Digital BW, The Print

Martin,

I read that thread as it developed... very strong opinions indeed. I agree
with your 256 gray analogy. <g>  Non-scientific/documentary photography IMO
should not need disection... I figure if they don't like it, they don't buy
it, but someone else will.

I was interested in your view, thanks for sharing it...  The difference for
my work I suppose is that the majority of it is manipulated, whether as a
photo-illustration, montage or collage. Those images that I consider "pure"
are still manipulated in Photosphop to a degree.  I do not hesitate to
manipulate... (photos that is)... ;-)

I totally agree that manipulation in photojournalism and documentary work is
unethical... whether it is digitally or non-digitally obtained.

Best,
Carolyn

> Now there is a hot topic! If you check back on the Piezo list in
> about June of this year the debate on this was hot and heavy for
> quite some time. It hit every position from any manipulation beyond
> what could be done in a darkroom violated the inherent trust a viewer
> has in a photograph to any manipulation or combination is fine. I
> believe we hit at least 256 shades of gray in between!
> 
> It is a very pertinent topic and one that all photographers need to
> consider in the digital age. The discussion forced me to evaluate my
> own practices both before and after the shot is taken, and to reach a
> decision for myself. Since I take "found" images in outdoor settings
> I decided I would just remove objects I felt were intrusive such as
> the branch that degrades the composition, the string of telephone
> lines in the distance, etc., but that I would not add anything from a
> different image. My personal decision for my own work.
> 
> Beyond that, my only opinion is in regard to images presented as
> photojournalism and documentary photography. In these areas I feel
> very that any alternation of the subject is unethical.