In regards to the B&W image.. I would have to say that while no one wold deny that there is an image here.. It is unlikely that it would be classed as a photograph simply because it doesn't look like one. Don't forget the a massive amount of data has been distroyed here. Filtering is another subject that can raise artist's temperatures. Bear in mind that I quite like filters... Say a poor sighted man is asked to wear some glasses.. This would seem to improve his photo-sensitive skills. If, however the glasses were smeared with gel... While he may experience a more psychadelic outlook, few would say that photo-sensory usefulness is true. Some heavr filters may create art but may distroy the accepted view of "what is a photograph" I guess the least a photograph has to be, is representative of normal vision.. ie not drink or drug induced or that of impared vision. JW :o)