Therefore, I think it is not really possible to differentiate between the four - one might say that "enhancing" is something like de-noising, but still, it really is a form of manipulation.

Have you ever seen a tram that is made out of lights alone? Me neither.

I will go with the example of fashion photography.

Other people I know - I do not want to make it political, but most of them really have a liberal attitude - think that morally, there is no problem with any kind of retouching. In their opinion, everyone is responsible for their own perception, so there is no need to have labels, regulations, or even moral debates about a red line in editing.

Really, it comes down to opinion: I, for one, tried to avoid Photoshop (and even de-noising!) for a very, very long time - not because I disliked photoshopped pictures, but because it was my choice of style. Later on, I started to "repair" minor mistakes - red eyes, slightly open mouths, pimples,... . Much later on, I started to shoot portraits semi-professionally - and with that, I started to get into the whole business of brightening, softening, and what-else-there-is in retouching. I am still happier to have an almost-perfect photo straight out of the camera than a perfect photo out of Photoshop, plainly because photography is a destructive process, while photoshopping is not, and therefore, photography is a damn lot harder. What I really try to avoid is the above mentioned weight-stuff: I never made anyone look any thicker, slimmer, taller or smaller than they are; I simply despise the idea.

Therefore, I think it is not really possible to differentiate between the four - one might say that "enhancing" is something like de-noising, that "retouch" is something like cloning away a pimple, and that "editing" is something like compositing (i.e. adding persons from other photographs in your current photo); but still, they all are just forms of manipulation.

Have you ever seen a tram that is made out of lights alone? Me neither.

There's a lot of other techniques that will produce "manipulated" photos - be it black-and-white, be it over-/underexposure, Infra-Red, Tilt-Shift-photography, etc.p.p. - all above applies to those, too.

First, I will go with the example of fashion photography.

Other people I know - I do not want to make it political, but most of them really have a overall liberal attitude - think that morally, there is no problem with any kind of retouching. In their opinion, everyone is responsible for their own perception, so there is no need to have labels, regulations, or even moral debates about a red line in editing.

Really, it comes down to opinion and what you do.

As Corey pointed out in his comment, there are of course differences between different types of photography, e.g. creating a fashion ad, an art-for-the-art's-sake project, and photojournalism. While it is okay to heavily manipulate an art project (even beyond recognition), photo journalists would (and should, in my opinion) stick to very basic editing - after all, journalism should be as objective as possible*.

_{* The question of "how objective can journalism be?" is a bit too lengthy and too off-topic for this answer.}

I, for one, tried to avoid Photoshop (and even de-noising!) for a very, very long time - not because I disliked photoshopped pictures, but because it was my choice of style. Later on, I started to "repair" minor mistakes - red eyes, slightly open mouths, pimples,... . Much later on, I started to shoot portraits semi-professionally - and with that, I started to get into the whole business of brightening, softening, and what-else-there-is in retouching. I am still happier to have an almost-perfect photo straight out of the camera than a perfect photo out of Photoshop, plainly because photography is a destructive process, while photoshopping is not, and therefore, photography is a damn lot harder. What I really try to avoid is the above mentioned weight-stuff: I never made anyone look any thicker, slimmer, taller or smaller than they are; I simply despise the idea.

This question is one for philosophy-courses and is therefore open-ended and purely opinion-based. Therefore, it will be hard to answer it at all - more so if I want to make it factual and less a piece of opinion. I have learnt about all the things below in philosophy-in-media courses - mind you, I'm not someone who likes to follow someone else's philosophy, so I have no citations; if I find some, I will offer them, of course.

enhancing is editing is retouch is manipulation.

^{And yes, the order of those terms is important.}

The first question is: What is manipulation? And already, there is no straight answer on the horizon.

When you have set yourself with your own definition of "manipulation", the next question awaits you: Is there a red line, morally speaking, for editing?

Other people I know - I do not want to make it political, but most of them are in fact liberals - think that morally, there is no problem with any kind of retouching. In their opinion, everyone is responsible for their own perception.

Really, it comes down to opinion: I, for one, tried to avoid Photoshop (and even de-noising!) for a very, very long time - not because I disliked photoshopped pictures, but because it was my choice of style. Later on, I started to "repair" minor mistakes - red eyes, slightly open mouths, pimples,... . Much later on, I started to shoot portraits semi-professionally - and with that, I started to get into the whole business of brightening, softening, and what-else-there-is in retouching. I am still happier to have a almost-perfect photo straight out of the camera than a perfect photo out of Photoshop, plainly because photography is a destructive process, while photoshopping is not, and therefore, photography is a damn lot harder. What I really try to avoid is the above mentioned weight-stuff: I never made anyone look any fatter, slimmer, taller or smaller than they are; I simply despise the idea.

Note: This answer was merged from a question that was almost identical to this one - the only difference was a minor focus on ethics, which is what I tried to explain in the second part of my answer.

This question is one for philosophy-courses and is therefore open-ended and purely opinion-based. Therefore, it will be hard to answer it at all - more so if I want to make it factual and less a piece of opinion. I have learnt about all the things below in philosophy-in-media courses - mind you, I'm not someone who likes to follow someone else's philosophy, so I have no citations; if I find some, I will offer them, of course.

enhancing < retouch < editing < manipulation.

1: What is manipulation?

And already, there is no straight answer on the horizon.

When you have set yourself with your own definition of "manipulation", the next question awaits you:

2: Is there a red line, morally speaking, for editing?

Other people I know - I do not want to make it political, but most of them really have a liberal attitude - think that morally, there is no problem with any kind of retouching. In their opinion, everyone is responsible for their own perception, so there is no need to have labels, regulations, or even moral debates about a red line in editing.

Really, it comes down to opinion: I, for one, tried to avoid Photoshop (and even de-noising!) for a very, very long time - not because I disliked photoshopped pictures, but because it was my choice of style. Later on, I started to "repair" minor mistakes - red eyes, slightly open mouths, pimples,... . Much later on, I started to shoot portraits semi-professionally - and with that, I started to get into the whole business of brightening, softening, and what-else-there-is in retouching. I am still happier to have an almost-perfect photo straight out of the camera than a perfect photo out of Photoshop, plainly because photography is a destructive process, while photoshopping is not, and therefore, photography is a damn lot harder. What I really try to avoid is the above mentioned weight-stuff: I never made anyone look any thicker, slimmer, taller or smaller than they are; I simply despise the idea.

Therefore, I think it is not really possible to differentiate between the three - one might say that "enhancing" is something like de-noising, but still, it really is a form of manipulation.

Therefore, I think it is not really possible to differentiate between the four - one might say that "enhancing" is something like de-noising, but still, it really is a form of manipulation.