole sticking up in someone's head is an example.

Since many HO trains don't have nice smoke effects, you will often see doctored photos in Model RR magazine.

Another practice is to block out background clutter with either sky or a neutral background.

Removing a huge chuck of out of place dirt is another example.

Beyond that, there are even more egregious doctorings.

It is sometimes impossible to tell if a photo has been doctored. Some magazines insist on slides or photos, but they too can be doctored, if those pictures were altered digitally and then sent to a photo lab for mounting.

In this age of electronic manipulation and Choice Point evesdropping and identity theft, it is all too easy to do wrong using information technology.

[wrmcclellan]

Acceptable as long as it is clearly annotated as such.

[IRONROOSTER]

I don't mind the occaisonal doctored photo labelled as such, but I prefer that most of them be not doctored since, for me, the main advantage of photographs is showing what is real.
I prefer paintings/drawings for what if's.
Enjoy
Paul

[3railguy]

Doctored photos are unacceptable when it comes to internet dating.

[Buckeye Riveter]

I willed the airplane to fly. I swear it is not doctored. [:D]