Forum Members, My 2 cents worth: All photography is about perception. If perception is altered, the feeling engendered from the photo is altered. Doisneau's image means something different to a viewer when it is looked upon as a staged image. That is not a value judgement (bad, good, etc.), it is just the way life is. I went years with one feeling, now I have another. Photojournalists are held to different standards than any other phase of photography. Newspapers and newsmagazines must be held accountable for whatever "truth" lies out there in the world. Journalists are taught ethics and are expected to adhere to standards. They are fired if they deviate. This is probably A Good Thing. Nature photographers set their own standards. Each person has to decide for themself how far they will deviate from what they see. My guess is that all who enter the field initially set out to record only the "truth," and then alter their perception ot "truth" as they become more competitive and must bring home ever more interesting images. For what it is worth, I see no more problem in removing a leaf or a bush (physically or even FIPS it) than in using Velvia film or a polarizer filter. None of these circumstances show the scene as the photographer actually saw it, although they do show the scene as the photographer pre-envisions it to be. I am looking forward to a "Street Photography" gallery. As oft stated, it is a phase of photography I do not fully appreciate because of a lack of understanding. Immersion would be good. This has been a really interesting thread. My thanks especially to Karl for his enlightening comments about Bresson. peace, rand
