I'm still awaiting approval on my comment for the Paula Sanders front page article about postwork, but basically I said something along the lines of:

• Pro studios use postwork of all levels  for images, photos & animation/vfx that we pay to see. So why is postwork a problem here?
• Its a range of techniques that you learn so why would you NOT use them once you know how?

I'll also add that at college I was actively encouraged to use extra techniques in the darkroom, thats postwork too, so was my tutor wrong?
Tom, you said, "Enhanced bodies are one thing…corrected and artistically altered images are something else." No they aren't, have a look at this (one & the same thing):
http://demo.fb.se/e/girlpower/retouch/
I've never worked on photos of 14 year old girls (see the link), but I have used Photoshop to make pasty faced, gap toothed, hung-over computer geeks look more human. Or bad product photos usable for brochures and web usage - its part of my job so I'll never be convinced its wrong.

And define purity in photography anyway, Didn't classical painters look down on photographers as vulgar and their images were considered to be cheating? This is just history repeating itself.

Has this been a problem in the photography forum in the past? I've only really noticed this arguement in the poser forum.