[monochrome]

Many people already spend enough time in front of screens and the last thing they often want is more screen-time in a hobby.

As you can tell I don't completely agree with much of what you write (though I am generally empathetic with your general theme) - but on this I agree with you.

I detest post processing. I shoot RAW+ because most of my images are good enough out-of-camera. Every so often I get lucky and a file is worth developing, so I do - but I really don't want to spend the time.

[Uluru]

The point of a camera is to record an image. Making that recorded image easier to view (and/or manipulate) is core to a camera's abilities and anything which facilitates this is hardly "desperate measures". In the context we're considering, I'd think it an advance. It's giving more power to the user, for a start....

Well yes, we get that. The whole modern economic principle is around "giving more power to the user". And what's the consequence of that everyone's mantra?

The time which user needs to claim all that sheer power given to him/her by every single vendor is instantly gone! There is no time to enjoy all that power. If you're promoted a king but given no time to enjoy your reign, the whole thing is mockery, an illusion.

That is why digital photography, with addition of more wireless and more 'immediate" things multiplied by number of images you can take, in the end lead to the meaninglessness of the image. The smartphone is not making photography more popular — the smartphone is killing the very essence of it.

The whole venture, from buying a camera that mimics the smartphone to shooting with it becomes pointless because there is no time to access all the images you can take and enjoy them, as they deserve.

No time for reflection, less thinking time, less intelligence. Pointless and shoot.

[gazonk]

I detest post processing. I shoot RAW+ because most of my images are good enough out-of-camera. Every so often I get lucky and a file is worth developing, so I do - but I really don't want to spend the time.

I don't quite understand the problem. I shoot raw and import the images - which is done in no time on a modern laptop with ssd and a fast sd card. If I think they're good out of the camera, I just enjoy them in full screen mode in aperture. Processing is virtually instant. If I'd used raw+, I'd just waste disk space. If I'd used jpeg, I'd just lose pp options!

[IchabodCrane]

Well yes, we get that. The whole modern economic principle is around "giving more power to the user". And what's the consequence of that everyone's mantra?

The time which user needs to claim all that sheer power given to him/her by every single vendor is instantly gone! There is no time to enjoy all that power. If you're promoted a king but given no time to enjoy your reign, the whole thing is mockery, an illusion.

That is why digital photography, with addition of more wireless and more 'immediate" things multiplied by number of images you can take, in the end lead to the meaninglessness of the image. The smartphone is not making photography more popular — the smartphone is killing the very essence of it.

The whole venture, from buying a camera that mimics the smartphone to shooting with it becomes pointless because there is no time to access all the images you can take and enjoy them, as they deserve.

No time for reflection, less thinking time, less intelligence. Pointless and shoot.

The photography world's edition of Ecclesiastes.

[Aristophanes]

I don't quite understand the problem. I shoot raw and import the images - which is done in no time on a modern laptop with ssd and a fast sd card. If I think they're good out of the camera, I just enjoy them in full screen mode in aperture. Processing is virtually instant. If I'd used raw+, I'd just waste disk space. If I'd used jpeg, I'd just lose pp options!

RAW is not a common use. For every DSLR sold I bet less than 1/3 of the market uses RAW. Most shooters go straight to JPEG.

Problem is, RAW needs a PC, JPEG does not. JPEG can do Wi-Fi readily (some file size limits), and since the personal use and home use markets are veering swiftly towards mobile OS's and not desk/laptop OS's, DSLR's need to be better able to deal with mobile OS's as the dominant, non-RAW, platform.

Not there yet. Costing sales.

[northcoastgreg]

Saying most DSLR users shoot RAW is like saying most SLR buyers had a darkroom.

Where did I say most DSLR users shoot RAW? Please don't distort what I said to gain argumentative advantage. The fact is that neither one of us knows exactly how many DSLR users shoot RAW. We're just guessing based on anecdotal experience. You're anecdotal evidence is that you see a lot of DSLR owners and you assume, although you do not know, that most of them shoot JPG. That's hardly adequate grounds for inferring that most DSLR users shoot JPG. Most of the DSLR users shoot RAW. But I don't infer from that that most DSLRs users shoot RAW, only that it is unlikely that most don't. Note that I began my previous post with "I doubt." I don't really care if someone believes that most DSLR users don't shoot RAW. It's the categorical, ex cathedra manner in which it is asserted that I object to.

