Kris you're right with the histogram, I also look on that during shooting sometimes but only to check clipping and such but that's easy to see so won't take a lot of time.
What I won't do is check if the photo I shot is sharp or infocus, I'll check that later. On the computer or when I can sit down and take some time to look at the photos but never during shooting.

To be honest I don't think the screen is good enough for any one to judge if the photo is good or not so like George said why bother.
buy a bigger card and keep your eyes on the subject, you will be loosing quite a lot of shot while looking at your screen judging the photo is good or not

Beside that act and without having the situations that act is based on?

Okay then it is not, I'm very simple with that.
Do you know a law that allows a police officer to destroy your property then?
If no, then does it really matter a DSLR is not a computer?

I don't see the point where we want to be going with this?

I believe the term HDR is a bit misunderstood here since it's probably the tone mapping that most of you dislike about the photos.

RR are you sure those are HDR since it looks like to me most are photoshoping work?

have played with an preproduction on Photokina and it was nice but I believe the cheaper options of Metz and Sigma are probably just as good although they make the camera more front (lens) heavy.

Has anyone compare them side by side, quite interesting what someone else thinks with more knowledge.

The computer misuse act came to life in 1990 and it is there to make provision for securing computer material against unauthorised access or modification; and for connected purposes.

A DSLR use computer material and there for falls under the act I can not see any reasons why not.

Now secondly for unlocker there is nothing against using a computer or any other device (except nuclear) to support a terrorist act but there is something about supporting terrorist.

But besides all this, I don't think there is a law that allows a police officer to destroy someone property because that is what photos are.

But the data is not stored on the computer or DSLR but on an storage device.

I agree with you on that but how do you know what they want to get?
It's an idea they have in their head for a shot and as long as the OP won't state what he/she wants to create with the shot then how can you give him technical advice to help him archive that shot?

Depends, if the OP has done that for a symbolic reason for example then it is content but most of the time it would be a form (technical) matter.

With portrait you mostly have a face in the shot and an face always emotion, that is mostly a content matter.
Basicly everything emotional is a content matter, although that is quite basic though.

mostly when we do like a photo and try to describe that it mostly concerns content as well.

This is one example link
a staggering image. And I like the darkness. (if Alun would have gone further explaining why he liked that then that would be mostly concerning content)

Also there was some comment on the green that it was not technically pleasing and Lidy make this comment after pschlute explanation.
Now he sees it as matter of added content where others said it is an form fault.

I like the landscapes and the car but not the skyscapes, they look to fake.
The car also looks fake but it's classy