:: While software is a powerful tool it is not photogtraphy, not even by the widest application. :: This seems to be one of the focal points of your statements. And had this been, say, 50 years ago, I may have agreed. However I think that the line is blurring now with the advent of digital photography. :: The use of composits, rendering, brushwork, selective blurs and a host of other manipulations remove the image from the realm of photography. :: I disagree. What about the editing that can be done in a lab? Softening an image, brightening, lightening. What about a composition of several images? A very good friend of mine did a composition using several pictures where he appeared to be a ghostlike form leaning on a lit stove. It was amazingly seamless, yet it was done in a darkroom. Was that photography? If not, why not? Isn't photography the art of capturing and manipulating light? What is the difference between manipulation done in a dark room and manipulation done on a computer? What is "photography" anyway? Webster defines it as: "the art or process of producing images on a sensitized surface (as a film) by the action of radiant energy and especially light". In "digital" photography, the sensitized surface becomes some form of memory. Therefore, as long as you're using that "sensitized surface" to "produce images", aren't you still doing photography? :: It teaches nothing about loghting, composition, exposure, etc. It makes all of the prior values moot. :: I guess we'll have to differ there. I have seen a number of photoshopped images that have taught me a great deal. Some of the lessons have been very subtle. But if your goal is what you describe as "pure" photography, then no electronic image would really fit unless scanned by a very expensive scanner is pristine condition that could capture in exacting detail the scanned image. Even then, it may not really be good because what looks good on one monitor can look horrible on another. :: The measure of a photographers skill, is measured on he ability to capture a image that is accurate, conveys a emotion, is properly lit, exposed, and composed. :: Yet these are all very subjective terms. What is an accurate image? I once took a picture of a martial arts instructor throwing a student with a 3 foot staff. When the picture was developed, everything was blurred. The student was a barely visible. Except for his strikingly yellow belt, you could barely make him out. The instructor was a blurred figure that could be clearly seen through him. I hated that picture for over a year. Then it grew on me. Now I look at it as one of the best pictures I've ever taken. Why? Because I've come to see it as capturing the essense of a martial arts technique. It is full of motion; no part of it is static or clear. Everything flows. Yet the picture itself has not changed. It is far from "accurate" in that it is completely not what I wanted. I chose the wrong flash setting, so it came out darker than I intended. I had left the camera set to bulb, so the shutter stayed open for as long as my finger held it (almost a second). I didn't use a tripod so my body's natural motion added camera shake. Yet in reading through books and articles of creative people, I learned that there is a certain kind of perfection in imperfection. That a distorted image can convey as much or more than a static one. It all depends on your POV.