hey now. it would be handy imo. Those from the film era would probably love it. Those that never quite learned to use a camera and rely heavily on post processing probably not so much, but they could use it to better their shooting (and the newbies and everyone really).
post processing does cover a lot of sin sometimes. which isn't beneficial in learning to shoot.
Not that I disagree in principle but I think folks are going to get better feedback and help if they post in a forum specific to the subject matter.
I've got a lot more advice to offer folks taking zoo or wildlife type pics than I do for say someone taking landscapes.
Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk
true. suppose im just encouraging the traditional learning format and fundamentals before the pp learning. Everyone really should be made to start off in film and work up to digital. LOL As I think people that get involved in pp to fast or rely on it heavy never quite get the fundamentals and in camera down but use pp for a crutch.
First, there was a lot of post done in the film era. The terms "airbrushed", and "retouched" didn't suddenly evolve in the digital era
.The tools (and blending modes) in Ps derive their names from their analog counterparts. Right now the big hullabaloo is about too much Ps. When I was a kid it was about too much "retouching", and all the "airbrushed" models. Things really haven't changed.
As far as people starting with film. Ugh. That would severely slow down the learning process. With digital you have instant feedback. If you take a shot and it doesn't come out right, you know right away. You can analyze the situation, determine what went wrong, and try again. Immediately, not a week later. Assuming you kept a log of course. As far as people getting really good at post processing before they learn the fundamentals of photography; outside of retouchers and illustrators, that's actually pretty rare. The ability to throw a bunch of filters at a picture doesn't indicate someone is good at post processing. 100 people on Facebook going "ooh, how pretty" doesn't mean anything either. Those people who have put in the time and effort to learn can usually tell when someone is just throwing things at an image to see what sticks vs people who have a developed skill and style. Processing and shooting go hand in hand. As you get better at both your shooting process changes. You'll spend less time shooting in a reactionary manner, and more time preconceiving shots. As your post processing workflow advances you'll learn to shoot with your post processing in mind. You'll be able to see a finished image that may not look anything like the scene in front of you, and you'll be able to shoot it in a way to best accommodate your workflow.
Either way however, it's pretty hard to hide a turd. Beyond that of course I have to ask,
what does it matter to you? If someone is better at processing than shooting what does that matter to you? It in no way effects the kind of critique your images will receive. If you post an image for critique it will be taken on it's own, not analyzed as a comparison to someone else work. According to the Colonoscopic Statistical Recovery Bureau, 99.9% of all people with cameras are hobbyists, meaning that it's very likely the people posting and critiquing are in it for personal enjoyment, not competition. So don't worry about the other guy, worry about yourself.
You knew whatIwasSaying! 
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/31/31710-590f3b7a6de1d798bc007b6ace9cf234.jpg?1734160388)
