I belong to the rather old school of photographers who believe that a good photo needs very little or no processing on the computer.
(In November 1906, Le Monde Illustré mentioned in the terms of participation in a photography competition: “as it is a photography competition, competitors are forbidden to submit retouched photos”.)
Nowadays, time is pressing so much that the ease of using Photoshop (and other similar programmes) has led, in my opinion, to very poor results in comparison to the ones of the past, or, at least, to much less realistic ones. Even the great Steve Curry, with his epic works at NGM, turned out to be involved in a manipulation scandal in 2016.
For an impressive landscape photo, for instance, before Photoshop, you had to be armed with patience and visit the landscape numerous times, perhaps at various times of year, so that the final result meets your expectations. Today, there is even a special filter for the creation of clouds out of nothing at all.
Personally, I strongly disagree with such a use of this programme. Even in portraits, you can erase some temporary marks (pimples, scratches etc), but not permanent ones, such as moles, wrinkles etc.
I think this goes against the very purpose of the portrait, that is, to show a person’s face. For me, the main use of Photoshop is (or rather should be) simple, basic things such as white balance correction, contrast, vibrance etc., especially since my shots are solely in RAW.
I consider gross manipulation unfair and maybe even ‘dishonest’, especially when it is hushed up. If you went to the place you wanted too early or too late and therefore you didn’t get the colours you had imagined in the sky, so be it. You can go back again or do your best with what you’ve got. Bringing it to Photoshop does not make you a good photographer; it makes you a good Photoshopper.
A LIE TOLD OFTEN ENOUGH BECOMES THE TRUTH | VLADIMIR ILYICH LENIN