I don't mean to be super nitpicky, but I've got to strongly disagree with your comparison to photoshop / photography.

There's been an ongoing debate in the Photography community going back as far as photographic editing has existed, regarding when and how acknowledgement of editing has been performed, whether it be literal, physical cutting and pasting of printed media, or a digital equivalent.

Some of the more famous personalities in Photography seem to lean to something like this:

"Minor adjustments like removing dust from the lens, adjusting colors to match the 'true' colors as it was taken (or to make it 'more visually pleasing'), cropping and level correction are fine and expected. The use of things like Sky Replacement [1] or content-aware fills [2] should be attributed or referenced somewhere if they are the focal point of the photograph."

There are others who do much more "artistic" styles of photography [3] where they argue something like:

"No person in their right mind would believe that there isn't some amount of editing going into nearly photograph, so why mention it at all?"

or

"Because editing has been so heavily used, by so many famous photographers for so long, without mentioning editing, it's fine if people don't mention the use of digital (or physical) editing."

or

"Popular services like Instagram have built-in filters that users can use to make themselves look different - should the people who post photos that have those filters on also be pressured into mentioning that their photo was edited? If not, what's the difference?"

There's really not any solid consensus on what is "correct" when it comes to editing attribution. Most tend to agree that doing the bulk of the work "in-camera" (cropping by moving in closer, for example) will make your life easier later on, but, there are some outliers that strongly advocate that any form of editing in post, is "not photography".

Things get even weirder when you get into print. The same photograph printed on different mediums of paper, or with different printers, or different ink, or different DPI settings can come out looking noticeably different even to laymen (imagine a smeared blotchy photo versus a crisp, clear one - there are times where you might want the photo to look somewhat blotchy for aesthetic reasons). In a way, choosing one form of medium over another is a kind of editing, because the end presentation is measurably different from the original. A quick example might be noticing the difference between modern movies that are shot on digital vs traditional film. There is a kind of "feel" to the end product, because of the medium that was used to record and distribute it.

TL;DR The photography community is very much not in agreement to what amount of editing is, or is not permissible, or when it should, or should not be attributed or brought up, or even how that information should be conveyed. Some are fine without any mention whatsoever because of historical reasons. Others want it mentioned under the use of certain tools or criteria. Still other don't consider a photographer to be a "real" photographer at all, and instead should be called a "stills editor" (or something like that) if they use any editing at all, outside of "in-camera work".

[1] https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/replace-sky.html

[2] https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/content-aware-fill.h...

[3] https://www.lookslikefilm.com/2019/08/15/artistic-photos/