There is certainly no clear definition of what “fake” is. Everything is an interpretation of the real world, from the moment it lands on the camera sensor/film.

There is certainly no clear definition of what “fake” is. Everything is an interpretation of the real world, from the moment it lands on the camera sensor/film. - Open a RAW file in the manufacturer software, Adobe Lightroom, Capture One, etc., and all will show something slightly different. - Different films are known for distinctive looks, which are oft emulated digitally, is one of them “real” and the other not? - Sensors and films tend to have more limited dynamic range than our eyes, does that make normal photos more “fake” and certain HDR photos more “real”? A photograph straight-out-of-the-camera might actually be less faithful to the real scene than a processed one. National Geographic has some reasonably sensible guidelines on processing/manipulation for submitted photos, but there’s still plenty of vague lines between faithful and unfaithful.[1] To me, it’s mostly: did the composite parts of this photo all happen in the same location at around the same time such that if a human was there they would have seen those moments? [1] https://yourshot.nationalgeographic.com/photo-guidelines/ https://yourshot.nationalgeographic.com/photo-guidelines/