Making that recorded image easier to view (and/or manipulate) is core to a camera's abilities and anything which facilitates this is hardly "desperate measures".

There's a misunderstanding here. Making recorded images easier to view and manipulate is not the desperate measure I referred to, it's assuming that doing so well make entry level cameras profitable. Improving the viewing and manipulation of images does not qualify as a major upgrade. Cash strapped consumers are not likely to upgrade merely for that. Now that doesn't mean such features shouldn't be added. If (and unfortunately it may be a big if) these features are added sensibly, with photographic, rather than engineer-centric/gearhead values in mind, such features might be welcome.

[Aristophanes]

Where did I say most DSLR users shoot RAW? Please don't distort what I said to gain argumentative advantage. The fact is that neither one of us knows exactly how many DSLR users shoot RAW. We're just guessing based on anecdotal experience. You're anecdotal evidence is that you see a lot of DSLR owners and you assume, although you do not know, that most of them shoot JPG. That's hardly adequate grounds for inferring that most DSLR users shoot JPG. Most of the DSLR users shoot RAW. But I don't infer from that that most DSLRs users shoot RAW, only that it is unlikely that most don't. Note that I began my previous post with "I doubt." I don't really care if someone believes that most DSLR users don't shoot RAW. It's the categorical, ex cathedra manner in which it is asserted that I object to.

Object all you want. It's the SUV argument where people were buying 4WD's designed for quite heavy off-road use (not just some heavy snow) and then never taking them into conditions where 4WD would be useful. It's called over-purchasing, and it's endemic, North America in particular.

There is a lot of assumptions amongst prosumers that just because THEY use pro features, like RAW, everyone who buys into their product class does the same. Therefore the product class gets defined as doing x for y market on z terms.

I do know that the most popular places to demonstrate photography use only JPEG. I suspect that the camera manufacturers know the vast majority of users even up the product chain will aim straight to Flickr, FB, SmugMug, etc. without ever a stop in the PP "lab". Flickr lets you browse EXIF and it's all there.

Conjecture then would support looking back at history pre-digital and, lo and behold, darkrooms were a hobby and SLR's were very, very mainstream on a scale that dwarfed the darkroom. SLR to lab was the most common route, particularly for colour.

Has that habit changed now that people buy DSLR's? I highly doubt it. The same people who bought darkrooms are now the same market captured by Lightroom or Aperture. The rest use iPhoto or Picasa in JPEG only and even that is being skipped in favour of straight to camera and online. We know this because PC uptake in the developing world where a huge chunk of camera sales growth has been, are not invested in the home PC. So those photos are getting online either direct from camera, from smartphone, from tablet, or from shared resources like institutional computers. Most likely it is done through the most economical path.

I bet if we compared DSLR sales to Lightroom sales we'd see a chasm.

[mecrox]

There's a misunderstanding here. Making recorded images easier to view and manipulate is not the desperate measure I referred to, it's assuming that doing so well make entry level cameras profitable. Improving the viewing and manipulation of images does not qualify as a major upgrade. Cash strapped consumers are not likely to upgrade merely for that. Now that doesn't mean such features shouldn't be added. If (and unfortunately it may be a big if) these features are added sensibly, with photographic, rather than engineer-centric/gearhead values in mind, such features might be welcome.

Ah, sorry, my bad. No, I don't suppose folks will upgrade for only minor changes anymore than someone would buy the same novel over again because there had been some minor changes to a chapter in the middle. However, at least some companies surely have a good track record of introducing changes which are thought through. And every year which passes brings forward another generation of potential camera-owners who aren't upgraders but new buyers. My guess is that increasingly those new buyers will expect the kind of software features we were considering earlier.

[mecrox]

Well yes, we get that. The whole modern economic principle is around "giving more power to the user". And what's the consequence of that everyone's mantra?

The time which user needs to claim all that sheer power given to him/her by every single vendor is instantly gone! There is no time to enjoy all that power. If you're promoted a king but given no time to enjoy your reign, the whole thing is mockery, an illusion.

That is why digital photography, with addition of more wireless and more 'immediate" things multiplied by number of images you can take, in the end lead to the meaninglessness of the image. The smartphone is not making photography more popular — the smartphone is killing the very essence of it.

