In another forum "dancqu" made a clear statement regarding his position on printing - in essence a strident ZS approach to which he added 'no manipulation' in the form of contrast masks, etc.. What dancqu proposes is not my style, but I appreciate it very much as having a special place in the art and craft of photography. This was brought home to me years ago through the work of an associate who has had many shows and several books published. The gentleman I will call DH is a documentary photographer, a photojournalist: a writer and photographer. His exposures and prints are carefully crafted (all MF) in very much, if not the same spirit that dancqu writes about (but I cannot say if dancqu's execution is the same because I've seen none of his worrk.) DH makes exposures under conditions I would walk right past; the light is not remarkable (except perhaps earlier AM/PM) - in otherwords, almost everyday in nature - but most important: his pictures show what any of us is likely to see when visiting the same place. It is a properly documented scene that shows respect for _the place itself_. It is also important that DH has a very long-term association with his subjects and revisits and rephotographs so that comparisons of change are more easily made. Rather than one emotionally moving photograph of a place under, for example, a rarely occuring catastrophic sky we have clear testimony to the passing of time in a series that is otherwise invisible. There may be nothing new under the sun, but old things are disappearing every day. Thanks to DH for making that clear for the rest of us through his 'straight' photography.