It's Fuji for me. The XT1 (as much for the lenses as for the camera itself) and the X100s. But I don't need another camera; neither one does anything new for me (as you say, it's not about photography). Kind of like wanting a different car when I already have a perfectly good one. So I won't do anything about it, but these are the cameras I find intriguing right now.

Gosh, I almost dismissed this post based on a cursory glance at the photo, but went ahead and clicked on the slideshow link and am glad I did ! I decided quickly that I don't have time to look at them in any depth, and will come back to them tonight.

I was going to suggest a formula for calculating the value of the medal counts based on the prices of gold, silver and bronze, which would heavily weigh in favor of gold medal winners. Then I found an article stating that while bronze medals are made of bronze (and therefore worth little melted down), gold and silver medals are both at least 92.5% silver witih gold medals being gilded with at least 6g of gold. So basically, gold & silver medals are worth about the same (melted down) with bronze a distant third. So, there you go, an alternate system ranked primarily by total number of gold & silver with ties broken by golds (versus silver) or bronzes. And I can't help but appreciate the view of our neighbors up north - that all that matters is hockey :) Congratulations on the wins to date and good luck in the mens final ! Dillan, we love you guys, too, as you can see here: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/12/30/which-countries-americans-like-and-dont/

I have a friend who will tell me "you're in the wrong profession" when I show him my photos (typically of kids, but more recently from a ski jump that I shot freelance for the local paper - something I've done twice now, in addition to sending them unsolicited photos from school events for free). Aside from the limited opportunities for a photographer to make money in a small rural town (that already has at least one full time pro), he misses the point that the word enthusiast is based on enthusiasm. Being an amateur is fun ! I never have to "get the shot". I shoot what I want, when I want. I have no clients to please but myself, though I do have my audience of friends and family (and if I don't want grief when I buy new toys, it helps to shoot pictures that my wife likes). I can take pictures at a birthday party and get around to going through them a month later. Now, granted, I read about some pro photographers whose jobs sound fun. But they either have personalities that let them do a job that I could never do (just read Jeff Cable's latest blog post about shooting the men's US hockey team in Sochi and having to push aside a crowd to get the shot) or live a lifestyle that I don't want to live (travel, time away from the family, etc). And always, the pressure to satisfy the client. I will say, though, that photographers have company. Woodworkers are often expected to make some side money with their hobby.

We must be in the doldrums. I can't think of anything to ask you.

Another example of a photograph whose significance is greatly enhanced by a caption.

I've seen it referred to as Sigma DP Stretch. To me, it looks like my old 110 Instamatic. Just pop a flash bar on that baby.

David duChemin has an interesting post that touches on this, but is more about how, why & whether we talk about photographs than the terminology: http://davidduchemin.com/2013/05/nice-capture/

Hugh: That reminds me of the line from "Annie" ... "May I take your coat ?" "Will I get it back ?" I also agree that "taking pictures" sounds very trivial when the act involves lots of prep work to setup whatever is to be photographed (on location lighting, makeup, possibly involving an art director, etc.) I mentioned in reply to Mike's post on Jay Maisel that he embodies everything I'd like to be in a photographer - I do it to capture/record/respond to what I see when I look around, and in a cyclical way, to learn to look around differently (channeling Dorothea Lange here). So taking a picture fits my style of photography even if it short changes those who actively and intentionally create their images. I guess any of a variety of terms works, sometimes better, sometimes worse. But I still cringe when I read "Nice capture !"

"This is a real problem with computers, how many of us can still read a floppy disk today?" Just because not many can doesn't make it a real problem. How many of us want/need to ? If it were a real problem, there would be a real solution. (Well, assuming media integrity). I just threw out an external (USB) 3.5" floppy disc drive because I'll never use it. I'm sure that over the years, most people will lose most of their photos. The same as has been happening for decades. In some cases, it's truly a loss to someone; in many cases, not so much. Hopefully people will think to somehow preserve a handful of important photos to pass on their children and grandchildren. I tend to think that quality prints are probably the best way to do that.

If people are actively working with PSDs and Adobe shuts down, then there's bound to be other software that will let users continue to work with PSDs. (And likely the writing will be on the wall earlier suggesting that migrating files might be advisable). And if anyone wishes to switch at some point or stop paying or whatever, then I imagine that they can just pay for one additional month and during that month, migrate all their files (save to TIFF or whatever). I imagine that serious users will just commit to a life long subscription. Those of us planning to just keeping using our perpetual license software are the ones who will have to plan for an eventual change, when our software no longer works on our new computer/OS or whatever. Personally, I'm more concerned about the proprietary database I'm building up in Lightroom, whether based on original raw files (in my case) or DNG. If I move off Lightroom, I can always export everything to TIFF, but if I want to keep my non-destructive raw updates and the ability to go back in and tweak them, will any other software be able to understand the database ? (If I use sidecar XMPs will any other software understand those ?)

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.