The whole venture, from buying a camera that mimics the smartphone to shooting with it becomes pointless because there is no time to access all the images you can take and enjoy them, as they deserve.

No time for reflection, less thinking time, less intelligence. Pointless and shoot.

Lol, have you been reading too much Dostoevsky lately as well These things are to make of what you will. You don't have to be ruled by them and if you don't get on with them, just bin them. I mean, if someone wants the discipline of having to think carefully about every single shot, there are scores of film-era cams on fleabay, models which used to be top end and very expensive but now yours for 50 bucks or so. I'm tempted by a Nikon F3, always wanted one, hundreds of bucks above my pay grade back in the day, can be had now for the cost of a couple of SD cards. As for "no time for reflection", I completely agree; speediness is one of the banes of life. But it's also a choice: if you really want to, you can make the time for reflection.

[Clavius]

Well yes, we get that. The whole modern economic principle is around "giving more power to the user". And what's the consequence of that everyone's mantra?

The time which user needs to claim all that sheer power given to him/her by every single vendor is instantly gone! There is no time to enjoy all that power. If you're promoted a king but given no time to enjoy your reign, the whole thing is mockery, an illusion.

That is why digital photography, with addition of more wireless and more 'immediate" things multiplied by number of images you can take, in the end lead to the meaninglessness of the image. The smartphone is not making photography more popular — the smartphone is killing the very essence of it.

The whole venture, from buying a camera that mimics the smartphone to shooting with it becomes pointless because there is no time to access all the images you can take and enjoy them, as they deserve.

No time for reflection, less thinking time, less intelligence. Pointless and shoot.

I like this point. The opposite is what we enthusiasts notice when we progress in our photography hobby. The more serious we get, the more time we take in gathering inspiration, thinking out our scene, setting up or manipulating the scene, calibrating equipment, post processing, reviewing photos, etc. Luckily, it then becomes impossible for us to take hundreds of pictures of every bird, flower or family member we encounter each day.

[tclausen]

I like this point. The opposite is what we enthusiasts notice when we progress in our photography hobby. The more serious we get, the more time we take in gathering inspiration, thinking out our scene, setting up or manipulating the scene, calibrating equipment, post processing, reviewing photos, etc. Luckily, it then becomes impossible for us to take hundreds of pictures of every bird, flower or family member we encounter each day.

This thread somehow appears to have evolved to a point where this is appropriate:
http://xkcd.com/1227/

[Clavius]

This thread somehow appears to have evolved to a point where this is appropriate:
xkcd: The Pace of Modern Life

Magic! That does put things back in perspective.

[bxf]

To suggest that PP is not essential at least some times, is to suggest that darkroom manipulation was not a big factor in producing some great photographs of the past.

Moonrise would not be moonrise without a darkroom.

[gazonk]

RAW is not a common use. For every DSLR sold I bet less than 1/3 of the market uses RAW. Most shooters go straight to JPEG.

I'm pretty sure most DSLR owners still have at least a laptop. And my point really was just shaking my head that even members of this forum thinks using RAW is more cumbersome than using JPEG. If you have a fast laptop, the only real problem with RAW files is that they are large. In general, using RAW files is easier, because they're easier to process when exposure or WB is off.

[Aristophanes]

I'm pretty sure most DSLR owners still have at least a laptop. And my point really was just shaking my head that even members of this forum thinks using RAW is more cumbersome than using JPEG. If you have a fast laptop, the only real problem with RAW files is that they are large. In general, using RAW files is easier, because they're easier to process when exposure or WB is off.

I'm pretty sure based on PC and laptop sales they will not in the very near future. Any camera maker that bases their future sale on whether the consumer has a desktop or laptop OS is in trouble because as those products cycle through, they are being replaced with mobile OS's.

The emerging dominant OS for home use and personal use are mobile OS's. If that's where your output and consumption platform is going (and it's not print), then you input has to go there as well. I am not convinced that mobile OS's are capable of handling RAW, especially as mobile OS's are usually not hardwired, so even transmission is an issue.

Most people do not do much PP at all. In fact, as a test group beta tester for a major software program, my feedback is that the Auto feature is by far the most used adjustment.

The majority of DSLR purchasers the goal is to take a photo, not process one. They really do expect that to be done automatically, not with manual input and oversight, plus the education and technical knowledge context.