Thanks.
I'm also not an advocate of spray n pray, but I would shoot n reshoot for new angles etc.
One scene I find continuous shots very useful beyond the norm is when doing a group photo.
At post, skewed mouths, closed eyes etc. can be swapped from the better set into a better final image.

Very well done

In my previous sample, it is easy to see the same subject in many poses, but the technique is actually often used. We just do not notice it as much.

Like these sample, every individual was either taken alone or in small groups, then composited together for the publication.

That certainly works.

I used a similar approach when I captured this photo.
https://static.uglyhedgehog.com/upload/2019/2/24/t1-115927-wpp_5757eds.jpg

I have only a vague idea where the fireworks would be, so I just allowed space for it.
https://static.uglyhedgehog.com/upload/2019/3/26/t1-240943-untitled_2a.jpg

In such cases, I try to balance out how much pixels I'm willing to sacrifice.

Post has too much meaning already:

1. send mail
2. show a picture, letter etc. somewhere
3. A tree without limbs and leaves used to hold electric lines
4. A pillar
5. ....

Post processing covers pretty much everything that happens after a certain step (processing), and to photography it fits well to what happens after the image was already captured ( & processed). It is a broad term but nevertheless easy to understand, even for those not into photography.

We usually take photos to grab the moment.
A few plan ahead, and wait for the moment to happen.
Fewer still are those who create the moments themselves.

Often these photos are post processed to make it look better.
Some will go further of removing some elements to get the desired look.
Then there are those who would combine several images to create a totally new graphic.

In all these scenes, we consciously look for the right composition, before we press the button.
Instantaneously in snapshots, and more planned and specific as we delved deeper into post processing.

But when one reaches for the final frontier, when one strives to fully edit an image, then one needs to look beyond the good composition.

One would need to Imagine the Photograph.

Imagining the Photo is looking at it from the perspective of the finished image. Instead of consciously looking for the best composition of the present scene, we treat them as a separate element that will fit into the different final photo.

Hence, depending on the target outcome, we may opt to adjust the perspective, lighting, view angle etc. of scene being photographed.

This technique can used to composite individuals into a group photo.
https://static.uglyhedgehog.com/upload/2020/3/15/t1-101788-me_myself_and_i.jpg

In the sample below, a single box is made into a group with a breakdown of how the shoot was planned.

Although this technique cater specifically to editing, being able to Imagine the photograph is like an open gate to fully understanding and planning a composition, and IMHO, something worthwhile to practice and keep in ones bag of techniques.

Neither is easier as they are complete opposites, hence not really an apples to apples comparison.
That would just depend on which one a photographer likes or more comfortable with.
Posing can be made to look authentic. Just look at the movies, where scenes are directed.
As for the skill, both will add their own magic. A good photographer can eke out good stuffs from a mediocre model, whilst a good model can give the best opportunities.

Do both. They both have their place.


Some scenes works best as candid photos;
https://static.uglyhedgehog.com/upload/2020/11/7/t1-164218-12.jpg
https://static.uglyhedgehog.com/upload/2020/3/16/t1-58547-gfl3e.jpg
https://static.uglyhedgehog.com/upload/2022/12/28/2718-t1_325111_wpp9382cs.jpg


While posed images allows us to leverage our creativity.
https://static.uglyhedgehog.com/upload/2019/10/1/t1-252097-dscf1515esig.jpg
https://static.uglyhedgehog.com/upload/2021/12/9/t1-47563-t1_254628_dsc_2752es2.jpg

Stop distorting facts to fit your narrative.Those two posts are answers to 2 different posts.
Are you deliberately misunderstanding what you read to fit your belief or really lacking in reading comprehension?
By the way, I still stand firm for both previous post.

To clarify, My disagreement is with the idea that the difference in quality relies on power of the camera vs power of a pc.

Why I can not agree with that thought?
The file is already in the buffer. The computer in the camera have the whole day to crunch the number if it wants to. The speed of the cameras computer is not a factor.

JPEG compression is the same whether it happens fast or slow, in the camera or at post.

The major factor are the settings chosen by the operator. Whether in camera or on an editing software afterwards, the brain behind the tools is what matters. In other words, don't blame the tool. Use it properly, where it is meant for and get the best result it can provide.

Which brings me to-why are you accusing me of not knowing what affects JPEG compression when you are the one who stated that the prepost settings are part of JPEG?

Summing up your slip-ups, it is very clear to me now that though you may show technical knowledge, you do not have the practical understanding of JPEG. You did not understand that my statement is not about JPEG compression, but rather about situations where JPEG is a poor choice, showing your ignorance if not arrogance of the subject. Sometimes you make me think of the adage; "those who can not do, teaches".

You have been a very clear advocate of RAW.
But you are now your showing us an image that you says is a good JPEG SOOC, to prove I am wrong because your shot do not fit my criteria which would creating a good jpeg.

Have you looked at your image closely? Do you not see the very obvious speckling in sky and in the flat colored areas of the image?

.

Your image only prove I am correct. Beyond the tools design, it creates less ideal images


The same speckling happens on the solid fields.

I'm trying my best to inform that, there is no reason to polarise between the 2 dissimilar format with dissimilar purpose.

Use what fits the need, and what one is comfortable with.
Art, beauty & perfection in most minds is arbitrary.
No need to step on others who do not follow ones process or way of thinking.

"No one is blaming the tool and in part it is the fault of jpeg" ?

Make up you mind which side you are on. You yourself is blaming jpeg.

it is the fault of jpeg to let the photographer down?
Isn't it the photographer who choose what to do? But we blame the tools?

With a specific requirement. No alteration/editing.

"If there is no intention of altering an image after taking it, is there any advantage in shooting RAW vs. JPG, such as greater sharpness, etc.?"

Thats the original post.