Gavjenks comment regarding more creativity from a more constrained position as a psychological phenomenon got me to thinking
Were the authors of the great novels of years ago, be it William Shakespeare or Dashiell Hammett (The Maltese Falcon, et al) constrained by the fact they used the comparatively clunky old pen and ink or typewriter, respectively? Did the fact that they had to write perfect copy, no erasures, cross-outs, etc, constrain their creativity? Or, more importantly, WHEN did they have their creativity? Perhaps WHERE did they have their creativity? And at what point did they record their creative expressions on paper?
Remembering my many years as a mainframe computer consultant/analyst/programmer, my big creativity point was when I first laid out in my head the blocks of code that had to be written. It was only at/with the pencil and paper (coding forms and punch cards, back then) and later the keyboard at a CRT that I filled in all the details of each chunk of code. One could hardly consider writing code for payroll calculations or inventory creative. It was more like: heres the formulas to use, plug them in. The creativity was more in the conceptualization stages, rather than the doing stages.
For what its worth, the company I work for produces a calendar each year with 12 photos of their equipment in action submitted by employees. I have a very specific photograph in mind I'd like to submit, but need the weather to cooperate to get that foggy night I have in mind. Is my creativity at the point of framing, setting exposure and clicking the shutter? (doing) Or is it when I visualized the photograph in my mind
weeks, if not months, before taking the photograph? (conceptualization) My camera is still in the car waiting for that night.
As far as the great Raw vs JPG debate
I fall into the whatever works for me for that situation category. For situations where the WB is going to change from second to second such as flouresent + incandescent + sodium (or?) vapor lighting all in the same room, trying to get the WB correct in the camera IS impossible
no grey/white/whatever card made can change 60 times per second as does florescent lighting does. So, in those situations, its set the WB in post, theres no other choice. So much for get it right in the camera.
But Id be the first one to admit that when I transitioned from film to digital about 2001, I didnt even know what WB or RAW was, and was perfectly happy leaving my Canon G3 and later, G5 on Auto WB and JPG and firing away. But then, it was a major battle with the very early Photoshop freebie that came with the G3 to get the colors right. I didnt know any better. And I have this forum to thank for their information that there IS such as thing as white balance and how to fix it. Later, reading about raw vs JPG, I switched to raw+JPG and shoot in both 100% of the time. That way, if Im satisfied with the JPGs, I can make quick touch ups and go with it. I also use the JPGs to make my first pass decisions on what to delete and what raws go to Lightroom for editing. And perhaps the big downside of raw (+JPG)?...On the 5D3, it eats memory cards like theres no tomorrow! Ive learned the hard way to carry more than I did when I had a 60D!
So is JPG better than raw? From the lazy photographer point of view, absolutely! It saves editing time and can get me out of the dark room
er
computer room a lot faster! However, at the same time, shooting raw has enabled me to fix nearly everything but mis-composed, missed-focus, camera shake, too-slow shutter speed and the worst of the under/over exposed shots. And dont forget an occasional lens flare or chromatic aberration, or barrel distortion, etc., too!
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/36/36658-525087f40e1bdbfe8b995ce4296ef4a6.jpg?1734169171)
