Tweet
I don't doubt that I get much better results with my digital gear than I used to with film cameras (35mm specifically). But it dawned on me that I spend a great deal of time copying files to the computer, sorting them, post-processing, and maybe print some.
Professionals are definitely having to work much harder than in the film era as much less of the work is sub-contracted to labs.
In the 'old' days, I'd drop the film off at the lab and get my negs and prints back either later that day or in a few days, depending on the urgency. Black and white was a bit different as I processed and printed myself. I did dabble with colour printing but it was expensive and relatively difficult. Later, of course, the dark room was usurped by film scanning.
I calculate I spend more time sorting out my photography these days than I ever did with film. The advent of RAW images has definitely added to the workload. And then there is the issue of protecting our images with metadata tags, watermarks, and all that. And I haven't yet mentioned uploading to websites, or even creating and managing your own websites.
Do you find it's similar for you? Should we expect the images from our cameras to be better to start with so they need less tweaking? Should we have to work this hard for our hobby or profession?
I certainly do not miss the effort that the dark room required, particularly for an amateur (getting the equipment out of the closet, setting up the bathroom, mixing chemicals, etc.), not to mention filing and organizing negatives, keeping them with the appropriate proof sheet and so forth. Shooting color slides was easier (in terms of organizing later), but printing was expensive either way you went: either through using an internegative for the conventional print route, or, using the Cibachrome process for the direct print route. I had much rather be sitting at a computer with instant access to all my files as opposed to having them in boxes or filing cabinets which would require a hand filing system, etc. So I do not miss those days at all.
However, that said, what is true, except possibly in that rareified world of fashion photography or high priced Hollywood sets, the photographer does much more post processing with digital than the typical negative/print photographer of yesterday. For one thing, that was always one of the primary advantages to me of digital, once the results approached film quality: that I didn't have to send my negatives away (even down the street) for processing. I had the product in my hands, and could download it to my very own computer, work on it when I wished (in my skivvies if I wanted). For another, it was a rarity that professional photographers (at least the ones I knew) did their own darkroom work. Although doubtless most were acquainted with how to do it, most people simply didn't.
Finally, one has to take into account the obiquity of the computer and the extent to which everyone must be computer literate in today's world. (You can't even get fast food without encountering numerous computers in the process.) Consequently, post processing of a digital image is basically an expectation that would generally be held for the professional photographer (whereas astute darkroom work would not have been years ago).
So, to the extent that the dedicated amateur (not to mention the professional) seeks to retain control over his work, it is to that extent that he will also put time in on post production in this digital age.