Now before this gets blasted out of the water, it has nothing to do with recent debates about you know what, other than it did make me ponder about this in greater depth. In two somewhat recent posts in my blog, I've discussed street photography and portraiture and how these tend to be defined. In the releveant threads in this forum, both street photography and portraiture (without going through every page) tend to follow 'conventional' styles, nothing radical. However, this has the potential leave out a whole raft of different images, because they don't quite fit the norm. In my street photography blog I raised the question whether street photography is really about people and whether this photograph, for example, should fit the conventions of street photography, not just because it's B&W. I'm not sure what other catergory it would fit, because it's about the person interacting with the environment, not a landscape: In the portrait blog, I posted this image (a potential off-beat style I'd like to explore a little more in the future), with a question mark as to whether it constitutes portraiture (with this link: http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com.au/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html as a comic example of what could happen to classic photos today on forums): Do others like to take photographs, or massage them in Photoshop or whatever, in a way that leaves them with some difficulty when it comes to categorising them, because they don't obviously fit any contemporary category or style? Does it matter, or is it a subject worthy of discussion?