If you are using a large format to photograph a scene, it may take 10 minutes or so to set up the shot and compose. Many photographers may wish to clean up a shot by removing superfluous material like the twig on the steps in the foreground of this shot. However Atget chose to photograph the scene exactly as it is. Would other do the same?
There is nothing wrong with moving or removing, with placing or replacing an element (superfluous or not) in a scene (before or after), in any format/set up time.
As we all know this aspect of removing (or including) elements is an obvious section of (licit) "Touching" in the historical evolution of Photography, and not only involves the "after" step. False/True scenery situations have taken place long before Atget and nothing has changed much, neither the debate nor the human behavior in the decision adopted.
[The clear importance of "Touching" BEFORE reverts to the fact that one should act with respect or should have enough education to act as a minimum sense of behavior: either towards others, either towards the scenery created by Nature, or towards a scenery created by Humans.]
We do not know for sure what have happened here with Atget, but even knowing his preferences/working style (scenes exactly as he found them), even knowing his method/working equipment we have no guarantees that it was always like that.
On the other hand that place surely is not the same right now, ... the trees could have been partially felled, or changed by nature, and the steps could have been altered in the same both ways ... is that new scenery fair/unfair if another photographer decides to include/remove a new twig? What's the difference?
Whether that twig was there or not and Atget did not move it, as if it was there but he decided to change its position, as if it was not and decided to include it (or if a dog left that twig there or the wind brought it to the ground the very moment Atget pressed the shutter ...), in the absence of clarification, any importance in the act is minimal.
At this point it would be good idea to emphasize that the scene should not take more importance due to the (Historical) technical discussions about whether something is set or removed, and the same thing happens whatever the author may be. The work-attraction is always part of something that makes it stand out together. The author-attractive is the idea itself or the very eye of the photographer (the perspective adopted, the light chosen, the historical value of the place, the effort of the author and his material used together with the merit of documentary work - in this case - or for simple pleasure ... and a long etcetera).
Enough is to know that everything is reduced to the integrity, honesty or clear conscience of the author. And when we mix both things (author & work) we have left the author's attitude to the work and in the information left behind on the facts. In the absence of this (the communicative decision) any opinion based on the viewer's view takes on the same value as any other opinion (no matter who) and the importance of the element as superfluous (or not) is null.
This is not the case, of course, in the structural aspect of the image, with the difficult & obvious subsequent assessment "of every element in the frame", which in any case will bring no other result than another opinion.
So, would other do the same? it is an individual choice of attitude ... for both strongly related facts: a) doing the same (or not), b) leaving information about it behind ... or not.