I don't image myself a great photographer by any means -- I've simply learned the rules of framing a shot, along with the technical details of capturing it well. Given that I take a lot of pictures, invariably some of them turn out quite nice (and a lot turn out terrible -- oh thank you digital camera technology. This was much more expensive with the 35mm).

Really, I consider myself a photography technician (in this case capturing a visit to the Science Centre. All shots in this entry were shot at ISO 1600 with no flash. Aperature was usually fairly fast - f/5.6 or so. Shutter speed varied between 1/20th to 1/60th of a second, so a firm, steady grasp of the camera was paramount), and my best shots aren't themselves a form of art, but are simply capturing the beauty of the world around us. Beautiful moments we see every day.

In any case, when asked to provide photography advice I have one peeve that I always mention: Flash photography.

Flash lit pictures are, as a general rule, terrible. They usually feature a starkly lit subject - one that's often both overexposed and underexposed at the same time -- overlaid atop a barely visible background (almost detached from it, as if it was photoshopped in). Most ambient lighting has disappeared, replaced by the cold, artificial light of the flash. Shadows are cast across the scene (the further the flash is from the lens, the more of a visible shadow there will be, yet the closer the flash is to the lens, the worse that direct reflection and red-eye becomes). 

My general disdain for flash photography was one of the reasons why I bought the Canon Digital Rebel XT -- It features up to a 1600 ISO (which refers to the sensitivity of the sensor - in this case equal to 1600 film, which is very "fast" film. Many sensors have amplifiers that you can engage to increase the ISO, but it also increases sensor noise), with a slightly grainy but otherwise excellent picture at that speed, coupled with "fast" (lots of light) lens options. I've captured many wonderful pictures simply by setting the ISO to 1600 and disabling the flash, holding the camera as steady as possible, and then taking multiple shots with the hope that one of them turns out.

These were all pictures that would have turned out terrible with a flash, but instead I've captured gorgeous ambient light streaming in, colour reflections off of the wall, and the detail of the environment around the subject. As sensor technology improves, and we get even higher ISOs with reduced noise (and larger sensors that make use of more of the light), a lot of great photographs will result.

Of course there is a place for flash photography: It's critical for capturing fast moving moment indoors, professionally staged scenes with lots of professional lights, and even a skillful use of fill flash on a harshly lit day outside; however flash photography in general, in particular indoors, is grossly overused, turning a lot of beautiful photographs into so-so snapshots. 

The sensitivity of a camera and lens combination is a selling point that gets far less attention than it should.

If you were expecting me to say something about Macromedia Flash...well I aim to please. Check out this link.

http://www.honda.ca/HondaCALive/noFlashEng.htm

That's what you get if you visit Honda Canada and you don't have Flash (or more correctly if their shoddy script can't detect Flash. I have Flash in Firefox, but alas I'm redirected to this "too bad" page). While I can appreciate elements of the site being implemented in Flash (e.g. the car configurator), forcing Flash to see anything at all is amazingly ignorant. The wording almost implies that without Flash you're not welcome to Honda cars, which is just astounding hubris.