I didn't mean that there is anything inherently wrong with a snapshot, just that it is (for the reasons I gave) usually technically and artistically inferior. It's less appealling and interesesting, except perhaps to the shooter.

Consider the following: a photograph is created and a snapshot is taken. A photograph involves composition, lighting and other variables a photographer understands, and a camera which allows for adjustments to enhance or improve the result. A snapshop is generally taken with no (or little) serious thought about the subject and the camera left to determine the technical settings. Both can be altered or improved with post-processing but one can usually still see the difference.

Take the two pictures used in the reply featuring the portrait and shot of the woman in front of the bridge. The former is clearly a very good photograph; good equipment, composition and processing. The latter could be either a mediocre snapshot or a poor photograph. If someone was using a better camera and actually thought about the subject and came up with that result they produced a poor photo. It's much more likely the product of a point-and-shoot experience (if not camera) with little thought about the end result.

These lines can be blurred (so to speak). A good photographer has a much better chance of producing a good or at least reasonable photo from a snapshooter's camera than a snapshooter has of producing a good snapshop from a photographer's camera. The key is forethought and consideration - of subject, time, place and the desired effect. Photographs are created with a purpose; snapshots are just a visual "memo".

"Great photos are created, good photos are captured and bad photos are everywhere." - Anonymous

Slow down . . . cameras are forbidden on the course during Thursday - Sunday tournament play. They are allowed for practice rounds up to Wednesday. The PGA and their courses are very strict about this . . .

Don't look now, Sarge, but your ignorance is showing . . .

Keep everything - your question should be what percentage do you edit and/or print and post . . . Back up every image you put on the computer before you decide which seem worthy of attention. I'm often surprised (pleasantly) when revisiting images that didn't make the first cut. And the way developers keep improving editing tools gives you more possibilities later on.

You want a fast processor(s), as much RAM as you can afford (8GB is good) and a large capacity hard drive. Surprisingly, that doesn't have to be all that expensive but you probably won't find it on a dealer's shelves . . .

It all goes back to one of my favorites: "Great photos are created, good photos are captured and bad photos are everywhere". (Author unknown)

They work in both. No matter how good the composition (whatever that means) or accurate the camera's settings I stand by my main point - post-processing is almost always necessary to produce the best image available from the data at hand, and the best and most useful data comes from "raw". Perhaps if I had used the word "mediocre" instead of "inferior" it would be better stated . . .

Everyone here is entitled to their own opinion as the old saying goes, just not their own facts.

As you double the ISO you increase the exposure by a factor of 2 (200 to 400, 400 to 800, et.). This means you gain one f-stop or one shutter speed value . . . Until recently higher ISOs meant increasing noise; some newer sensor technologies have improved upon this somewhat but you need to test your own camera to see the actual results and what you can be satisfied with.

Some models try to achieve this solely by incorporating noise-reduction in their firmware; this doesn't work as well as in post-processing on the computer and often results in signifigant loss of detail and image "smudging". . .

That's still not true, Roger. You're ignoring the vast differences in color gamut (among other things). There is so much data to work with and more latitude for adjustments . . . And besides, not all camera sensors produce the same results in the same environments. Even with the same lighting and exposure you can achieve not so subtle differences very easily . . .

Someone needs to do some polite headbanging to those who read this forum regarding the reasons to shoot raw and not JPEG. There are reasons to convert and output in the JPEG format but no good ones to shoot in it (unless you are cheap or lazy). Flash memory and hard drive capacity are so relatively inexpensive now there's no reason to complain about file size. Ditto for processing power and DRAM ...

Perhaps they need to suffer the indignity of having an image they think is good (or like) examined by a pro or advanced amateur whose trained eyes can point out the numerous technical shortcomings, almost all of which could be corrected by beginning with raw data and some judicious post-processing. C'mon people, this is not rocket science; but it does take some time and effort. Superior effort doesn't always guarantee superior results but inferior effort will almost always produce inferior results.

By definition every camera captures "raw" data. It is simply the unprocessed data used to create an image. Whether you can view it or not is a function of whether the manufacturer has included in its firmware the software necessary. If they haven't you are generally out of luck.

I don't have the info handy but one programmer did create and sell software for select Canon point-and-shoots which you could install and view (and then edit) in raw. This is problematic, since a mistake in either installation or programming can render the camera inoperable and in any case most certainly voids the warranty. I'm not aware of any other third party attempts to provide raw access on any other cameras, and most companies won't do it after the fact because they want to sell you a new box . . .

Follow the advice of the engineers who design and build flash memory. DON'T delete images or reformat cards from the computer; these, for numerous rerasons, should be done only in camera. DON'T edit images in camera; transfer them to a computer, back them up to a secure, removable storage device and reformat the card for future use.

Storing images on cards is a relatively expensive way to back-up data; they are also more easily damaged and lost. Memory cards are designed to be only a temporary measure to capture data before it can be moved to a more stable environment, i.e. a computer.

I attended a seminar where one of the NG photogs held court; the photographer does not get to touch his images. If he is in favor with the editors he watch the minimal adjustments made by staff. According to him, not everyone was granted that luxury . . .

This was in NY at an annual event sponsored by NG where on of their shooters lectured the crowd, showed examples. etc.

Tell that to NG photographers who are allowed no PP at all. They use images straight out of the camera . . .