Isaac - believe it or not you are substantiating my point.
You are asking which group of individuals are expecting a specific approach.
You listed several groups in the greater community of viewers and buyers of photographic work. Perhaps there are even more shades of grey than you listed.
My explicit point is that society is not uniform in their thinking yet in a reasonable way photographers need to cater for that diversity.
I accept that some individuals expect that photographic images may be modified so as to become unrecognizable, do not think this is an issue, and would buy photographic work on this assumption.
However, I am afraid that if you think that, with respect to landscape photography specifically, that society in general is expecting photographic images of landscapes to be so edited that they would be unrecognizable to another individual who had witnessed that image being shot then you are living in a different world to me.
I think that it is inescapable that many (perhaps most) in society expect a landscape image to represent a real scene at a real defined point in time.
The power, charm, and allure of landscape images is based on this fact.
Any reasonable individual reading the several posts that I have authored on this thread will have a fair idea of my own personal approach to postprocessing landscape images. They will also acknowledge that I am in no way trying to enforce any sort of conformity to postprocessing per se.
I do feel however, that an upfront statement about ones artistic philosophy in respect to postprocessing is important to maintain integrity.
Buyers in particular, knowing ones artistic philosophy in advance, would then be free to draw their own conclusions as to the perceived value of ones landscape photographic work. Alain specifically states his approach in a statement of artistic intent. No buyers of his work can claim that they were misled.
However, if I understand correctly what some are saying on this thread it appears that society in general, and buyers of landscape photographic work in particular, by default expect and understand the finished product might be so modified as to be potentially unrecognizable from the original image at capture, and further do not feel that they would need to be informed that this was the case, then really the world these individuals are living in is very different to mine.
Almost nobody I know ascribes any particular value to a beautiful but imaginary landscape that is a fabrication in Photoshop, yet are absolutely captivated by landscape images where there is reasonable assurance that what they are viewing would have been, at least somewhat, apparent to them had they themselves been present at the time of the capture of that image.
Can I provide any figures as to proportions of society that hold a particular view with regard to the subject at hand? No.
Am I certain that there is a broad spectrum of views with regard to this issue? Yes.
The only way I know of to circumvent the issue is to be honest and open about ones approach to postprocessing. Integrity is a vital component to business in general, and to (landscape) photography business as well.
Regards
Tony Jay