Quote Originally Posted by Nick Zentena
I'm sure that's part of it but it's also about not letting people cheat.

Do you ask the specifics of how a photograph was made before you can appreciate it? Camera, lens, shutter speed, aperture, and so on? Does it matter to you if the resulting print is on a certain type of paper, or processed with a particular kind of developer, or if a certain enlarger lens was used? If so, I would posit that you're unable to appreciate art - you appreciate craftsmanship instead. Not that this is bad, but it has nothing to do with the final result - how a photograph affects the viewer.

And if you are more concerned with the craftsmanship of the photograph than the artistic merit it may have, then I would further argue that one is similarly 'cheating' if one does not develop, enlarge, and print their own photographs. Mat and mount their own prints, as well as frame them.

In fact, why are they permitted to just 'buy' film, chemistry, and paper? Why is it not cheating if we don't require them to make their own?

One person could say "I have a 1932 Ford roadster that I restored myself. I did all the work on it that I could myself, and farmed out only what I was incapable of doing. I have great pride in my car."

And another person says "I found a 1932 Ford roadster in terrible shape. I searched out and found the best experts I could, worked with them to determine how the car should look when finished, supervised, and paid for the work. I have great pride in my car."

Which person is the cheater?

Which car is worth more?

And which car would the average person see and consider a work of art?

We attach value to the product as societies. As individuals, we attach value to the process of making the product. And each of us has our own set of criteria for evaluating that process.

And it is 'cheating' to rely on auto-exposure why?