Photoshop or not?

At the risk of upsetting people on here, I think if we are posting pictures of England, then they should be photos of England and not Art for arts sake. If I wanted to see an artist's interpretation of reality I would go to an art gallery. On a site like this, I expect to see the reality of England.

I only use editing to bring out some extra detail that may get lost and a little contrast controll and, or a little saturation. A little sharpening with digital images is almost a reqirement due to the inherant softness in digital images. But that is just my thoughts on the matter. If we all thought the same, it would be a boring old world and all photos would look the same. Lol

I'd far rather see a picture which is sharp, colours saturated or monochrome, and the result of correct exposure. Often to get to this level some adjustment from the intial results from the camera is needed that's when Photoshop is a provider of the best image possible. Of course one has to take some time getting to know Photoshop or Paintshop otherwise the "improved" images look false. My view is for POE in the vast majority of cases it is a clear representation of the subject rather than "fine art"  which is required to give thye viewer an acurate idea of England. The odd bit of whimsy though can be a bit of fun. Well said Peter - "If we all thought the same, it would be a boring old world and all photos would look the same". I certainly don't want all pictures to look the same. Must go now & turn on Photoshop.