Is Photoshop in Photography Contests Like Doping in Cycling?

Who draws the line where? Who decides?

The Online Photographer: 'Too Much Photoshopping'

I think that if it couldn't be done in a traditional darkroom, it should be disqualified and called digital art, not a digital photograph. However, I think that a lot of people aren't aware of what could actually be done in a darkroom. I mean, yeah, it was more annoying, but Photoshop got the ideas for most of those tools from somewhere, you know?

That's like a doping policy that says you can use a good amount of steroids, but not too much. I dont' get it. Is the photo good or not? Too much digital manipulation would look bad which would automatically take care of itself.

dilemma

According to the article the photo was disallowed because it did not fit the parameters of the category it was entered in, not just because of over Photoshopping. But let's face it, this is a problem about which we will have to grapple. The term "Photoshoped" now seemed to mean "OverPhotoshopping" and we should find a better word.
I spent many years in wet darkrooms and let me tell you between Darkrooming and Retouching there is darn little you can't do to equal OverPhotoshopping. In the past, it was just a lot more hard work.
How much is too much? I seriously doubt we will ever solve that one completely. My personal attitude is -- the less the better. I remember seeing an OverPhotoshopped pic of a weepy glade with a stream running through it. It looked like a faked photograph. But as an out-and-out illustration, say for a kid's book of fairy tales, it was pretty good.
I think at some point you have to say, in a nice way "I OverPhotoshopped this little devil. It's an illustration, not a photograph. Based, 99 versions ago, on a photograph."

This dilemma goes back almost to the beginning of photography. Digital just eliminates some of the difficulty involved in manipulating photographs.