I'm with those who are mildly amused when seeing lazy digital simulation work -- whether of film negative edges or Poladroids or ersatz vintage-1890 photos or whatever. There's always been plenty of lazy, bad work, professional or otherwise, done with analogue photography going right back to the beginning. I guess, overall, I'm just very disappointed with how computers are used to produce imagery, photographic or otherwise. How many times have I read "Absolutely ANYTHING can be done now by bringing together computers and photography". Surely this is true, but mostly one sees clunky photo collage. Two areas of "digital art" that are growing all the time, which I loathe above all: "surrealist" photo collage and trying to make a photo look like a painting. Occasionally done with some skill but morphing a nude female figure into a teapot with a Mondrian bowler hat hovering overhead makes mockery of the whole thing (it's usually something like that), and Photoshop layering of luminosity curves and saturation curves and adding a craquelure layer does not make a photo look anything like a painting, at least not to those who have seen some real paintings and admire good painting. The only really skilled digital photo collage and post-processing work I've seen has been in high-end global advertising. Some of the top global ad agencies have people with both the skills and the eye to bring it off. The best digital photo collage I've seen was a print ad campaign for DIESEL. The thing is that the basic talents and skills -- drawing, painting, composition and design, colour understanding, and just plain getting good visual ideas -- are just as important as they've always been. The computer can be a great tool in the creative process but can't substitute for the basic skills.