JohnotSC - "But those akes were easily detected by competant technicians" This is simply not true. It is correct that a bad fake is fairly easy to spot. But how do you tell a good fake?? Well done retouching, even in the early days, is not detectable. By what means can you look at a print and know for certain that no retouching has been done on it?

Bert - what you say about not printing what came from the camera has merit. As you probably know, the dynamic range of tones that film will capture is much greater than what print paper is capable of showing (which is what allows burning and dodging to work). Most cameras capture 3-5% more image on the negative than what shows in the viewfinder. Add to these two facts the options in choosing which paper you print on (such as portrait paper, high color sat, etc.) and you find that the photographer is only half done once the film is developed. IMO, the true artistic vision requires work in the darkroom. When I have a lab print my work rather than doing it myself I feel robbed.

Homeless - who is or isn't, depending on your definition.