It's unchecked because people refuse to take the v***s seriously, remain socially distanced, wear face masks every time that they leave the confines of their homes, and stay at home as much as possible.

The three diagnosed US cases of the more contagious mutation which was originally found in Great Britain all have one thing in common, none of them had traveled recently.

If any disease or v***s is highly contagious, it's standard procedure to test, trace, isolate and treat the disease or v***s.

Unfortunately the trump administration decided they didn't want to follow the protocols necessary, and which they were left two detailed road maps to follow by the previous two administrations.

So yes, it's attitudes which do play a part in the unchecked spread of the C****av***s across the United States.

Other countries have managed to slow or stop the spread throughout their countries, but the United States has been a huge FAILURE all because of trump and his CULT following.

In my four decades-plus professional career and also as a university professor teaching photojournalism, digital photography and 35mm film photography, I have taught "getting it right in the camera" to mean something different than your premise.

For me teaching "getting it right in the camera" means helping my hundreds of student photographers and those I have also mentored to know their craft and their vision to get their composition, shutter speed, aperture, lens focal length, camera angle, white balance, depth of field and use of lighting right the FIRST time, whenever possible.

IMHO, learning that discipline means less work in post for any photographer. I believe it does no good to be a lazy photographer and leave everything to be adjusted and "fixed" in post. Of course it isn't always possible to get it all right in the camera with changing conditions and breaking action.

Yes I do work in post when it is warranted, and that includes the mandatory processing of my raw captures. And I do crop for impact if I couldn't shoot with a long enough lens. From years of experience photographing around the world in all situations and conditions, I "get it right in the camera" about 95% of the time. Cheers

I always shoot raw+jpeg in my cameras. I use the jpegs for quick review and sharing (those jpegs are processed by the camera's internal processor and algorithms, and every post processing decision is "baked" in) But I use the raw files for my final images.

Here an image that was chosen as a Worldwide Photo of the Week by Sony Alpha Photographers in 2020. From the raw file, Brooke, an Environmental Scientist in a slot canyon near Antelope Canyon, Navajo lands, Page, Arizona, USA. Sony A9 camera, Sony 24-105mm f4 G lens. 24mm f4, 1/60 sec., ambient daylight. I had my exposure ready as we moved through the canyon (which I had never been in before) , but only had a split second to make a single frame before other hikers came through and into the frame. The image isn't cropped, and the only post processing move was to hit auto develop button for the raw image in Lightroom. The jpeg was totally acceptable also and I have posted that online also. (click on the image to see the full quality) Cheers

https://www.facebook.com/GSWilliamsPhotography

There have been several posts lately in which the term "get it right in the camera" has been expressed. This seems to be expressed mostly by those who abhor processing.

Photography is and always will be a two-step process. The first being capturing the exposure. The second is processing that exposure to make a "print".

Those who rely on the 'in-camera' applications to produce a "print" are the equivalent of sending your film to a lab and having someone else do the work. These are the snapshot fans. Their main goal seems to be operating a shutter button.

The photographers, on the other hand, have an understanding of the mechanics of capturing the scene with the final "print" in mind and what it will take to achieve that "print". They understand the placement of tonal values and the process to achieve their visualization of the scene. Their "getting it right" is quite different.

So, here are a couple of examples of my "get it right in the camera". Each was taken with a different camera but the goal was the same, the final "print".
--Bob

"Tom Mountain, the mask-denying vice chairman of the Massachusetts GOP's governing body who attended a largely maskless Hanukkah party at the White House on December 9, has since infected four of his family members with C****-**.

Mountain's wife pleaded with him not to attend the party over fears that he'd get infected with the v***s. He has since given her the v***s as well as his son, his daughter-in-law, and his mother-in-law.

Regarding wearing face masks, Mountain said, "I was one of the naysayers," adding, "I am no longer a naysayer," and "My family tried to dissuade me. I didn't listen."

Mountain said he was "politically and morally obligated to go" to the party, but apparently didn't think he was morally obligated to wear a facemask to avoid infecting his wife and elderly mother-in law.

He said of his fellow partygoers, "People would just leisurely and gingerly take off their mask to mingle, to schmooze. I don't even think some people wore masks the entire time. And again, I was guilty as anyone else. I just wasn't wearing a mask."

The party also flouted C****-** prevention guidelines from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention which encouraged small, limited gatherings rather than one with 100 or more people, like the White House's Hannukah party."