I know that I have been told a 1000 times that I need to get into post work editing. I find it very monotonous a process. I have seen some post work pictures and actually love the results but it leaves me wondering how much of the photo is the man behind the camera and how much of the photo is the man behind the mouse. I know that a few clicks of the button and it's a rave and craze over some images.

I am so stuck on the film mentality that I would rather take a few hundred shots and come out with 10 useable or near perfect in my eyes shots than to take the time editing.

I am really curios to know are there many that have this kind of attitude/thought process when it comes to taking shots.

When ever I find myself in Manhattan, I try to carve out a little time and hit the galleries to see what's happening. This summer and early fall, I hit the Gary Winogrand show at the Met, The Survey of Latin American Photography 1944-1913 at ICP and the Steven Shore show over in Chelsea.
After the initial delight of seeing prints of classic Winogrand street shots ( full frame and no cropping here) I found myself dragging a bit as one room unfolded into the next. Probably more to do with museum fatigue on my part, rather than Winogrand. As exiting and reading some of the wall texts it became apparent that almost full 25% of the images were posthumously selected from either undeveloped film or negatives. Other than the interest this might have for a
Winogrand scholar, One has to wonder if this is a good idea ?
I could see a case for either way.
The Latin American Survey with the exception of Alberto Korda, was chock full of photographers I had no idea existed. For obvious reasons having to do with the history of the region, the political subjects were particularly powerful. Most, but certainly not all of political subject matter you see shot from here is light weight by comparison. A number of shots had a factual reality that comes from the photographer literally taking his life in own hands without the distanced look of some photo journalism.
Steven Shore, color photo pioneer, despite his established reputation was a breath of fresh air as well. After having gone from one gallery to the next, featuring epic scaled photographic prints with seemingly interchangeable authorship, here was work that didn't rely on the "hey wow factor"of giant prints. The still life shots done in the Ukraine had the hallmark characteristics
that Shore has developed and has been emulated so much by other contemporary photographers. That is the look of the mundane and anonymous that on a quick, lazy or uninformed first glance has the sort of passive presence that seems to have the all the intention of a snap shot. Hardly the case - All the pictorial considerations one would expect are there - just understated and subtle.
Wondering if any one else has seen any of this work and what their impressions were ?