I recently read an article by nature photographer Gregory Basco, Deep Green Photography, entitled 'PHILOSOPHY - RAW Perfection (the photoshop disclosure manifesto)'. This article prescribes aspiring to capture the best image possible in camera and as a result need less input from Photoshop and other after camera editing programs. I found it an interesting read and recommend it to others to read and absorb.

The author starts:
"SO, WHAT IS RAW PERFECTION?
I’ll start with a definition of what I consider a successful nature photograph in terms of in-camera capture and post-processing. To me, a fully successful nature image is one that requires no cropping whatsoever (that is, it was captured full-frame in-camera), does not have any cloning applied (either taking things away or especially adding things, including added canvas), and has only a minimum of post-processing adjustments applied (I consider this to mean normal adjustments in saturation, tones, exposure, recovery, noise reduction and of course sharpening). This doesn’t mean that I don’t do go beyond these criteria in my own photography (I do on occasion) but I make it a point to rely on these only as a last resort, after exhausting all possibilities to work with a single, clean capture in the field. OK, I can already hear the objections out in the ether, so let’s consider these criteria separately before moving on to the rest of the article "

You can read the full article on the following link:
'PHILOSOPHY - raw perfection' by Gregory Basco

As you will be aware, this is a long-running debate with proponents on both sides. For those interested, here is an alternate view and I'm sure there are many others out there:
https://luminous-landscape.com/the-very-old-debate-of-image-manipulation/

I'm no fan of manipulation on the level argued above and am much more comfortable with minimal manipulation per the 'RAW perfection' article even though I do use cloning/healing and canvas extensions sometimes (disclosed when I post). And for bird photographers, the option of a RAW capture that needs no cropping later is often a challenge, in my experience, due to many factors including the dynamics of the situation, lens reach and other equipment limitations etc - not to mention my own slow reactions!

Thanks for raising this. My view is that diversity should be the rule here provided there is disclosure.

Yes Glenn.....a long running issue as the article you referred to confirms.
I think Palacio's article title is appropriate where he refers to as "image manipulation": sums the subject quite succinctly, and I agree with him that there are no right or wrong answers or opinions.
That said the examples he uses in his writing refers to landscape photography where there seems to be much greater scope of acceptance of artistic manipulations of images.
In our situation, we are dealing with wildlife nature photography where one would think that the aim in our images is to replicate what we see in front of us....not what we wish we could see. To this end in our main galleries and competitons, I consider that we should allow only what he refers to as "technical retouching...........covers colour correction, contrast, white balance, sharpness, noise and minor cloning". To this I would also add cropping, as we all don't as suggested by Basco, have the luxury of multiple cameras and lenses to mix and match for the occasion.
This opinion is backed up by the Australian Photographic Society (APS) in their "APS Nature Definition" that states that nature and wildlife photography "....allows the use of capture and processing techniques that do not alter 'the content of the original scene'...". Not allowed is anything that alters the content of the original scene by adding, moving or removing image elements or stitching together multiple images. To my mind this would includes the major cloning out of twigs etc, and the manipulation of backgrounds apart from noise reduction.
That said in our web pages images that fall outside this scope could be included in a gallery devoted for these artistic enhancements.
Just as we provide data on our camera settings and our gear selection I agree with Glenn when uploading an image, we should consider disclosing, in addition to the programs used, what post-camera processing was applied to the image. This would also help serve as a learning tool for those not as familiar with post-camera processing techniques as others.
I realise that others prefer a broader scope for manipulations, and my view is influenced by the fact that my preference is for outdoor activity rather than hours spent indoor on the computer, and would be interested to hear of other views: after all that's what a forum like this is for...exchanges of ideas and view points.
Glenn you are to be congratulated in that, as far as I can see, you are the only person in our group who reports what post-camera processing is undertaken on their images.