I cant help but wonder, when a new pic is posted, with all the Photoshop, changes that were made to it, Why it is still concidered photography.. In my opinion its not, it was just turned into a manipulation, not matter how you look at it, there were no clouds, poof now there are, color change, that wasent the original photo.. Am I wrong it should be under manipulation

yes it should really. if it has been physically altered to introduce completely new elemtents then that is definitely a manipulation. ramping up contrast/colour/sharpness etc is fine really as it merely represents the digital equivalent of a traditional darkroom specialist who could significantly alter the appearance of a photo whilst processing it.

Absolutely. Color enhancement is one thing, I do it all the time with my fractals, but adding something to a photograph that wasn't there before is definitely a manip.

Taking or adding,it wasent there to begin with, some color enhansment also is so wild it dont look real, thats not the object of photography,a change should warent thats its a manupilation

I'm not sure what constitutes a manipulation; after all you could argue that desaturating a photo would qualify as manipulation, but if you took the photo with black and white film (or camera settings) no manipulation is involved, yet the result is the same. I almost always edit my photos in photoshop to enhance the color or brightness but I don't feel that Manipulation is the best category to place them in. Keep in mind that the galleries are really there to help people find what they are looking for; when I look in the Manipulation gallery I am looking for artistic manipulations of photographs to change them into something they weren't originally, so the change has to be significant. In the end it's really up to the member to decide whether their image fits into that category or not.

I think there is a fine line between 'enhancement' and 'manipulation'

A great number of my uploads bear little resemblance to the original photo - I hope the differences are for the better and therefore make a more suitable image for a wallpaper.

Everyone has different opinions on this - mine is that it is the final result that matters, and enhancements in editing programs are all part of the photographic procedure. Many of us do not have top of the range cameras capable of giving perfect results and editing programs are a means to an end - a pleasing image. Often a colour or contrast boost is all that is required.
In the final analysis - does it matter? Sometimes photography can be combined with artistry to create the final result.

I dont agree with you Steven that colour enhancement to the degree that the image does not look 'real' is neccessarily a bad thing - the photographer may have wanted to create an 'unreal' image.

To me the object of photography is the end result - by whatever means is available - many cameras have preset enhancements anyway.

I guess I am not a purist :)

In the digital photo arena – at least at a hobbyist level – some degree of post work is the norm, as the cameras in this range simply cannot capture an image as accurately as you would like due to inherent limitations. Normally they are packed with so much useless gadgetry such as not releasing the shutter unless everyone is smiling etc; there isn’t much room left for better image processing and metering. Almost by default the sensors produce soft and noisy captures that can be rectified in camera or better still in post work.

Unless you move up to a bigger hitting camera and glassware – say from something like a Canon 5D upwards – being happy with fresh out of the can images is very unlikely. Only the sigma dp1 strikes me as a purists compact camera but sadly it comes with a good DSLR price tag using the Porsche less is more philosophy on pricing your products.

My 2p (or cents) worth. Post processed pictures, use of filters, changing contrast brightness etc should be allowed since it has always been used by photographers. If parts of the picture are replaced, removed or added then it is a manipulation. Does this means it has to go to the manipulation gallery? I don't think so, since that is for a specific type of picture. However, I do think the photographer should be honest about changes, I know some are. The voting system does not let you see the artists comments, so any judgement is on the merits of the final picture anyway, which is how it should be. Personally I find overly post processed pictures generally bad and tend to vote them lower anyway.

Personally I find overly post processed pictures generally bad and tend to vote them lower anyway.

Perhaps, if you're interested, you could elaborate on what you deem "generally bad". Poor image quality, lacking artistic merit? Or perhaps is it just not "believable" enough?

"Personally I find overly post processed pictures generally bad and tend to vote them lower anyway. "

Mostly not believable and then generally not artistically good. There are many examples, ones where people darken the sky so much there is a bloom around the trees, fluorescent grass, etc. You can make an interesting picture by using post processing in that sense, but I don't think you can often make a bad picture good.

I really did nothing extra to this photo, honest! :)
Green Carpet lol

too funny, cindy! i did have a lesson in sky replacement which i feel takes an almost excellent (good minus the sky)photo and improves it tremendously. are you saying that if we come clean about replacing the sky it is acceptable in (say) the landscape gallery?