Quoted By:
The thing that scares me with DSLRs is that I know I'll need to edit to get a good picture, and that editing is generally considered part of the "art" digital photography. This means that you have a whole different skill to master which is secondary to taking the photograph, although one that should still be considered when making the shot. I am aware that historically, much editing was done between negative and print as well, however in the modern day it seems to me that there is less emphasis on post-processing film photographs. With digital photographs there are so many more variables under your control, and I find it quite dizzying to contemplate. Additionally, not all tools or programs are the same. Since I shoot primarily in black and white, I've gotten used to only squeezing as much DR out of my scans as I can, and not much else. I'm also a little baffled over what I should call my final product: the thing you see on the screen, the print, or the negative. In the old days, you'd produce a limited run of prints all possessing the same painstakingly-determined minor alterations derived from experimentation. There was no clone tool, no content-aware healing tool. Now, it is so much easier to modify the photo, and the possibilities for modification are endless. I find it quite daunting. I need at least /some/ constraints.
