Great comments on the technical and creative aspects. On (a), there are times when there is just no way to capture the full dynamic range of the scene, i.e. if it is a person, moving object, quickly changing light, etc. that doesn't allow multiple exposures or other "tricks". I am learning that it's OK to have some dreaded "blown highlights" if you capture the subject and the overall scene and feeling you wanted. Relative to (c), sometimes a technically imperfect photo is better than no photo at all. I have found, though, it is better to slightly underexpose, because it seems easier to recover shadow detail than highlights, but once either is blown there's no recovering any detail.

Regarding color management, I posted this overview in comments over at Les' blog...

If you use Picasa or some other non-color managed software, and if it uses the sRGB color space by default (most likely), you need to make sure your camera is recording images in sRGB. Some have options for sRGB, Adobe RGB, or proprietary color spaces that use manufacturer provided profiles. Check the menus and make sure you are recording images in sRGB. Turn off any automatic display "enhancements" in your software, i.e. Picasa so you can better see what the image will look like when it is rendered in other applications or in print.

Most printers have a driver setting to use the sRGB color space, or will use it by default, but they also tend to have options to further "enhance" your photos. See if you can turn off all those settings and tell it to just use the "sRGB" image as is. This is what happens when you upload images to most online digital photo labs for processing. This lets you get close to what you want the printed output to look like on your screen.

Finally, you will need to get your monitor at least somewhat calibrated so grey is grey and white is white. There are some freebie profilers that show you a series of images that let you eyball it, or you can get a fully automated system with a colorometer such as the Gretagmacbeth Eye One.

Even then it is difficult to match print output because of the complicated conversions most consumer printers use to make things "easier", and the fact that ink on paper is "reflective" as compared to images on a monitor which are "emissive", and because there are so many variations in inks and papers.

Better printers will provide profiles for each type of paper supported and driver settings to allow the printer to color manage (i.e. convert the image to the printer's color space) or to turn it off and allow the software to do it.

Pros color manage the entire workflow, using camera profles, even profiles for different lenses, calibrated monitors and custom printer profiles for each type of paper and ink. This is a complicated and expensive proposition, and all the software and gear can be upwards of $3000.

You can get very close to this with something like an Eye One (or even just an eyeball solution), color managed software such as Photoshop, and printer manufacturer's paper profiles.

The most common problem (other than different software and printer drivers "enhancing" your photos in different ways) is to record an image in one color space, then display or print it in another color space without converting it.

Untagged images are assumed by web browsers and OS display utilities and digitial print labs to be sRGB. If they were taken or edited in some other space, such as Adobe RGB, and saved as JPGs without the color space tag and without converting to sRGB, they will look "washed out". Even if tagged, you should always convert and save them as sRGB for web/monitor display, because browsers do not have any way to do the conversion - in general they can only display sRGB.

For prints, you can work in Adobe RGB (with color managed software such as Photoshop that can simulate what the final output will look like using "soft proofing") and achieve slightly better output owing to the Adobe RGB color space's (and the printer's) wider color gamut. For most applications such as vacation and family photos, though, very few people will be able to tell the difference from sRGB as long as you maintain the proper color managed workflow.

Picasa and other "free" software may be OK for organizing, but consider using color managed software such as Photoshop for processing and printing. Even the Photoshop Elements version has basic color management to let you accomplish everything mentioned above (and it has a very nice organizer).

This is the sort of thing which is kinda hard to find in the literature, by the way. (You do a pretty good job of boiling it down, and I say this as someone trying to be as objective as possible.)

An unfortunate thing about the craft of digital photography is that too often, you have to pay someone for their professional opinion about something, even if it's just to share explanations like "why doesn't my printed picture look like it did on the screen."

I guess it's that way in conventional photography, too.

In fairness, the field is really competitive -- especially when you're talking about getting paid for your work -- and many photographers turn to training as a sideline business. So they become hoarders of knowledge; sharing isn't a practice high on a lot of lists among many photogs that I've come to know -- well, unless you pay for it. It's amazing how much more communicative that photographers get when they're getting paid. That's one reason that I occasionally pay the absurd near-retail prices at the local pro shop... you really have to hang out there AND BUY SOME STUFF before they will recognize you and help you out. It sucks, kinda, but it's still the way this works out.

I actually got a lot of good advice asking really stupid questions of a guy in Nashville who I hired to repair my Minolta X700 SLR and to recondition my Mamiya M645. "Now, why do they say 'that is a good portrait lens' when they talk about the 70-150mm Mamiya zoom, sir?" "What exactly is 'barrel distortion'?" He was a little surprised by the rudimentary nature of my questions, but he related the info. Better than simply explaining to me, he showed me.

Anyway.

I get asked a lot about how I get certain looks out of my pictures, and ultimately, when you get into the nuances of white balance and color spaces and digital artifacting, people that are content with "point & shoot" kinda tune out.

Still, it's useful info, and I don't mind sharing this info with others.

____________________________

"The iPod was not developed by Baptists in Waco." -- G.K.

You read my blog. You old sweetheart.

I appreciate all the advice. I'm trying to be more than a hack picture snapper, so I appreciate the help. And Vince's advice is pretty awesome.

Hey, Les, why don't we just call each other assholes and get it over with. - Somebody on the old Southknoxbubba.net (if that was you, claim your quote and win net.fame!)