That is where we seem to be disagreeing. Why should there be a difference between fixing an exposure in the dark room or fixing it on the computer? I don't think it's fake to fix an exposure or things like that. To add in or take out parts of a picture, that is fake. I guess I see my computer more as a digital dark room. I use it to make my photos as good as I can. Just like I would do in a darkroom correcting exposure and such. That's the type of manipulation I'm talking about. I just don't see how using digital software to make the picture better is a bad thing. Making a color more rich...I don't really see that as any different than using a filter on my lense and getting the same effect...the photo was manipulated. Whether manipulated before or after, the composition is still the same, the subject is still the same. I would never add something into a picture that wasn't there and say that's how I took it. For fun and as a joke, I have done things like that. I took two pictures of my friends, taken at the same place, but at different times and combined them to make it look like they were all there together. But, that's not a photo I would ever try to pass off as "real". I've also done the same thing with both of my dogs...I've created (well, I'm still working on it) a picture where they are together. It's something I'm working on just for myself. My dog died last year, and I'll never have a picture of her with the new one...it's just something for me. I think it's fun to use Photoshop to play with my images. I like to use different filters and make photos look like paintings, sketches, etc. But I would never say that's how I took the image!

They way I see it is that taking photos is all about moments, and the very often this "moment" doesn't come out as you wanted it to be. I don't think elementary photo knownledge such as the relationship between shutter and aperture is to be compared to use Photoshop. Photoshop is in some extent use full, for instance to add some colour or perhaps remove the colour, but that's just about it.

Someone wrote that professionals also adjust their shots, well of course, but more or less on a basic level, giving the picture more colour etc.

As I see it there is no point in taking shots if you are going to alter everything about them. The most shots I take come out as shit, all dizzy with no colours.. :) But that's a big part in taking pictures.

And to be honest, you don’t have to adjust the colour if they are a bit boring, leave them as they are. Be proud of what you actually did with the camera not with your computer.

And just one more thing, the most pictures taken on dry land with no actually difficulty are there no point in adjusting.

Here are some more of mine:

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e1...gamlastan3.jpg

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e1...gamlastan9.jpg

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e1...amlastan15.jpg

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e1...gamlastan9.jpg

ooh where was the first one taken cause that looks really cool!

Those were all taken in Gamla Stan (Old Town) in Stockholm. The first pic shows the narrowest street in Gamla Stan - it's only 76 inches wide.
Here's a few more pictures I took:

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e1...d_aquaria4.jpg

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e1...d_aquaria8.jpg

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e1...d_aquaria9.jpg

:s... Do people find such a thing as a narrow street to be cool?

Aero... Good underwater shots!

here are a couple of mine:

the first one is in Granada (Nicaragua),
the second one from Monteverde (Costa Rica)

Nice pictures Jana, darling :)

i know hehehe :p

Lol maybe narrow streets are interesting if you don't get to see them very often??

Glad you liked the underwater shots although it's extremely difficult trying to take pics of fish! There were some sharks that I was hoping to get photos off but they were just swimming too damn fast to get any good shots!