Anne I think you're right though but I can't check since I don't have a Canon either

Where is Amin when you need him

Take a look at Anna Bodnar, is what she made photos or is it something else? www.annabodnar.eu
Gallery 1 most will say all are photos but still some are quite heavily photo-shopped.
Gallery 2 (vision) is another story many would say it goes too far but I still believe it are photos and not photo manipulation for one reason and that is that she made the photos she used for her manipulation so it becomes more of a 50/50 matter since her focus overall is photography therefore I find it safe to say it are photos.
If someone would only do these kind of manipulations without making the photos then it surely aren't photographs.

To go on a bit.
If I understand you correctly it does not matter how much you processed as long as it looks natural it's photograph?
Don't you think it's a bit unfair that a less processed photo that comes out unnatural isn't a photo?

That's precieasly photography, if you just take the JPG straight out of the camera you're doing the last one and if you're doing the first one you're still a cook but difffernt one that like to mix the things himself.
I don't say any one is better then another but Tony you know there are some experimental chefs out there and what they create you still call food I (some times) and the same is true for experimantal photography.

Ah okay ^^
Might it have something to do with the point of balance/gravity and where the OS is placed?

Thank you Anne I thought the Canon user explained to me he could use those two modes as well. When it was constantly on it was ready faster but it was not as steady as the one that only went on when you press the AF but I can be totally wrong.

The programs like sport and landscapes are there to give more information to the camera what kind of photo it's taken so it can chose the optimum setting for that type of scene. Cameras aren't smart enough to see if you're taking a portrait or a landscape and they both need another approach.

I do agree with you though that there are some very stupid modes, for example kids and pets...

Thank you Tony you named it: "as seen by the photographer" but what if the camera capture something different the photographers sees and the photographer use some heavy PP to get it out what he/she saw, it's still a photo according to you so yes I agree with you.

We after all all see in a different way.

When I did bought the K10D (my first camera) almost 2 years ago I didn't knew much so made a firm line on what's a photo and what not.
Only when I look more at photos that are considered art it became apparent I draw the line to harsh.

When you think about it, no where does it say a photo must be true to life.
Photo simply means an image created by (capturing) light, if you think about it that way you can go pretty far with your processing.

First I was quite strict but now almost anything goes as long as it use a photo(s) as the basis.

Photography always went hand in hand with post processing since after all it takes some chemistry to make the picture appear on any kind of light sensitive surface.

Even your camera does post process your photo, after all it makes from ones and zeros that comes from the sensor into a photo.

So I wonder what you consider to be photography?

But the software is there already and you can simply copy it as many of times you want without costing it more so why put in the effort, hours and money to strip it?

And to be honest many features aren't in the way with Pentax because it's locked away in the menu which you don't need to be in while shooting since Pentax has the Fn menu, Canon on the other hand.... don't know about the rest though.

Google is your friend.
Simply search for duplicate file finder, I'm sure there are some out there where you can select what file types to look for.