> Photography's credibility has always been held in question, but 'street > photography' is often presented as a medium which transcends deliberate > viewer manipulation. Karl That was for sure how it always seemed to be presented. Amongst nature photographers there are similar factions that eschew anything other than a completely "straight" shot. That's not for any photographic discipline, but more the belief that we should record things as we find them, with as little imact as possible, not how we would have liked them to be. The fact that no film can completely represent the real world (or even that the world we percieve is a construct within own conciousness ;o) does not prevent film being an objective record. The real issue is in the intent of the photographer. Once the "photographer" removes things from a scene - the line is crossed. Once a photographer has a baboon thrown to a leopard so he can film it being killed - the line is crossed. The distinction between trying to take a straight shot of the world and deliberately staging / faking one is really not that hard to understand. The fact that the results of staged/manipulated images can be great pictures ... is a lesson for us all though Bob "If a picture's worth taking, it's also worth faking"
