Your artsy photo is FABULOUS. The only thing I'd do to it, were that lovely thing mine, is crop the bottom just above the far treeline near the barn/house and remove the cell tower (or whatever vertical that is) on the right. I know that removes the best purple, but it would place the trees and birds in a space of their own, ungrounded by the ordinary world. Then I'd enlarge it to, say, 30" wide, mat it in dark purple black core, frame it in silver, and put it on my wall.

Lovely post! Thanks for that, and also, I didn't know they'd rebuilt the swinging bridge!

Please post some photos of the ice caves, as well. I can't think of any other reason you went up to the Apostles right now. :)

I'm intrigued by the notion that a portrait of any random person must be "correct" -- essentially, that journalistic integrity must be upheld.

If I want to feel bad, I can go to the DMV for my photo.

If I paid money for a "correct" photo, instead of the photographer using techniques that made the most of my looks (and since I know how to take flattering photos, I'd <I>know</i>), I'd make sure everybody in town knew enough not to go there. I live in a big town.

It's those poor folks who don't have a clue that get stuck with Journalistic Integrity Portraiture, sometimes known as ineptitude.

You are my hero! People don't get it. Nobody seems to wonder why all European aristocrats of any given period all look alike -- they have porcelain skin in the time of smallpox, long noses, pointed chins, and their eyes are enormous (inbreeding and thyroid diseases notwithstanding). Hello, they were painted in the standard of beauty of their day. No one knows what they really looked like.

Unless you were Henry VIII, who didn't give a rip about his chin.

Flattering portrait lighting, anyone? No one sees wrinkles, after all; we see the shadows they create. One or even more double chins can be completely eliminated by proper posing.

Is the double chin the most important part of "her," or is it the gleam in her eye? The yellow teeth, or the gentle smile? The wrinkles, or the attitude? Take your pick, but I know what I'd take.

You are against artistic creation? Enough so that you need quotation marks around the very words themselves to show proper disdain?

It's digital art, but it isn't the OP's digital art, and everything he did with it was completely constrained by the software of the program, as you say. Taking a screenshot is essentially the same as taking a photocopy. We could discuss whether that's photography. :)

Especially lovely with a wider angle lens shot vertically and a slender bride. :)

I know that "not being shot happy" is a point of pride among many Hoggers, but a wedding may not be the best place to indulge that pride. :) It's tough to get the ring going over her knuckle, Mom lifting a hand to brush away a tear, or the bouquet just before it touches upstretched fingers without holding down that shutter button.

As a BF&F (Broke Friends & Family) wedding photographer, I second renting the finest equipment. Also, if you're driving to the wedding, bring along a stepladder. Being a foot or two higher allows a very flattering angle for . . . well, just about everything, especially if you're having groups stand on risers or stairs.

Wow!! I have the Tamron 90mm f/2.8, use it with a Canon 5D2, and I think it's <I>amazing</i>. I've been truly impressed by the quality of the photos I've taken with it, and somewhat horrified by your experience! If you're going to throw yours away, I'll be standing by your garbage can, waiting to grab it for my husband. :)

That's genuinely horrifying! Thanks for that wake-up call. There are lots of great things about today. :)

Yet one more comment. :) I grew up with b&w, too . . . I honestly think that's why I had no interest in watching tv as a child. It bored me, as most (not all) b&w photos still do. I've taken a few portraits that were outstanding in b&w, but can't think of any landscapes that would have benefited. It could be the "something's missing" aspect, or it's possible it's even genetic. I mean, there are crazy people out there who don't like cilantro! ;) There may be things we don't know about our rods and cones.

That's why I wouldn't start "explaining" beauty to people, whether they are artists or not! I don't actually like b&w any better, even though I know why I "should."

Here's what people are asking for on ebay. http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_trksid=p2043519.m570.l1313.TR1.TRC0.A0.XKodak+EasyShare+DX6490.TRS0&_nkw=Kodak+EasyShare+DX6490&_sacat=625&_from=R40

Here's what people are asking for on ebay. http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_trksid=p2043519.m570.l1313.TR1.TRC0.A0.XKodak+EasyShare+DX6490.TRS0&_nkw=Kodak+EasyShare+DX6490&_sacat=625&_from=R40

I'm right there with the person who suggested a 5d2 body; then buy a couple of decent lenses for it. I have a Tamron 28-300, a Tamron 90mm 2.8 macro lens, a Tamron 19-35 that I bought used (it got great reviews on FredMiranda, and it was dirt cheap http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=250). I'm sensing a pattern here. I also have a Canon 50mm 1.4, but rarely use it. These were collected over years, but even together they don't come up to the cost of most L lenses.

They cover me most of the time, and when I go on vacation, I rent something amazing, like the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. Renting lenses is a godsend. I'm not saying L lenses aren't <i>better</i>, and God knows I love to see each separate eyelash on an antelope from 20 yards away, but I'm too cheap to buy them.

I'm glad you saw humor in a photo of a horrifically abused animal that was heavily duct taped all over so it could not move and then thrown into a vacant lot to die of starvation.

Goodness knows we all need more such hilarity in our lives!