Quote Originally Posted by tomalophicon View Post
I'll throw this in:

So why is image manipulation using different exposure and development tecnhiques and variations without criticism? I'm arguing it's the same thing, more or less, as print manipulation.
I basically agree. A print is, after all, a re-photograph of the photograph. Many of the games you can play in the capture phase can also be played in the darkroom. After all, there are GNDs and such.

I am not one to assert purity of technique nor insist that we must all adopt the ethics of photojournalism; I think one has to do whatever is necessary to make the desired statement.

But... my points are that (1) if you can do most of your work "in camera" then your darkroom work will be much less laborious, so looking for the light you need is essential; and (2) poorly executed, d&b leads to some unnatural effects, so again, having a sense of how to wait for and use the available light is very helpful.

D&b can produce some really terrible things, I know because I've made a few myself. An example is a bank of perfectly gentle clouds that have been artificially made to look ominous, and so forth. That's one d&b cliche that I cannot take! Expert printers like Mr. Carnie don't commit such offenses, of course