Fair postprocessing is a personal choice.
I postprocess as much as I like. Some like that and others don't, so there is no correct amount of postprocessing but the amount that I prefer for my pictures.
I draw the line at not changing the imagecontent. So I don't put additional persons or things into an existing picture. But that also is a personal choice.

light...

Thanks for your opinion, Arne!

For myself; I tend to limit the amount of post-processing that I do. I prefer to keep my pictures close to the originals. But in general, as long as it's not photo journalism(!), the limit is your own artistic freedom.

... and even with for photojournalism these days there is a lot of debate ;-)))

Je retravaille pour moi, mais si je télécharge ici est parce que j'aime savoir ce qu'on pense et j'aime apprendre ;-)

j'ai travaillé sur cette photo car il y avait la vignette due à la qualité de l'objectif et car le ciel m'a donné l'idée que cela pourrait etre mieux en n&b. Je ne suis pas satisfait du rendu dans la partie la plus sombre.

Quelle est la limite entre plus "belle" et plus "spectaculaire"? Quand est qu'un couleur devient "incroyable"?

Enfin je suis d'accord avec ton ideal!

Perhaps I was unclear in my post. I'm sure that noone can say what I can do with my shots: I'm free to express myself as I want!
I'm also sure that everyone can judge differently a shot, like or dislike it: it happens with masterpieces and it happens more with amateur photography, as mine and as the majority of the shots uploaded to ipernity.
What I was asking is something more specific: do you think it is possible to trace a limit between photography and graphical expression? when do you think that an image can't be considered a shot no more and have to be considered a graphical work (or another form of artistic expression)?
I can't relate the word Art to my crap.
I try to express myself through photography, through my way of capturing what's in front of me.
I'm sure that in front of a real scene or in front of a snapshot everyone of us "sees" and "feels" something different and I'm also sure that "the map isn't the territory", as someone said.
As Mat Fot said, there isn't a limit for creativity, but I suggest that the result of creativity on a shot isn't always photography, as you can see in Pimp my shot and related experiments.
I'm curious to know what everyone of you define as photography.
Feel free to add your thoughts to this thread ;-)

Ok, that is a real puzzler to me too. I call my work photography. But the border between photography and graphical work is really fluent. I have no idea where to draw it.
The noun "photography" has a touch of objectiveness to it (and I think a lot of people err on that). But as soon as I decide what to put on the picture by just framing I start giving personal feelings into the picture. So any objectiveness is lost already. But would you already call it graphical art?
Some pictures become graphical just because of a long exposure time or complete unsharpness or extreme exposure. Others require a lot of postprocessing, but in the end look like a perfectly normal photo. So to me there is no correct answer to that.
I call my work photography, because I start with a foto and don't add additioinal content. But that's just my personal defintion.

light...

Yes, but I think the rules should be strict there. A bit of USM or contrast enhancement would be ok, but what is in the picture should be what you can see with your own eyes.

Thank you very much to all of you for your contributions to this interesting discussion!

--
Seen in my account recent activity (?)