Well this is something that has been bothering me for a while. Is it ethical to do post-work on photography? Is it ok to correct your photos before displaying them to the public?

The Traditional View

Most traditional photographers i guess they'd say that it is, because indeed you can take a perfect photo without post-work. But that requires some things like:
a. Skills: Not everyone knows how to configure his/her camera settings so that he is sure that the photo will be like he wants it.
b. Talent: Not everyone is a talented photographer in order to know what, when and how to take shots.
c. Knowledge: Not everyone knows photography techniques or the rules on color, light, shapes and composition.
d. Gear: Not everyone can afford good gear and the better gear you have the better photos you can take. Trust me the "it's not the camera that counts, it's the photographer" dogma is not always true. Indeed the person behind the machine is important but picture this: A great photographer on a Himalayas photography trip with a 15MP DSLR Camera with tripod and a good set of lenses (wide, tele, macro) and that some photographer on that same trip with a conventional 3MP Camera with no special lenses.
e. Time: Not everyone has the time to learn about photography and more importantly to practise in photography. Time can be really scarse when you work.
f. Luck: Not everyone is lucky enough to be to the right place at the right time.
g. Money: Well they do say that money moves the world. This applies on photography too. Indeed you can take nice shots where you live, but if you want that extraordinary then you need to travel, go places, see people and new things, broaden your vision. Travelling can be costly, as can be the maintanance of your gear. Especially if you are in traditional film, where the cost can go sky rocketting.

The New World

Well i've been thinking on the matter and concluded to the following:
- If a photo is meant to be for a competition then no photo correction is ethical, cause then you instantly gain an advantage over the rest of the people participating.
- If the photo is meant to be displayed for public display then photo correction is ok to be done, cause a photo needs to be attractive, to make the eye curious and attract the attention of the viewer.
- If the photo is meant to be printed then photo corrections are mandatory in order to achieve the best viewing pleasure result. Especially since each printer has different color profiles.
- If you are the home user that wishes to make your photos look a bit better either for you or your friends to see then i believe it's ok to do it.
- If at the time you took the shot you didn't have the advantages you wanted to, like the correct light, a busier than usual landscape, the colors where not strong enough, the tones where down, your camera didn't have a sepia mode then why not bring your photo up with some tech help.
- Photos are meant to represent what you had once seen. If you do not get what you saw, memory starts fading away. If you had a way to brighten and make colors warmer, why not? It would help you remember your past a bit better.
- If you don't have much time to take many shots until you get the result you want to why not touch up the one time shot you got of that great monument?

Conclusion & Examples

Photo correction is moraly correct because photography in general is a product of many factors, the most important being human imagination and luck. Uniqueness is not lost, it's being reinvented.

Examples: