>>2713362You still favor a process though. And for more than 'results' You could shoot 8x10 film, digitally scan and edit it, and for many situations get significantly better 'results'. But people don't, because it's expensive and inconvenient. More the latter. Process related issues. 35mm is way crappier than 120, yet the miniature camera did amazingly well because of process issues. Even people's choice of which digital camera is a process issue.
>I say raw is probably a better choice becauseit gives you the availability to make better pictures
Last I knew, Daido Moriyama shot a Coolpix S9100. It has no raw mode, and he doesn't care. 'better pictures' is very relative, and shows a process bias. If you really didn't care you wouldn't be curious at all, because you wouldn't care.
>Painting has a level to it that photography doesn't have which is the effort behind it.
I agree with you. It's the process. People still paint photorealism paintings which is literally 100% process. I also agree with you that photography are painting are two different things, but I see little difference between digital painting and tradition painting. A painting being a painting because a person physically and directly put the pigment on the paper is an odd distinction, especially in comparison to analog / digital photography.
I think people hold painting in higher regards because it's readily apparent when you can't paint. Even a child can push a button.
tl;dr I B SHITPOSTIN BB
