First off, you don't have the knowledge to make such a broad statement, that I know nothing of photography. I bought my first SLR in 1974, an Olympus OM-1. I have owned many cameras since then and, from MY own personal experience I felt qualified to say that I never once felt compelled to build a darkroom. I took pictures and framed them and still have some that are over 40 years old hanging on my wall. None, of which were post processed by anyone other than Kodak. I never had an interest in post processing then and little interest in it now. I was speaking of my own personal beliefs and not quoting history of giving a history lesson. That doesn't make my opinion historically inaccurate. After all I started my post as a musing not as a historical statement.
Please explain to me how your post helped the questioner decide whether to use RAW or JPEG files? And explain to me how you know whether I was talking about professional photographers or just the day-to-day photographer that bought a camera to document their vacation? I was generalizing and you were targeting. You seem to assume I was representing myself as a photography historian.
I have only been a member for a short while but I can see you have to have thick skin to speak out. This will probably be my last post. I joined to learn more since I am retiring at the end of he year. It amazes me that people will attack other people while ignoring the question. No wonder this post is over 10 pages long...
I am wondering if there is a difference in photography and post processing. Photography is exposing light to film or a sensor. Post processing is the manipulation of that image to produce a specific result. Back in the day, the purpose of photography was to reproduce an image of what one saw with the naked eye. Today, post processing is taking that image and making it look the way YOU want it to look. Sometimes if makes the image look more "lifelike" and sometimes it is the persons' own interpretation of what looks good to them.
I would say, if you are happy with the way an image looks and you don't want to blow it up to life size proportions, then a JPEG will do. If you consider yourself a post processing artist then you need the RAW file to process. I just bought a camera that shoots both so I shoot both. So far, I have only "processed" maybe 2 out of 100 RAW images. Is it worth it then? I haven't decided. Right now I have too many others things I enjoy and I sit behind a computer 9 1/2 hours a day and the thought of sitting down at night or on weekends to spend more time on a sedentary activity is not for me. I took up photography 43 years ago to take pictures of the great outdoors. I spend enough time behind a computer as it is. But that is me.
I just recently bought a camera that shoots RAW so I shoot both RAW and JPEG at the same time. So far, maybe 1 out of 10 needs RAW processing. That isn't really why I take pictures so it is mostly a waste for me. I take so many pictures I can't print and hang them on the wall. Not enough wall. I don't shoot professionally I shoot for my own pleasure. I have yet to show one of my photos to someone and have them say, "you should have done some post processing." Personally, I think we are talking about two different things.
One is taking the best picture you can with the camera you own. The other is about processing. If you take a picture with the thought that you will "fix it in post processing," I think that is o.k. Just not for me. I am an outdoor person and my camera gets me out there. I am in it for the hunt not for the cleaning and eating.
All I am saying is there is more than the obvious reason for shooting in either format. Some are just esoteric to the person. Photograph, like any hobby develops over time. What might be right for you today might not be tomorrow. Do both and develop your own style. My thought is that right now I don't have the time to do the post processing but when I retire at the end of the year, I want that option.
I would put that one on my wall for certain...
Very nice picture and thanks so much for including the additional information. That is the reason I joined this forum.
I feel so sorry for Ernie and I quote, ..."I need a laptop to keep out in the living room area now, that would be so much better than using my phone for FB, emails, etc. when not on the PC which is in a separate office." Instead of suggestions limited to that, he got involved in a heated debate over Apple vs Everybody else. And, on top of that. caused me to show my ignorance involving my knowledge of photography. I have only been a member for a short time but I understand why people go silent with their responses. The one thing I know for sure and not even being a knowledgeable photographer is, They say a picture is worth a thousand words. A lot of space could have been saved if Luke would have just posted a picture of all of his Apple equipment. But at least I now know what I need to buy if I want a laptop to check my e-mail in my living room. A three thousand dollar Macintosh. Poor Ernie. Hey, how about a Apple I-pad instead??
This is what kills me about this forum. People asks one question and they get 10 different answers not addressing the question. The person already had a photo editing system they were happy with. They just wanted something they could use in the living room and most likely when they travel. I just don't think they were expecting to pay $2,000 bucks then sell it in on Craig's list 2 years from now. Read the question...ANSWER the QUESTION...
Sounded like an advertisement for Apple Products.
Hmmmm.....if it is worth another $1,000 bucks, by all means. And BTW, trade in your current camera for a Leica or a Hasselblad. I mean, if you want the very best and most expensive...
How embarrassing... At least no one got shot. Oh, and what an idiot.
I spent 10 days in Utah and did every site but Capitol Gorge, just ran out of time. Now I am so sorry I rushed through. These pictures are just too cool. I guess I will have to go back!
When I opened this up I asked myself why? As I read through, (skimmed) through. I kept asking myself why. Why does it matter so much 30 or 40 people would chime in. But when I got to the end, my goal, I read jaymatt's answer. Very short, succinct. And the reality.
Take golf which I think everyone understands and presents a good analogy. There is the amateur circuit where they let amateurs play with pros as amateurs. They can play with the pros and be amateurs their entire career. But once they accept money for playing they are considered a professional. It really is as simple as that and all of the esoteric replies become irrelevant.
I don't disagree with any of the previous posts and would just add that, since they don't really make photo laptops, the closest thing to it is gaming computers due to the need for robust graphic cards. Get both types of drives, use the solid state for working with the photos and save them to the HDD drive. You will get the most bang for your buck with gaming laptops since they don't need to be modified. They are off-the-shelf ready. Cheapest way to go. Its up to you how far you want to go with the graphic cards, memory but I agree i7 quad core. Monitors are a whole nother ball of wax.