An acquaintance who isn't into photography saw the bonfire photo (2nd one) I took and asked me what I meant by using PS to decrease the DOF. I explained the process to him and he mentioned that it almost seemed like "cheating" compared to what you do in a "real" darkroom. It wasn't a serious dig and I wasn't insulted (I actually never am for stuff like that anyway), but I took the opportunity to read to him a couple of paragraphs from one of the magazines I read. Thought you guys might find it interesting too. I read it to him as follows: "I asked Marcus if he could cite the most difficult printing challenge he'd had. 'Well, actually, it was one of my own photographs!' he replies. 'I took the picture at the Louvre in Paris with a compact camera - which was all I had with me at the time. It was very dark and I simply 'snapped' it.' The negative was dark and very flat so he did a basic print first and then rather than burn parts in, held parts back. He held back the window to make it look as though there is lighting coming through it, and held back the stairs and wall so it looks like there's light falling on them. None of the light is actually real." After hearing it, he said, "Exactly! With Photoshop, you guys can even create light in a photo where there isn't any!" I then let him know that the Marcus they are talking to is Marcus Doyle, a master photo printer from London and what those paragraphs described were all purely traditional darkroom techniques. Then I asked him to explain to me how PS is "cheating" and traditional techniques aren't. He couldn't. :) -=>Donald