Respectfully, I did read your large post. Prior to digital there were positives in the way of slides, by the way.

Anyway, why come up with different names and titles for anything. A painter is an artist, a sculpture is an artist and in my opinion, a photographer, who creates an idea, is an artist. There are many different genres of art and they can all be depicted in oils, water colour, pastels, clay, bronze or photographs. They would include landscape, cityscape, waterscape, abstract, portrait, botany, zoology, macro, altered reality and dozens more. We don't need any other names or titles to classify art, we have enough.

Some people like what looks real, some want to take poor images and make them look real and some like to take real images and make them look surreal. Really who cares what people want from their photography.

I have seen the work of many people on this site and many of them are very talented and many take images that I would call snapshots. Nothing is wrong with that but photography is so much more than one thing and if a person ignores all of the other genres, they are depriving themselves of a wonderful creative world with endless possibilities all starting with a camera. Again, there is no problem with that unless they say theirs is the only true way of looking at it. But that is once again, only my opinion.

If photography is nothing more than what the camera saw, then we are nothing but button pushers with little talent. The quality of our image is dictated by the quality of our camera. I don't know about you, but I am much more than that when it comes to photography and my camera is only one of the tools I use to help me create an image.

If photography is ART, then it is all in the eyes of the beholder. If it is not ART, then I am at a loss as to what it is.

Just like any art, some like portraits, some like surreal, some like abstract, landscape or realism. That is your preference and good for you.

I have never seen a painting where the artist wrote that the painting depicted what their eyes saw. Who cares what their eyes saw. People only know if they like it or not; period.

If it makes someone feel better about their photography because they actually believe they are not manipulating what their camera saw, then give them that satisfaction. Again, it is all in the eyes of the beholder.

Photography can be art - true. But to me a photo was shot and is seen as the camera saw it. Art is something that is created, and in most cases is not exactly what the camera saw or what was actually there.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong, in my opinion, with work photos. All I'm saying is that a photo, as the camera saw it, is a photo. Art is something created that wasn't there when the original image was taken.[/quote]

Obviously, everyone has a right to their opinion. Having said that; you are saying two things in that what a camera sees is a photo but is rarely what is actually there. Take for example, every photo taken with a wide angle lens is distorted with crooked lines and is not what is real. Every image taken at high ISO has grain that is not real; a telephoto lens brings a totally different view than the eye saw, our eyes do not see depth of field as the camera does.

If what you are saying is true then the only photograph is one taken when someone pushes a button on a camera set on automatic.

Photography is art. A photographer is someone that uses a camera to create a final result. Some of those results are manipulating the camera buttons and dials and processing the resulting image afterwards to try to depict, as close as possible, what was actually there. But in every case, it always involves manipulation of what the camera originally captured. If it isn't, then you are not a photographer in my opinion, you are just someone who pushes a button.

I have always enjoyed this discussion. If you say a photograph must depict reality then you have to question black and white being photography as that is not reality. If you say it is whatever you can do in a darkroom then you need to define at what time because over time, darkroom skills evolved with different chemicals and methods. Ansel Adams photographs were very far from reality with a tremendous amount of manipulation and lack of multiple colour. Today the darkroom has changed to an office with a computer.

Then there is the argument of how much manipulation is OK. Well that is a discussion that has as much possibility for conclusion as a discussion on politics or religion.

I think the answer can be found in the definition of photography as a form of art. My view. I think photography comes in two categories, both being a form of art. One is that a photograph is a record of a moment in time. An event recorded for future memories. That event could be a flower blooming, a bride walking down the aisle, a sunset or a car crash. It is intended to be as true a depiction of what the photographer actually saw through their eyes.

The other category of photography is that it is an idea. As like any form of art, you have a base such as paint and canvas or clay and a wheel. In this case, the camera is where your idea starts to form. The result is what the photographer saw in their mind.

Both are a form of art, both are based on a photograph and both require some form of manipulation because of the inherent limits of the medium. To me, we are all artists first, and we use a camera and photographs as our medium. Is photography just taking the image through a camera or does it include the developing process? I think it is both so doing so through a computer is really no different than through an enlarger and chemicals.

I used to develop my own black and white and colour photographs in a darkroom. I do not miss it at all because the digital side allows me so much more freedom to express my ideas.
But then, that is just my opinion.

I have to preface everything with the fact I am a techno-dope when it comes to this stuff. I know how to take great images but I am not that proficient at the pc. I like to just turn it on and everything works as it should. Just like my car. The days of me changing my own oil stopped many years ago.
Under each thumbnail was the file name. Somehow I managed to have them all change one level up. So, it was say, 276-NEF, they all changed to say, 2015 Europe, if that makes any sense to you.
As I said, I have now learned something. Being new to this site, I appreciate how so many people want to help those like me traverse through these situations.
Thanks again

Thanks for the suggestions. After about 1 1/2 hours I finally found it. Under, Library - View Options - Grid View - Compact Cell Extras - Top and Bottom Label.
I have no idea how I got in there to change it in the first place but it is now perfect and I learned that you can add some useful information to the grid view.
Thanks again

I am trying to organize my files within LR 5.7. I managed to universally rename every image with the file name by mistake and don't know how I did it. How do I get it back to where it was with some of them as original file names and others named differently.
I have highlighted a collection in my library, chose Rename Photos to a different name but my library still shows them all with the file name. The name changes have only occurred within LR.
Thanks for your help.

I had the D3s and loved it but the D3 series are very big, heavy and bulky. I now have the D750 and love it, even more than my old D3s which I didn't think would be possible. It's low light capabilities easily rival the D3s and I am getting 24MP.

I think generally, who cares who knows. The only exception I can think of is if I have asked and received permission to go on someone's property and it was granted because the owner was nice. I would not want everyone and their families going out to shoot that location and take advantage to the property owners generosity. I know I will be respectful of others property but I can't speak for people I do not know. If they find it themselves, that is fine and nothing I can do about it but I wouldn't want to give everyone directions.

I would normally say let the person try different ones to see what fits best for them but with it being your granddaughter who will work and shoot with you, it might be a good idea to steer her towards Nikon because you have one. That way you could share lenses and other gear, while shooting together, thus giving more opportunity to increase that grandfather/granddaughter bond. What I am saying is, in this case, the relationship opportunity may be more important than the gear. The lower end Nikon dslr's are great cameras and buying a used one as a first camera could work well.
Good luck enriching your bond with her. Many would be envious.

Just to comment on the first and last images, both are composed very well. I like the dunes composition because of the appearance of steps leading the eyes to the clouds. The mountain image is also composed well with the small building providing scale. Focus us sharp and the colours provided by the larches (?) adds interest.
Both images though seem to be taken at the wrong time of day. Dunes are most dramatic with long shadows and colourful and dramatic light provided during the golden hour. The same with the mountain image. The lack of shadows, to me, make it more of an ordinary image. The two dots on the dunes may be of interest but at the size they are, they appear to be a mistake.
I think your eye for composition is very good but the timing (which we can't always control) and high sun affect the impact of these images.