The Dilemma of Creative License in Photography

Where is the line between photography and "art"? Photography is art, but when you edit the image and alter it dramatically does it become something other than a "photograph"?

This is a dilemma that I wrestle with all the time - how much is too much when editing an image? Should an image that is seriously altered from the original be labeled as such?

Many times in the job that I do, I alter an image to reduce the appearance of a double chin, whiten the teeth, remove a distraction from the background, etc. For the most part I think that the only person that knows they are altered is me - unless I tell someone, the changes are not that obvious. In general I think that if you can alter an image to make it more flattering to the subject or to really help showcase the subject, then by all means, you should "go for it."

I think where I get hung up is that until recently, my idea of photography was always that it was intended as a "record" of fact. In reality, most photos are altered in some way - even if just cropped to enhance the subject. While I think that most of the altering I have done to photos falls within a mix of creative license and a "record" of an event or person, I still wrestle with "when to say when." What are your thoughts?

There are a great number of programs that can help you learn the secrets of digital photography, click here to learn about one of the best I've found!