This has probably been discussed in this forum many times before, however I am curious to know everyones thoughts on this. There are many definitions of photography, but most of them describe it as the capture of light on a some type of material or other. One thing that sets photography apart from other art forms is that it has the ability to capture subjects as they are. True, we use lighting, posing, and darkroom manipluation to turn our subjects into what our brains imagined them to be despite what our eyes actually observed at the time. My question then is should photography be true to the image as it appeared at the time, or should we manipulate the image through our photographic techniques to obtain our version of what we interpreted the subject to be? Since the beginning of photography as we know it people have experimented with images to turn them into interpretive works of art. Is this true photography, or just painting with a different type of paintbrush, a.k.a the camera? My reason for this topic is that I recently came across a bit of a dilema while photographing a wedding. The client (bride) wanted to look as thin and beautiful as possible. She wanted her skin to look silky smooth, all elements to be as fairytale-like as possible. My question was why? Afer all, by pleasing my client wouldn't I be "covering up" what she and the event really looked like? If she were to pass away 30 years from now and her grandchildren wanted to see what their grandmother really looked like, wouldn't this be a disservice to them? Do we not as photographers have the responsibility to capture as accurate images as possible without our "artistic interpretation"? After all, what is the purpose of photography to begin with if not capturing images as they were, not as we saw them? p.s., I caved in and did the cheesy fairytale shots anyway. After all, I needed to get paid. That, however, did not make me feel any better about "cheating" future generations by masking what the bride and event really looked like.