The camera has always lied. Nothing is frozen in time and place in the way a photograph presents it. Withness all of the 'bad' pictures of celebrities caught in a moment not their best (like Mel Gibson's or Gary Busey's booking photos). Eadward Muybridge showed the world that the camera sees reality a lot differently than what we think of as 'reality'. No matter, the camera and the print are both just tools to give expression to the artist using them. Digital photography has the same power, and maybe even more, as the range of expression is increased.
Do not forget that one of the greatest photographers did a lot of his best work after the negative was developed - in the darkroom -- Ansel Adams. Yes, he had to be in the right place at the right time, and have a camera there, but if you saw any of his negatives printed straight, and the print he did using his amazing powers in the darkroom, you would be floored.
No, I am no fan of colorized movies or stills. The tonal range in a b/w image from years ago is not the same as a color rendering of the same scene. Plus I am not thrilled at the thought of someone messing with another's work without permission, credit given or not, living or long departed. These images are not your toys. If you want to manipulate your own work, fine and dandy. Move mountains, erase your Aunt Millie, give your dog two heads. Just leave the work of others alone.
No need to bemoan the state of digital images or some perceived loss of photographic verity. Things change. All of the realist painters did the same wailing and moaning over the first abstract painting. Somewhere down the way there will probably be holographic images that get changed and manipulated, and all of the sculptors will get set off.
Ah, well. What's next?
