dunno... i read this post too late to partecipate actively... anyway... my really little opinion. first, some unuseful definitions. (from the Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, c.a. 1913) Photography Photog"raphy, n. [Photo- + -graphy: cf. F. photographie.] 1. The science which relates to the action of light on sensitive bodies in the production of pictures (and From WorldNet (r) 1.7) n 1: the act of taking and printing photographs [syn: picture taking] n 2: the process of producing images of objects on photosensitive surfaces ...apparently no one says PHOTOGRAPHY itself imply that the "sensitive bodies" has to be composed by iodides of silver. It appears to me a bottomless pit for garbage. Same for the post-processing. so... why photographers has developed tons of dark room techniqes and printing techniques to enhance, correct or simply add character to their work? This is not a photographer who correct its work in post-processing? so... i'm not a photographer nor an artist. maybe... but surely i'm a sperimental guy... Maybe these guys don't even know how to turn a monitor on... for some people evolving it's simply too hard. We have, today, other tools. Different tools. it's nonsense... or maybe it's only me...