Charles Haacker wrote:Out of curiosity only I dropped in on Other Forums yesterday and saw a Raging Argument about the Hull Thing, jpeg v. raw, PP v. SOOC, yada ad infinitum ad nauseam. My take is based on my background. I was trained that real photographers can print. I (probably to my own detriment I know) spent at least as much time in the darkroom as I did making the negatives in the first place. But when I went digital it was only natural that I should post process. A picture wasn't finished until it was tweaked. On the other hand, I understand that many folks do not want to spend their finite time in either Darkroom or Lightroom (see what I did there?). What I really don't understand is the passion for a position. I love to post process. Someone else hates it. Different strokes. Yet every time the subject comes up (in the recent case in Other Forums it was brought up deliberately by a known agitator) the rocks and bottles start flying.
IF YOU ARE NOT SHOOTING RAW YOU ARE A PHILISTINE!
IF YOU CAN'T GET IT RIGHT IN THE CAMERA YOU ARE LAZY AND CANNOT CALL YOURSELF A PHOTOGRAPHER!!
What up with that?
I've always tried to take the best image I could and was proud to think it could be straight out of the camera, but even then I would use something like Picasa to color correct my raw images and didn't think anything of it. I knew the power of post processing but wasn't a fan wanting to jump head first into the digital darkroom. Maybe I thought if I was spending my time processing I wasn't shooting so while I knew it was good it wasn't for me. Flash forward and I came across an image with texture and that changed everything. It was like my eyes were open for the very first time and I wanted more.
Looking back I remember a lesson I learned in school if you every hear someone say always or never run the other way. S-