So...you're saying that it's normal to alter photographs in an historical work?
No, you just said that. You are saying it's a historical work like there's some super significance on historical.
Everything ever written is historical, done in the past.
I am saying understand. All editing is altering something and making it different, that's what it is. Understanding that's normal and why that would be normal is what you have to understand first.
Thinking things shouldn't be changed as a historian is a false way of thinking as far as I'm concerned.
The historian who first understands and therefore Expects it is the sensible and reasonable one. For he knows it's normal and thus doesn't get all paranoid and think it's for surruptitious reasons.
I say quite categorically that you or Dan would do the same because I know it's normal. Therefore I know that you would do it, not for sneaky reasons or to fool people but for normal reasons.
As I said, all works have been edited, even the separate editions have certain alterations.
Now when I come to a change that is not understandable then I would enquire if I'm that interested, but it's understandable that there should be and will be.
Altering a historical work sounds very impressive and wrong but is a silly thing to say.