First look at the images in this link by New York Times photographer Damon Winter’s photo series, “A Grunt’s Life”:
http://www.poyi.org/68/17/third_01.php
Now read this post:
http://www.e-ariana.com/ariana/eariana.nsf/allDocs/384DCFFD0D8AC102872578380074884A?OpenDocument
My quick thoughts…
1. A good image is a good image.
2. It’s not the camera, it’s the photographer. The camera is just a tool. No matter how much you spent on a camera, in the end it is a dumb block of mechanics that needs your vision and creativity to work. For those who feel that the iPhone app Hipstamatic is somehow “altering” the image I would say this:
What about grain? That’s not “natural.” What about the particular color palette of a film- Velvia, Kodachrome (had to get that one in for historic sake!)? What about TX pushed? What about print size, lens choice, framing decisions, depth of field— all of these affect the visual quality of the final image and are not “real” or neutral… and I have not even touched on the darkroom or Photoshop as editive creative elements! All photography is manipulation, all photography is editive!!!
3. Photojournalism has the word PHOTO in it for a reason.
Viva la Revolution- Stephen
PS- Thanks to Art for sending me these links and for helping start this conversation here on FR.
Figital Revolution 
What makes these photos interesting is the subject matter, not how they were taken.
I agree!
great looking work from Winter
Spot on. If it’s a good photo -it is what it is.
I don’t see the big deal unless the images were altered such that elements in the image were changed, deleted or added. Even if they were, all you would have to do is let the reader know that the image is a composite or otherwise manipulated. Disclosure is more important than ‘neutrality’.