The problem is how to define 'Retouched.' Being an amateur photographer and having met a number of commercial ones, the sentiment and knowledge I picked up ove

The problem is how to define 'Retouched.' Being an amateur photographer and having met a number of commercial ones, the sentiment and knowledge I picked up over the years goes something like this: Retouching a photo has been done since the (physical, real) lightroom days. Many of the strange phrases and techniques in Photoshop (dodge and burn, and probably crop and most others with photo-specific context) came from techniques in the lightroom. Even the most famous photographers adjusted their photos in the lightroom, making alterations that are absolutely in the 'retouched' category. You can find these online (Cartier-Bresson did this, and many others). Source: https://petapixel.com/2013/09/12/marked-photographs-show-iconic-prints-edited-darkroom/ https://petapixel.com/2013/09/12/marked-photographs-show-ico... Therefore, it's extremely common for any portrait or wedding or any other photographer to retouch. Do 100% do it? Probably not 100%, but damn close. It's not considered cheating to remove an element, lighten or completely darken/render invisible an element of the photo. What the photography community considers cheating is portraying something that isn't there. There's a fascinating conversation with a photojournalist on the topic here with examples: https://petapixel.com/2015/08/04/interview-michael-kamber-on-photojournalism-ethics-and-the-altering-of-images/ https://petapixel.com/2015/08/04/interview-michael-kamber-on... So is taking a model and making her thinner, taller and tanner retouching to the point of portraying something that isn't there? Which is a vague phrase, admittedly. Perhaps. But what about removing a pimple from the face? If you get a portrait done professionally, it'll be almost automatic. Maybe it's not so bad. But if it is, let's say, then what about giving you a better skin tone? Because a bare flash without a CTO gel, or the mid-day sun, with a daylight white balance, is going to make you look potentially weird (if you're caucasian in this example; you might look ghostly). A lamppost nearby, or a store sign nearby might change your skin tone too. So what if you change the white balance in Photoshop/Lightroom/Gimp/whatever and make it look a little bit like sunset? Is that cheating? But if you do nothing, there's automated settings in cameras that will auto-set skin tone and adjust lighting conditions. Is that cheating? It's all extremely vague because the BBC article failed to explain the criteria for retouching: the word retouching is too broad. This is an endlessly debated topic in the photographic community, but banning ALL retouching would, I am convinced, be reviled by almost everybody.