documentaries are very often staged actually. As I'm learning from my girlfriend (she's taking 2 documentary film/tv courses), there are many different types of documentary, some with seemingly similar names with entirely different meanings (ie: docu-drama versus drama documentary...). In one of these genres, i forget its name, the documentary is not filmed "as is", rather, the people filming the doc often watch and wait to see what happens, and when something they want happens, they ask the people to recreate what just happened so they can film it. Not only that, but generally in that genre (i REALLY wish I could remember its name dammit... but she's tossed so many different terms at me this year... mindphucked i am), they don't even post the words "Re-enactment" or anything at the bottom of the screen. This is an accepted practice. Honestly, from my perspective, I don't see anything too wrong with that specific photograph, even based on principle. The photographer wanted to convey the story in the scene as best as possible, and that meant making a minor alteration (it was seemingly an aesthetic decision). I'd probably be more interested in seeing two truths combined to form an interesting image than choosing one or the other and have the prospect of being uninterested, and while that may not be the case in this set of photos (i dont find any of the 3 that compelling, only when i read twhat was going on behind the scenes do I go "oh fudge!"), it's how I feel personally. this would make one interesting topic of discussion it would... so why not start one now? Bending the truth, or making manipulations to create the best presentation without really altering the theme, emotion, concept, and feel of the final output... is it alright? Why/whynot?