On editing...
In the past, I have held scruples towards the digital editing of scanned film negatives.
I believed that the film should speak for itself; each stock has its own characteristics of grain, color, and latitude. The cameras I use to shoot photos require input from the artist on light metering, and if I miss a step or used the wrong aperture setting, surely I should be punished with a dimly lit negative that I could learn a lesson from. And besides, if I wanted to be able to correct a photo easily, why am I shooting analog in the first place?
Recently, I have changed my ways. And I write this for the purist's consideration:
Unless you are printing all your shots in the darkroom, the fact of the matter is that your images are being digitally manipulated. If you use a lab, your film is being scanned and touched up on a computer. And if you develop and scan at home, you're using a program to digitally edit!
If that doesn't convince you (it didn't me), consider how darkroom touch-ups work. The enlarger is fitted with a contrast filter at any chosen level of intensity, the paper exposure time is carefully controlled to lighten or darken the image, dodging-and-burning are used to spot control - hell, you can even stack negatives, combine prints, solarize, and more. And after all that, the picky photographer will spot out any dust that was printed.
My point is this: my brand of "film purism" was only a facade. I was fooling myself thinking that I couldn't edit or manipulate my images, because, guess what, they had already been edited before they were delivered to me.
Nowadays, I develop and scan most of my work myself. So, naturally, if I want a digital copy of my image, I have to do some manipulation in Photoshop.
My guiding philosophy is to edit the image to appear how I saw it when I took it. Photographers, as artists, are not documentarians, nor are we painters. We use our cameras and film to convey an idea through an image.