I actually find some of Uta Barth's work intriguing. I watched the "What is conceptual photography" videos that Stan linked to (thanks !) I found them enlightening, but found that most of the examples were either obvious & unsophisticated (the early Hilliard stuff) or useless and irrelevant (the Broomberg & Chanarin "stunt" as the critic called it ... their message sounded well articulated, but better expressed in words than in some big pieces of paper that are symbolic at best and uninterested in their own right). My belief is that a photograph exists to be interesting to look at, and in many cases, once you "get the point" of a conceptual piece, it's no longer interesting. On the other hand, I think I could enjoy looking at some of Uta Barth's work. However, I don't see it being particularly ... special ? The statements of intent make sense to me, but sound very "Photography 101". Sort of like she picked up on this notion that every photographer learns early on and made a career out of beating a dead horse. Whereas most photographers learn the lesson in order to move on, she's living the lesson. Which is fine; the end result does look interesting to me. But then I think of some of the brilliant abstracts in Ernst Haas' "Color Correction" - photos that demonstrate an amazing visual awareness. And that was done without all the puffery.

Ctein: "the median birth date in the US is about 1975" Ouch. And I thought I was middle-aged.

I only shot P3200 a couple of times. I used to view flash as a necessity for low light. But my most important use of it was shooting at the hospital when my daughter was born (10 years ago tomorrow). I bought a Sony F717 shortly after that, but I love those grainy newborn baby pictures.