This is a spin off from the David Plowden post. Several people referenced "Straight" photography, and that resonated with an unresolved self conversation on the subject of classifying? identifying? codifying? different levels of photographic manipulation and outcomes. Clearly, Plowden's, film photos, are straight photos in one sense. Snapped with a Rollei, developed and processed in the darkroom by "a meticulous craftsman" whose darkroom efforts were clearly dedicated toward achieving his desired results. Flashing back in time -- we chose film for effect, exposed for effect, processed either normally or for effect, chose paper, developer, again for effect. We printed, dodged, burnt, etc. At the end of the processes, we had our outcome, but one negative frame could produce myriad results, varying in minor or major ways. Fast forward to digital, and some personal thoughts on the initial premise. At one end of the continuum is the image that delivers the desired result straight from the camera printed at the default (some would categorize that harshly as impossible) , at the other abstracts, photos transformed to paintings, or Ben or David's fabulous Daliesque creations. At what point, or is there one, does a photo stop being a photo and become a "Work"? I find myself inclined to value the skill with the camera in a different way than post processing manipulation since camera work is what interests me most. Clearly there are many times when I crop, brighten, sharpen, etc. no more or less than I did in the darkroom. Photo Net used to have a notation as to whether an image had been manipulated. Does it matter?