Digital BW, The Print

At 04:43 PM 4/30/03 -0500, you wrote:
>Alan, you never dodge, burn, remove dirt or anything? If it's black and
>white, its already "altered". You never
>over or underdevelop your negative? You've altered it if you have. These
>things are just silly. I do whatever it needs to be what I want it to
>be. I sell my works as fine art images, made using photography as my
>tools. Anything goes.  If I were to sell journalism photos, that would
>be an entirely different matter.
>
>
>
>Jerry
>
>
>
> > BTW regarding  the original question.  I have another line I've started
> > using on my "medium" description:  "Unaltered photographs."   Does that
> > seem the correct way to assure that it is clear that nothing in the picture
> > differs from the original scene?  Or, will someone quibble?
> >




Jery,

That's the problem with my statement, as I feared!   I had to assume 
that  darkroom practices such as you describe would not be considered 
"manipulating" the image.  I think conventional wisdom is that digital 
images are freely transformable. Most people are not aware of the methods 
used for darkroom-made prints. I want the viewer to know that nothing in 
the printed image is altered from the film image.  Many people are aware of 
specific instances of falsity in magazine photos. There was a neat segment 
on PhotoShopped images last night - 48hrs, CBS.

I'd love to see a useful, short statement that addresses print v. original 
film image honesty.  Something like:  "Un-altered camera image."

AZ