And you're right that photojournalism attempts to define some lines here. I'm a serious photographer. For myself, I'll create any imagery I want - after all, I

And you're right that photojournalism attempts to define some lines here. I'm a serious photographer. For myself, I'll create any imagery I want - after all, I'm not trying to convince a jury of something objectively true. The line that I personally choose to draw is to make it something that could be true - I won't do the crazy oversized full moons, for example. But that doesn't mean that nobody else should create such an image. But I'll go back to my original claim, that EVERY image involves interpretation. The data coming off your camera sensor isn't readily interpreted by the human eye at all. It needs to impose some transformation to get to a visual representation. Looking at it from the other way around, we're all aware that our own eyes are lying to us. We interpret brightness and shades relative to what we see around them, so just being in different lighting will make us see things differently. It's physiologically impossible to create an image that will always be seen the same, even by a single pair of eyes.