I think the issue comes down to the intended use of the photograph. I think of photography as falling into two realms: documentary and expressive. Manipulation that changes of disguises the factual content of a photograph is unethical (although there is a slippery slope around “change” and “disguise”). In expressive photography post-production is as much a part of the creative process is is composition or exposure.

What is excessive manipulation? Consider cropping: in a documentary photograph, cropping or even composing the photograph may cause relevant information to be omitted. So, is cropping off limits?

Also: consider Ansel Adams, clearly one of the greatest photographers in the history photography. Adams’ photos did not come out of his camera as we see them in print; Adams did expensive manipulation in the darkroom.
His manipulation may change the representational accuracy of his photographs, but is increases their expressive value and reveals something essential about his subject.

Back to documentary vs expressive for a moment: I think both photographer and viewer need to be clear about the intent of a photograph. The photographer should not represent a materially altered photograph as documentary. A viewer should not recklessly assume that whatever they see in print is in fact a representationally accurate rendering.

Finally, regarding Liebowitz. I have not seen the portraits in question, but Liebowitz is a photographer who uses photography to make a statement about her subjects. This is not objective, documentary photography, and so I have no problem with her use of post processing to make her work more clearly express her intention.

While working in Vancouver BC 20 some years ago, I had several occasions to “assist” a couple of the premier photographers. To me this was an awesome opportunity to see first hand how the “Real Pros’” worked. I was allowed to work with them, question why they did certain things, and truly see their creative genius.
One was a wedding shoot at a private members club, “read big bucks” and my favorite was a series of jewelery shots.
The set was completely build by 4 people, we built a forest scene with a creek, to scale in the studio. Took all day to get the pieces, then another to assemble it. After the main shoot we spent the next day subbing in other items to see how they fit for various advertising ideas. I still have my 4X5 negs of the event and have made many prints.
The set could have been layered in Photoshop fairly easily.

The other occasion was for my first “pro” photographic business card. Found a warehouse door I liked and shot it on 4X5 with myself posed in it. Didn’t like the shadows across the door that were a little distracting, but the light was perfect. Printed a 20X24, airbrushed the image for color, shadows, and the huge pimple on my forehead. Airbrushed my name and phone # across the door like graffiti , as I had envisioned it. Re-shot the finished work of “art” and printed the business cards in my color darkroom. Was it awesome… yes and the “print” is on my office wall. Took 2 days at least and an assistant. Could have done that in Photoshop.

In both cases the images are still loved by most viewers, never had a comment about image manipulation. I guess if I had done the work in a digital process some would frown.

In my mind there are many ways to “create” a photograph.

I say it depends…

If an image is being used to represent something, say a location or product, for advertising then I believe there needs to be a degree of ‘truthfulness’ to it.

I know that most images used in advertising are really far from where they began. And your question applies, how far is too far?

In an image that represents news or is used in news should be pretty much as shot. Of course you can make some minor adjustments to it as you would if printing in a dark room.

In the case of the images of the Queen I don’t know that it is necessary to put any limitations on what can be done.

If the same scene was to be painted by an artist the resulting portrait would really be a complete manifestation of the artists view of the scene.

So if a photographer is shooting a portrait of a person where is the rule that limits them to a straight from the camera shot.

I don’t think there needs to be one.

Maybe what has happened is that we now have a new category of photographic art.

One has always had the ability to manipulate an image no matter how it was shot. But since the proliferation of digital and related computer software a new level of manipulation has emerged.

The resulting images lie some where between photograph and painting.

Again I see nothing wrong with this. So many beautiful images have been created this way.

My only concern is when a persons perception of something is altered by an image so highly manipulated. And I am talking when an image like that may be used to entice someone to use or purchase a product or service.

That thought does not just apply to photographers but to the advertising industry in general.

This certainly is an interesting topic and I am sure there are many valid opinions one way or another. I guess I am of the opinion that manipulations of photographs is really OK at most levels. We know that the camera and the eye see differently to begin with, so you are not really photographing what you saw anyway. So to manipulate an image to bring it closer to your perception of a scene I don’t think is an issue.

To go beyond that well then you are entering into that new area of photographic art, again I think this is a new in between category where many beautiful images are being created.

As with anything new or different it will take time for it to work it’s self out and develop its own place. And as with anything there will be those who will push its limits such as those who inappropriately manipulate news images.

I look forward to seeing where this goes…