I don't want to belittle your efforts. You certai... (
Ok Scotty, a lot of points so let’s take this slowly –
“I don’t want to belittle your efforts” - Nice sentiment.
“… don’t dismiss those who can provide examples where jpeg is just as good.” - That is all fine and good, but nobody has provided any concrete examples. Mostly those who prefer raw over jpg have had the stones to put definitive examples on and have been dismissed for their efforts.
“not all photography is landscape”. I guess I must have been under a rock somewhere and didn’t get the memo. Well, I never said it was. I was shooting Kodachrome 25 when I was 14. And every hour you spend on the computer puts you that much further ahead of every other photographer who doesn’t. Was Ansel Adams a loser for all the time he spent in the darkroom?
“The very best landscape photographers don’t capture on…… 24x36mm sensors.” Yes they do and every day. Galen Rowel shot 35mm. You want more examples, go to 500px. Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Sony and very little if any Phase One. And a lot of these shooters get published. I have been published with images taken with the tiny sensor in a 1st gen Coolpix. I had a gallery showing with pieces from a 6mpx DX sensor to my 36mpx FX sensor.
“normal DR, Active-D…can recover as much shadow detail…..” I work with the camera’s normal settings and I do not use in-camera pre-sets. The journey to the image doesn’t begin and end with activating the Vivid settings or turning the left hand dial to select the scene type. Where is the fun in that?
“….use artificial lighting or reflector and the art is in the lighting, not the post processing.” The art is understanding how to use the tools you have. Artificial lighting is great for portraits and weddings. Joe McNally and Joe Farace have proved that over and over. But I do not shoot those. It is a little impractical to haul a reflector and strobes to the coast to capture a sunrise or to photograph the Milky Way overhead at 2:00am. So I have eliminated a layer of tech and I am the better for it.
“large number of images…..processing…..would be tedious”. Well, if you shoot weddings, yes that could get tedious but that is what Lightroom is good at. Or you could develop a more restrained shooting style and not go full-auto with the frame rate on your camera. On the other hand, don’t you have a fiduciary duty to your client and your reputation to provide the best possible output and therefore you DO put in the time? The result is that you learn what works and what doesn’t and you apply those lessons to the next shoot.
“If you have a hammer…….thinking everything looks like a nail”. My camera is not a hammer. It is fine-tuned machine and it has a very specific purpose in my life. You would be surprised what I pass on. I don’t shoot for the sake of shooting.
The bottom line is subject matter……” Care to define what constitutes a “well-executed boring subject” and why I would take a picture of it in the first place? I think you would get wildly divergent opinions on that subject. One photographer’s “nice capture” is another’s schlock.
I have done weddings, crowds, events, family things, editorial, museums, air shows and yes, landscapes. For images that I want the best possible results I shoot in raw and I build that image from the ground up without whatever gimmicky pre-set is currently in vogue and thinking that it couldn’t get any better. Because, how do you know until you try?
What we have been saying is do what works for you. If you are happy with the results you are getting, fine. However, if you truly want to evolve and become a better artist, then you are going to have to take the training wheels off at some point and expand your universe. What are your aspirations and how do you get there? I honestly thought UHH was about that.