While there are clear conventions and expectations of photography conducted as "journalism" and as "art", personal/amateur/hobby photography is much more amorphous and hard to pin down.

Journalists cannot alter photographs, at all. I recall Newsweek magazine (print) getting a lot of flack from PJs and other journalists because they whitened the "octomom"'s teeth in post. It didn't affect the content or impact of the photo at all, but it was still a violation of journalistic conventions.

Art photos on the other hand, are supposed to be manipulated, both in front of and behind the lens. Reality isn't the goal like it is for journalism. Whatever creates the artist's vision is fair game.

I personally lean more towards the journalistic side in my photography. That's not to say I don't make adjustments; rarely can you nail all the parameters for ideal capture and presentation at the same time. I draw the line on what I term "re-touching", which is alerting one part of a photo without affecting other parts. There's nothing wrong cloning out powerlines or ads, and many successful photographers do that, but I don't like doing so, so I don't.

I refer to my work varyingly as "un-retouched", "unaltered" or sometimes even "unedited" (which is maybe a stretch since I usually tweak levels and sharpness). Sometimes I throw the hardest-core terms "unprocessed" or "camera output" under a particularly extraordinary image, if the camera jpeg is good enough that knob twiddling will confer little benefit. I don't know how official or widespread these terms are, but they seem to accurately reflect my photographic approach.