Like all these threads, digital vs film, Ford vs Chevy, Republican vs Democrat and God forbid Canon vs Nikon. People tend to progress to more and more partisan views and bring up examples of marginal areas of usage that 99% aren't going to use in 99% of our photographic journey.
Surely we all really believe that getting it right in the camera is good! Most probably most also believe that no matter whether we use film or digital there are quite a lot of images that can improved by a little work after the shoot.
I grew up in a darkroom and I don't ever expect to go back to film, but one day who knows. Good luck to all of you who use it. As with any different technique there'll be things you can teach us digital guys and we may even be able to make a few suggestions you could find useful. Let's hope so.
This initial thread shouldn't have become as contentious as it's has. Maybe it's time to dial it down a bit. I for one am out of here until it becomes a bit more civil.

I received a PM that worries me.

For some reason folks are starting to doubt that 'getting it right in camera' is not all that important anymore.

THIS IS NOT TRUE. Getting it right in camera is more important than ever.

Post Processing is not a crutch to repair a bad or so-so capture.

Digital cameras have come a long way since their inception in the late 90s. While this is true they still have a long road ahead before becoming all that they can be (recruiting for the Marines now).

Getting it right in camera also means getting it right when saving the picture/data IN CAMERA. A sensor is capable or capturing trillions of colors and uses a dynamic range from 6 to 14. Knowing this the choice of format is as important as 'getting it right'. To save in JPG when you can save in raw you limit your camera output to a few millions instead of trillions and the dynamic range from 2 to 14. Add the compression artifact and you have basically emasculated your camera potential.

I am always puzzled and irritated when I see folks capable of taking great - and I mean great - pictures then destroy their potential because JPG is 'more convenient' and claim 'Hell raw is for sissies and wannabes'. These folks are the first to say 'Get it right' and do everything else wrong. This is plain stupid.

Going back to digital capture. .. Sensors regardless of how good they are have limitations that are easily corrected if you plan for it. This is what one calls 'Shooting for PP'. This is not about correcting the SOOC but correcting/improving the digital output. This is really different than fiddling with sharpness, composition, leveling that all must be done in camera, being part of getting it right.

Good PP is light, subtle and does not include adding or removing stuff that should not be there in the first place, retouching portraits is not included in this statement.

In conclusion:
- Get it right in camera
- Select the right format to maximize your camera capture
- Shoot for PP
- Enjoy your hobby.

This will be considered as rant from an incompetent idiot with no credentials by a few. I don't care.

Folks who do want to improve must take heed as there is no magic recipe for good photography other than planning, know what you are dealing with and take the necessary measures to deal with it.

You worded that wrong. You meant to say, "Now, let me give you a load of mis-informative crap. Digital throws too much information at the new photographer, while learning on film focuses on the basics of exposure, lighting, and procedures of composition. Digital them introduces doing it all with the exceptional confusion of using a computerized capture device and computerized graphic arts mechanism.

So happy to help you correct your misinformation.

That could be why I am making so much money selling film camera's to those who have been overwhelmed by doing everything from A - Z with digital. Sold $2000 worth of used film equipment in the last two week. Bought it for pennies on the dollar because of people who listen to people like you. :mrgreen: