No it is not a part of photography! Real photography is done while framing, and should not depend on your editing skills. They should be divided. Because No Edit - real Photography, Edit - Manipulation.
Of course they may be, and some of them are very nice, and it is an art too. I don't have anything against that, but I think they should be divided. Heavy edited photo should be classified as Manipulated photo or something.
Well for instance, on my Nikon D60, there are all sorts of image changing options, like white balance. Of course this is meant to compensate for the colour of light a certain fixture emits so that it doesn't modify your photograph. But say that I want a blue hue in a winter photograph but wasn't thinking and did not load photoshop on the computer that I brought across the country with me. (Not that I would actually forget something like that.)
You can simply select incandescent light as your white balance and the camera adds blue to compensate for the yellow of the lightbulb whether your are inside or outside.
There are also options to change the saturation, you can lessen highlights and lowlights with active D-lighting, you can pick options for portrait wich softens, or you can make a photo more vivid, sharpen it, change the tone. And this is your basic entry level DSLR.
I know many photographers like to think "I know my way around my camera and don't need photoshop which makes me a better photographer", which in some ways is true, but in many cases it's simply the difference between pre- and post-processing. You need to work with your camera to get the best possible shot that you can, or you aren't going to make it.
Just as a disclamer though, I am definitely not justifying removing an unwanted telephone pole from a photo, that should definitely be classified as a manipulation. But after you get home, if you notice that you can crop your photograph to make it better, why not? It's certainly sometimes simpler and more satisfying to get the perfect photo straight from the lens, but why throw away something potentially amazing?
Oh, I thought you were talking about something different
Yes, of course. I have inspected my camera and now I know approximately 95% of settings. It isn't a DSLR, but still has most of the features that are provided by those with mirrors. ( it even has the AEB ) It is a Bridge type camera Olympus SP-560UZ.
Well, yes. That was the point I am standing for. Those hyper-contrasted shots with artefactual bokeh and etc. It looks amazing, but it is not the real photography, because with skills, they can create amazing picture from beginners class photo. It looks more like painting a shot, not photographing. But with film, people did magic while framing, and after just did minor adjustments to make photo look even better. Earlier composition was very important in shots, but now, i guess, it is not so important anymore.
Yes, you are right. You shouldn't throw out nice shots. Actually i am puzzled a little bit. Hmm... well I guess, photography is when you find something beautiful (or whatever you feel) and you are trying to take those feeling, you have at that moment and capture them, so when someone will look at that picture, will feel the same. I guess, this was told by some photographer in some tutorial. I told it in my words So i guess it doesn't matter if there are some telephone poles
That's true that with film people had to work more to get the perfect shot, but in an art form that is dependant on technology it's hard to chastise people for using more technology to make their shots better - that is what the digital camera did to photograpy anyway.