Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
Nobody's suggesting the drawings should be bowdlerised. They all *should* be more detailed, and most (if not all) drawings illustrating disease are more detailed.
This wasn't clear to me from the preceding posts. Why is a clear drawing inoffensive when a photograph offends? (I have no idea, but then I have little idea why the photo offends in the first place.)
As I mentioned, a detailed drawing would be a good idea. Of course, it shouldn't *replace* a photograph -- how could it? -- but *complement* a photo.
-- Toby