Which photographer?

Hi Bloggees


First, I reckon it's "History of PhoTOgraphy" :)
Second, sorry this is in the comments in TEST as well, I was logged in as me and just posted.
Third, I'm torn. Do you think an Australian photographer of criminal types and other things(Thomas Nevin) or a British photographer of ghostly types (Frederick A Hudson or William Mumly) is a better choice?
And any thoughts on what topics ought to be covered in our report?
My thoughts are technical advances and fantasy vs reality ie art vs document and the crossover to start.
Mr Brady is important here with his recreated photographs of the civil war and how influential they were in the politics of the war. And that this was done not because he wasn't there but because he couldn't take an action shot with his equipment.
My 2 photographer options both play into the question of fantasy vs reality. Both were interested in evidence. And also technology. Nevin used dry plates and stereographic equipment. Hudson was known to have faked up some of his photos with customised cameras, but surprisingly not all, leaving some doubt . . .

Whaddya think?