Elliott Erwitt

For that matter, you can't work in b&w photography and say you don't "manipulate." The eye doesn't see in b&w, so when you snap the shutter with a film camera loaded with b&w, you've "manipulated" right there.
He makes valid points, of course, but it's all a matter of degree, not one of being absolutely "real" vs absolutely "imaginary."

He is a master. I assume he is not talking about the day to day dodging and burning that will no doubt be used by the printers on his own work. Dodging and Burning and chemical and paper use "manipulate the image". For me manipulation is changing the subject.

You're probably right. I don't doubt both of your posts. And film is probably going to be replaced by digital.

But in my eyes, a b&w fiber print from a b&w negative is much more beautiful than any digital b&w prints I have seen in. It is also quite rewarding to make wet prints. For me anyway.

As for colour, I like both and I use both.

You're an fecking idiot

It is indeed true that the "old" analog folk are affraid of digital photography - it's really strange! People always become sceptic when new technology and tools are invented... More people are able to take average photographs easily, however, it's still as challenging as before creating a new image - think about composition, telling a story with some images etc. The challenge of photography isn't tech or a camera, but instead being creative and seeing things in new ways through a camera!

You're so right! Analog photograpy is just as manipulative, and anything else one could say in this context, as digital photography... Digital isn't too easy or anything - the basics are the same for both analog and digital - but you have to know your camera to capture good photos - sure dslr etc. have full auto but that mode is just crap! - Eg. a dslr will calculate an exposure while taking all the pixels into account and thus exposing a black background grey - think about concert photography!

I mean more like the way that one can use filters to enhance colors, but used on a black and white film. But also doing dodging and burning with shading light off when exposing. But when I say scanning negatives is manipulation then I mean the light that you record isn't necessarily the same as you would see with your own eyes!
Sure Erwitt has done some great stuff - but techniques that are used in the dark room are just applied in a slightly different way with software and digital photography..

Thank you.

Of course scanning negatives is manipulation - in fact just taking a photo is manipulating reality! However, in my opinion digital photography and editing is graphical designing, that's a form of art just as well as photography Though I clearly understand some of Mr. Erwitt's points I do certainly not perceive post editing as unacceptable - it's art, and when doing art one must break the rules to create something new..!

I don't think scanning a negative is manipulation, the image remains the same. Taking a photograph i also believe is not manipulation because all you're doing simply is recording light and dark, reality remains the same. Now you can say manipulating is art but it's not necessary good art. Just like when ready made art came out, yeah it's art, but crappy art.