The Wrong Question

Dale Neill, the superb professional photographer from Fremantle, has a catch line on his Facebook posts that says when we think Photoshop is the answer, we've asked the wrong question. Agree with him or not, his results as a pro shooter, judge, and writer tend to confirm his opinion. He teaches people to think away from their computer and editing program. Do I believe he's right? Many times I do, and with this particular question I think it revolves somewhat on the idea of quantity - I think he's spot-on when he teaches people to avoid long, hard sessions of computer editing. He teaches them to think beforehand and get the exposures, focus, and composition right before they press the shutter button. He's sort of a jpeg of photography teachers... However, there are occasions. I well remember spending an evening getting a perfect print from a medium-format colour negative in the RA-4 days. Repeated test prints, repeated processing errors, and finally a wonderfully perfect 12 x 16 print all the way through the baths to the final wash. And then hitting it with a sharp object - right in a patch of smooth colour. After the language settled, and the print dried, the repair work commenced. If it had been a monochrome I would have grabbed the three-bottle pack from Spotone and diluted some dye to make the trouble invisible. I did have some spotting pens that had colours on them. but nothing of the exact shade. Even my daughter's watercolour paint set was not much of a help. I did get the red spot close, but there was no cigar. Had I been digitally inkjetting it and found a ratty spot, I could have dodged it out with one mouse click. None of this contradicts Dale's very valid point about getting your image right in your camera before you expose it. I try to do that myself and it always pays off in better images and less after-market processing. But I still recall that most ocean liners carry a row of boats on the sides in case the waters get icy and the ice gets big. Accidents do happen and the ability to push a bad RAW file into a program and get a good image out the other side is priceless. Do all the programs treat us well? No. I have one in my computer that mangles the RAW files from my Fujifilm cameras. It has charms and I am familiar with the processes, but it is not as good as could be got. So I have lately decided to use the excellent jpeg results from my Fujifilms and take far more care in the studio to make sure that their output is so close to what I'll ultimately want that there is very little processing needed. I would not have this confidence in field shooting with quick decisions - I would still opt for RAW + jpeg recording so that I could carry as many lifeboats as needed. Am I sacrificing best for better? Quite frankly I am at an age when adequate seems just what I need. My secret super power is the ability to recognise it when I see it and not be driven by advertising that encourages me to worry. That said, are you really sure you're doing the right thing...?