It’s a hard question. Ultimately it’s a does the end justify the means type of question. I suppose if you agree with the result then yes maybe, if not then probably not.
I don’t know in this particular case how far the truth was stretched but we see this every day in for example advertisement and I think kind of expect it. I do wonder though if there is a version of the world where we can all present the objective truth, or as close to it as possible and have the “right” outcomes. I suspect not, since then you’ll be at a disadvantage to those who stretches the truth a little.
I wonder how his audiences back then perceived this issue.
The indoor pictures he made by just entering and firing a pistol with magnesium (later a frying pan).
The outdoor ones he had to stage to some extent because of the long exposure times. Of course he took advantage of this, and the immigrants also wanted to pose for the camera.
For anyone back then knowing anything about photography (which in his audience might have been quite a few) it should have been obvious that e.g. the photo of three boys stealing from a drunk man was staged, you could not make snapshots of quick actions.
I don’t know in this particular case how far the truth was stretched but we see this every day in for example advertisement and I think kind of expect it. I do wonder though if there is a version of the world where we can all present the objective truth, or as close to it as possible and have the “right” outcomes. I suspect not, since then you’ll be at a disadvantage to those who stretches the truth a little.