<<< In the end, the only veracity rests with the photographer, not with the medium, and it's always been that way.>>> No, you are missing my point. Maybe underneath it all that were true - but the general public's perception 5-y ago was totally different that it is now. 5-y ago if I showed someone a photo that was other than mundane no-one (read NONE) ever questioned that it was just an honest record. The usual response would range from "wow, how did you get that" or "mmm, you were lucky" <BIG G>. Today the first reaction is universally "how did you *do* that?" If it's an out-of-the-ordinary shot the assumption most make now is that it was all made via photoshop. To me, selective use of filmstocks and cropping are not the same as producing digital montages. In the first case, the effect is usually so patently obviously not meant to be viewed as a "reality". In the latter, whilst the viewer might interpret the scene wrongly the scene itself is a pretty accurate depiction of what was seen through the viewfinder. A zoo animal cloned on to a natural background remains to me a different beast than a wild animal photographed in the wild. One takes a few hours in PS: the other might take weeks/months to get anything like the same effect. Sigh ...
