What are the acceptable limits on the use of Photoshop or other editing software? The true answer is that it depends, and it's much more complicated than saying you should or should not use them in a given situation or to accomplish a limited set of tasks deemed appropriate under all conditions.
It all comes down to a matter of intent and transparency. I am a photographer and digital artist. If it suits me, I have no qualms about adding or subtracting elements from a shot if I think it creates a better image by doing so, but I will always let people know that an image has been digitally altered if it's necessary for them ot know (if I am submitting it for publication or to a contest, for instance). If they don't need to know, or if it's blantantly obvious that the image isn't a depiction of reality, I don't (no, I didn't ask a model to stand next to a wild Alaskan brown bear -- not sure my liability insurance covers mauling specifically)(mental note: ask insurance agent about mauling coverage)
When it comes to portraiture, I try to use Photoshop sparingly. I will obviously use color correction, adjust exposure and contrast, white balance and cropping on every image, regardless of the software I use to do it, because things don't always turn out perfect in camera. Beyond that, it's a case-by-case basis for any deeper edits. Because some of my shoots are in people's homes or in confined or awkward spaces (sometimes one and the same), I have to use the "wall socket and ugly lampshade filter" to remove distracting elements or extend a nice neutral background beyond where it actually existed to remove distracting elements from the scene (landscape photographers refer to this as the "telephone pole filter.") Some poses are visually interesting but tend to cause your skin to pooch out in a somewhat unattractive way, so I will use the Liquify tool to return the model's profile to how it was when standing up straight -- I'm not actually taking off pounds, I'm just making sure the model doesn't look like she's carrying more than she really does.
And you have to realize that in my business, while I'm tasked with making my clients look good, it's about making sure the body they've GOT looks good, not the one our society TELLS her looks good. A lot of people are a bit self-conscious about their appearance, which is why people get their pictures taken so infrequently. Imagine how you'd feel if you screwed up your courage and got photos done, but then discover the photographer has decided you would look better if you were 30-50 pounds lighter and the final images don't really look like you any more. What, I'm not good enough looking, so you have to make me skinnier than I truly am? And you gave me a nose job. And my skull is a different shape, because my cheeks are definitely not way up there.
I believe the photos I take should represent my clients being fabulous RIGHT NOW, rather than what they'd be if they took of twenty pounds or had surgery. It's the little so-called imperfections that make your face interesting. On high school seniors, I'll edit out acne, because that's not who they are, it's just a function of genetics and temporary hormonal surges, and I'll occasionally edit away the neck wattle that might appear because I had asked them to look down and they did so by tilting their whole head rather than with just their eyes. But I'm not going to make a curvy woman into a stick, because it's dismissive of how beautiful she is and it's not necessary to change anything -- if I'm doing my job as a photographer, I don't need to alter anybody, because they're going to look stunning no matter their shape and size.
