Mitchell wrote:I havent read everything on this thread ( I dont like reading) but from your first post, I dont like editing my picture ethier its like what you said it makes me fill like im not a photographer. and also ive been thinking about this alot that it would be nice just to beable to take amazing photographs right then and there not having to change anything on your computer, to beable to the the exposer and all that stuff right the first time.
so ive been thinkg about getting a film camera to train myself on on to get everything right becuase you dont have a sencond chance really, you can scan then but its alot to do just to fix them.
So you think the answer is to shoot film? You leave me scratching my head with that statement. Because, unless you have your own darkroom and can control the outcome or use a lab that will work with you on custom prints, shooting film makes you nothing more than a snap shooter, about as far away from photography as you can get. Because the fact of the matter is, when you take your film to the local Walmart and they run it through their cheapo processing that is set for all types of cameras, experience levels, etc, you get real bad prints back. Colors may be off, brightness may be off, etc.
For the purists here, I suggest going to the front page of OP and reading the current article "Think like Ansel Adams". Do you think he shot his famous shots by just running them through a standard processing? Do you think his eyes saw what his prints look like? I mean, somewhere between his shooting days and 2009, did Half Dome suddenly become colored and less contrasted? By reading the article you'll find Adams "secret": "Ansel Adams manipulated his images extensively through the use of push-and-pull processing when he developed his sheets of film and then extensive dodging and burning when he printed." I think this is lost on most photographers who complain about those who "post-process" their digital photographs.
Fact of the matter is, you don't need film to "get everything right". If you are shooting crappy in digital, you'll be shooting just as crappy in film. You learn photography by reading, which I understand you don't like, and by NEVER using an auto setting. Yes, learn your camera skills by using all full manual settings. And that requires something more than a point and shoot camera.
And third, if you don't consider working with your images in a darkroom as some part of photography ("it makes me fill like im not a photographer"), you'll never be a photographer. You'll be a snap shooter, wherein your camera or a Walgreen's lab makes all your decisions for you. And today's software, albeit PS or something else, should be considered as your "darkroom".
Anyway, as an artist (not a photographer, as many of you are - because I own a decent camera doesn't make me a photographer) I appreciate the art in the post-process of photographs. I rarely come across a landscape or skyscape in real life that I couldn't approve on in the painting process, why can't a photographer improve on it? And the camera never translates (for me) what it was, as a whole, that I was seeing. Something somewhere is lacking. That is where my paint brushes come in. Or photoshop, for some.