Digital photography has created a shift in the balance between art and technology. No matter how you feel proud of your ability traditional camera, you also need to know much more about the software. As a wildlife photographer who grew up with movies, I like many others have been forced to change the way I see my role. In the past I knew that if I chose the best light for a subject, and applied my knowledge of the camera, usually produce the photo you want in the film. More importantly, it exposed the film always produces a high quality printing without the need for improvement. If they were unhappy with your photos, not groped to save with a computer, but are simply discarded. There are still many people my age that you see in the picture the same way. I was surprised to find that recently there have been many new photographers who still want to produce the perfect image in camera.They believe that traditional knowledge should be enough for the big picture, trust in the software shows a lack of capacity . In essence, a part of me appreciates this philosophy. After all, if the photos are more the product of their ability with a computer with a camera, you can really say that you're a good photographer? But here's the problem. Recently I was teaching a class that explains all the basics of good photography, aperture, shutter speed, depth of field, lighting, etc. One of the members of the class took me aside during a break with a question about some of the your photos. "I think there must be something wrong with my camera or my goal," he said. "I do not think that my photos are overexposed or underexposed. I do not think I used the wrong ISO, and I think that my photos are in focus. In fact I think I'm doing everything right. But the soft-looking photos that look flat … have no life. " I looked at the pictures and I had to accept. The problem was that he wanted to tell him what he was doing wrong with the camera. But if it was poorly lit, out of focus or poorly exposed, what could I say? The problem certainly was not with his digital SLR camera. In a class of fifteen people and at least a dozen digital cameras, his was the most advanced camera in the room. We transferred one of his photos on my computer. I opened in my editing software, and automatically adjust the contrast and saturation levels of the images. The result was immediate and dramatic. A photo that was flat and lifeless was suddenly rich and dimensional. The difference was even more evident when you take another look at the original image. Now, however, seemed a photocopy of poor quality. Here is a digital file containing all the information needed to produce a perfect image quality. The information should only be rearranged, using the software to make it. The software has become one of the essential ingredients of modern photography. While understandable that the old school of photographers looked on with disdain, the truth is that to some extent, the editing and improvement are simply part of the process. I'm not talking about using the software to produce a total image. This is certainly possible in those days. You can take a sky of a picture, put in the foreground behind the photo of another, moving objects and change colors, all with the click of a mouse. Will always be a matter of debate whether this is the true picture or not, I think, but you can disagree and you are entitled to their opinions. There can be no doubt, however, that this is something apart from capturing your photos using the traditional skills of the camera alone. No, what I'm talking about is to use the software to "tune" the image, to put it to a level that is comparable to film photography. You can often find this necessary to get the most from your camera, and not a reflection on his skills as a photographer. For ex-fashion photographers like me, this can be difficult to accept. But the first and swallow your pride and get to know your software a little 'better soon start producing the kind of picture you expect from your digital camera.