>>>photos, like any other expressive works, can have more than one possible interpretation, and if they are seen in many different contexts by many different people, they will quite likely have a number of possible interpretations<<< You can not argue the merits of interpretation or perception. Those concepts are based on every individual's conditions in which they were raised. The world has no water to those raised in deserts. You CAN argue the intended perception. The camera does tell the truth, it's the photographer who lies. Lens choice does not represent manipulation, only choice. Creating a macro image of a rock excluding the mountain it sits next to does not mean you lied about the mountain or the rock. An ND Grad is about working within the limitations of the film not about manipulation. Manipulation can be the title of those actions if you prefer, but it is not about the manipulation that one does to misrepresent the facts. If you put a rock into the scene to fill the foreground of your mountain shot, you are manipulating the truth and if do not allow anyone to know you put that rock there, you are manipulating the perception of the truth, you intended to mislead, to misrepresent the inalienable truth of that scene. It seems to me, the true nature of this discussion is not perception but intention. You photograph anything you want, anyway you want, just continue the line of integrity all of the way to the viewer. Why omit them from the process? Why would you want to? Take care, Gregory david Stempel FIREFRAMEi m a g i n g
