Wha! No, Bsteph, you seem to have the wrong end of the stick. I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. I am suggesting that general perception (that of non artists) of a photograph.. is fairly clear cut.. ie an obvious facsimile of the "real" world in 2D. If however (as it was suggested by others) a photo of a painting should also be considered, than a rethink would be necessary! For my part I'm nearer the idea of general perception. It seems so are you. A photo skin on a model is still a photo skin. (To me). That example.. and yours is obvious, and fairly clear cut. But cutting and pasting photo images so that the work is seemless is not quite so easily defined. That I believe is where the debate stems... How much digital or dark room modification renders a Photograph into somthing else... irrespective of any gallery accepting the work. The earlier notes that I have posted above should clear up any doubts about where I stand... If you have the time to read them. JW :o)