>>3278045>I've got news for you kiddo, fuji sooc jpegs can be identified from a mile awayThat's interesting to claim that since they have no singular look and highly customizable settings.
> and film photography needs post processing just like digital does.Most film photography post production was simple pushing and pulling because you were incapable of altering your ISO mid-roll in any other way. Dodging and burning has never been common practice, except as additional methodology for recovering over or underexposed film shots (which was MOST shots in the early days because shutter speeds were also limited). The exception are a handful of dedicated autistic landscape photographers who were shooting with sheets of film larger than you've ever even printed. The early popularity of write-ups about these methodologies on the early internet is responsible for fostering a far stronger conviction on the necessity of post production in the modern era than ever existed in the film era, save for minor color-corrections and global exposure adjustments.
All of these things can be accomplished in-camera, after the photo has been taken if you're shooting jpeg+raw, with a modern camera, and this is the obvious field dream of people that spend more time shooting than they have time to edit. The popularity of RAW processing is higher online than in real life because the internet is the realm of the armchair expert and the guy who pretends his life is more exciting than it truly is. If you take 10 images a week, you're much more likely to overvalue RAW and undervalue JPEG. If you shoot 600 photos a day on average, you start to see the benefits of a competent JPEG engine.
Before you go finding that one Magnum image with excessive dodging and burning, I went ahead and grabbed it for you. We've all seen it, and most of us have been at a stage before where we used it as an example to claim how much post-processing was a thing in the film era.
