Well put Michelle A! There will always be dissenters and those who want to change the rules. If the moderators continue with their clear and fair explanations I can certainly live with that!

I'm happy with the status quo. "Darkroom only" type manipulation has some merit, but puts to much onus on the image police, and their personal darkroom experience and would have some rejectees calling for a jury decision. Maybe a category for purist photographs and then let them decide whether or not to accept film only over digital,or if retouching, enlarger manipulation, negative sandwiching, chemical intensification or reduction, toneing or print collages and many other skills are acceptable! Who would want to be a moderator?

DHolman - I have been involved in commercial photographic display for over 20 years, and would have gone hungry if most cameraphiles shared your views. But of course, the choice remains yours.

Message edited on: 09/19/2004 04:52

DHolman - I am curious why it is so important that your image fills a standard paper size. I would like to see more pics cropped to irregular shapes. Ovals have been used to great effect in days of yore. Trapezoid cutouts in black mattes can be quite stunning with the appropriate content.

Tedz - is your comment referring to my long winded piece of my history above? If it is, do you mean I was rambling and spoke a lot of garbage? If that is so, thank you for pointing out my inability to elucidate my experiences of the past. Because you are a NZ'er I promise I have not taken offence!

I worked as 1 of 2 photographers in a large design studio, the other guy wouldn't allow the display artists to crop his work. I was often amazed at the pics inside of pics, and also the shapes (other than square or rectangular) that creative people could see in my pics. Most of my stuff was shot on 35mm Fuji 100 asa in those days and enlargements up to 1 metre for display purposes were frequently used with adequate quality. If I shot a tight composition, it was always backed up with wider shots for these very creative people. As with most photography "look outside the square" for some surprising results!

If the prints are satisfactory, use it. The fix neutralises the developer chemicals and make sure of your wash. I have just found some 12 year old Acutol developer and some 19 year old HP4 film which I am going to use in my favorite camera ( Zeiss Ikon Super Contessa circa 1950) shot by 69 year old. Never know what I'll end up with!

I have now been taking photographs for over 50 years( ho hum, I know!) and this sort of argument has always been around. Retouching, enlarger image manipulation, multi exposure images, intentional reticulation, polaroid use, all of these and others have been in contention by some. But many have used these tools and methods for the enjoyment and challenges they can give. I am sure your friend is quite sure he knows what he is talking about, and you are not likely to change his views, so f... em! As Michelle A says " does it really matter". Enjoy, mate!

Thank you all for the comments, much appreciated. I am a little surprised on the criicism of the coloured daylight area. My concept was trying to show present mine enviroment (colour), with a suggestion of days gone by (sepia). By having the scene in b&w, or the miner apearing out of a black background, I felt would just make it an ordinary interior mining pic. Oh well, back to the drawing board! Disappointing after all the trouble of finding authentic helmet with mounted, original brass acetylene lamp and a very rare Davis Safety lamp which is being carried by the extremely high priced, miner stand-in. Thats the breaks I 'spose.