As someone who digitally restores photos, I agree that Harold's reminder is an important one. Even before Photoshop, it was possible to place information in photos that wasn't really there (19th century "spirit" photographs and the famous fairy hoax come to mind). Sometime there are discussions in the restoration community about how far to take a photograph. For example, fixing the tone of a faded photograph to bring out the detail is one thing. Recreating missing portions of a photograph that has been ripped, for instance, is another. In some cases, the recreation may seem harmless. Half of Great-Grandpa is missing from a photo, for example. The restorer could recreate his full body by cloning the visible half. This would create a nice photograph for a family album. However, a historian studying that same restoration may be trying to count the number of buttons on Grandpa's jacket to recreate the clothing of the period. That historian may be misled if they don't realize that they are not looking at an original. -Elroy On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Harold Henderson <librarytraveler@gmail.com > wrote: > Thanks, Michele. We can all use the reminder that photographs are not > unquestionable truth, especially when it can be so convenient to think that > they are. >