Quote Originally Posted by BrianShaw View Post
Well, I have been hesitating to mention this because of the potential for a Nikon vs Canon debate, but shouldn't we be referrin to the man by his real name versus his psuedonymn. In real life when talking with real people I'm not sure he was ever called that. Don't we corrupt history by doing so?
It depends. When talking about Charles Dodgson the person, that name may be appropriate. To some audiences, and when discussing his creative work, Lewis Carroll seems better. Samuel Clemens may have been best known by that name 160 years ago in Hannibal, but not now. In photography we have Brassai, Chim, Man Ray, Eadweard Muybridge, Nadar, Weegee, and others. Psuedonyms are common in literature, not to mention Hollywood. In many of these instances, birth names are often unknown or forgotten. Should not anyone determine the name by which they are to be best known?