I agree with everyone here on the points made. I suppose as I don't make a living from my images and I don't have the first clue about art appreciation then I am afforded flexibility in not having to classify or authenticate my output.
At the end of the day, art is subjective. If you look at what some people pass off as "art" then photography lies or not are arguably the least of our issues. I mean I have seen classical portraits framed then dipped in black paint, I have seen people take a photograph and splash red paint on it is that a lie? I think so.
We also need to consider context of the image. If it is documentary or news reporting images, then they should be accurate and honest to the scene but a 100th of a second slice of time can easily be used to mis represent a situation as we know - how many times have you took a picture of friend or family mid facial express change and it completely skews the thought of what was happening. I am sure the classical sculptors played the "reality vs instagram" game when making their works. Correct me if I am wrong but I don't recall seeing a statue of David scratching his man bits with his stomach hanging loose and a finger in his nose... all of the busts we see have been optimised to be on the good looking side... 99% of the naked Sculptures have gymfit bodies... or they are carved in loose fitting lockdown chic... so manipulation has been around since the beginning of time. Hell, think of painting, start with a blank sheet, add what you "see"... a painter could have added anything whether it is there or not we'll never know... photography is the opposite, start with a scene and take stuff away - either physically or digitally later.
With my camera, I am trying to take an image that is nice to look at. Has something of interest, is nicely composed. It doesn't necessarily have to be mar a bha (Scottish gaelic for As it was).
Do we think that someone who creates a compelling composite is excluded from art on the grounds they manufactured an image from composite parts? that take movies out of the equation and 99% of advertising campaigns. Is this not what a sculptor does? except the digital creator uses a stylus rather than chisel?
I don't know, to be honest, if I get an image the way I saw it at the time after removing spots, that red fire extinguisher i failed to see in the moment and adjusting the colours - because I am crap with a camera not because I want to pass it off as something it is not, then you can call it a lie, a truth, an accurate recording, hell call it Susan.... all I seek is to make something nice to look at...
At the end of the day, they are my creations, my memories. For good or bad, they will be around after I stop walking the earth. If people like them, great, if they don't, that's also great. Like the TV, if it ain't your cup of tea, switch channel.
Unlike
@deep diver I type from the hip... so this is likely gibberish
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1c4fb/1c4fb4a004ac374ae735c210f8560be0dce354ac" alt="Smile :) :)"