I've spent most of the last 40 years working with computers (Apple II, pc/ms dos, Windoze, and more Windoze, and more Windoze, a little Mac, and for the last several years Linux) so the newness has worn off a bit. (Computers have been very, very good to me professionally. ) But I certainly do PP (most of) my photos as I see the need. I have used GIMP and Rawtherapee and found them to very capable. But when I processed raw files, they were pretty much about as good as the im-camera jpegs. So for me, making adjustments to the in-camera jpegs seems to work the best. I almost always need to crop, sometimes adjust color, contrast, brightness, etc., etc. It's just a lot easier for me to work from the jpeg, most of the work is already done.
I have great respect for those who can turn out beautiful art. Unfortunately that isn't me. (For me, if someone says, "That camera takes great pictures," that's a complement.
Yes, I have done darkroom work, and sold some photos over the years (race cars, motorcycles, jumping horses) even sold stories to magazines with photos. Not that they were great art or great photos, pretty much just maybe good (or OK).
I like the instant processing of digital photography, and much prefer post processing on a computer than in a darkroom (and the sitting down rather than standing). But these days (probably at least partially due to advancing age) post processing is just kind of a chore. I do it because I want my photos to be as good as I can make them. But I can get to my level of expertise from the jpeg. For me, working from raw just eats up a lot more time, and results in more frustration, than just touching up the jpeg. Works for me.
I am certainly very glad that raw files are available to those can make use of them, but I know my limitation, so jepgs work best for me.
Thanks for your reply. All the best.
I've spent most of the last 40 years working with ... (