You really trust yourself if you shoot raw don't you?

I'm not sure about that. Compare the automated film processing systems of back then to the automated pre- and post- processing performed by a digital camera set to green box mode and there's probably less (as a percentage) of that type of technical error now than back then. I think it's the sheer volume of images combined with the "free" nature of capturing and distributing digital images (IOW no incentive to take fewer shots or to cull out the junk) that lowers the average quality of the art.

krb wrote in post #11989807
I'm not sure about that. Compare the automated film processing systems of back then to the automated pre- and post- processing performed by a digital camera set to green box mode and there's probably less (as a percentage) of that type of technical error now than back then. I think it's the sheer volume of images combined with the "free" nature of capturing and distributing digital images (IOW no incentive to take fewer shots or to cull out the junk) that lowers the average quality of the art.

But, Ken, the automated processing done by the digital camera does not fix exposure error at all; AWB can address white brightness (within the range of error of AWB implementations like Canon's). Underexposed shot on color neg was made brighter by the attendant of the processing machine.
And the wide lattitude of exposure error of color neg (-2EV to +3EV) also covered up multiple sins of exposure, whereas JPG is pretty intolerant (like color transparency film, which generally was not shot by the snapshooter).
So today we have a less tolerant exposure system , coupled with the lack of compensation by an attendant due to the reliance on the user to have and use photo editing software.

cameraperson wrote in post #11984701
I'm afraid if I shoot RAW that my skills may not be good enough to make the pictures great like they are on here. I know practice makes perfect but I'm a little timid about it.

edit: I don't want to lose that great shot.

Man up

krb wrote in post #11989447
Does "long time" go back to the '70s and '80s? I'd say that the mix of P&S cameras vs SLR cameras was about the same then as it it today. I'd also say that a very large percentage of people back then were shooting consumer grade film and taking it to the local drug store or Fotomat to be developed and printed at 4x6" regardless of whether they were using a P&S or an SLR.

I may have been unclear.

What I'm talking about is shooting with the purpose and will to produce a nice picture or a memory (but still technically adequate), versus clicking away because hey, my every-day-carry gadget can also take photos - ain't that cool?... with the outcome quality being completely irrelevant.

I'm not denying that there have been also lousy pictures in the old times, it's only that today's technology (at least some of it) and zero incremental cost seem to increase their number fast.

It's the '60s too, by the way , perhaps my most successful decade.

That has always been the complaint from "traditional" photographers about new technology, even though the "traditional" photographers of today are happily shooting with technology that was disdained by the "traditional" photographers of yesterday. I figure I have my hands full with my own photographic challenges. For me to pass judgement on the "masses" who are out shooting millions of pics with those damn disposable drug-store cameras...oh, wait, that was a ways back, I mean their automatic cell phone cameras..what a waste of energy!

One big difference I see is that you see the volume go way up because we've moved the model of sharing from living room slide shows and shoving a box of prints under someone's nose to the internet -- anyone can share their photos and they are welcome to it -- it doesn't bother me because I don't have to click on the dang thing! Big deal! To judge people for sharing their photos in this way is, well, not-so-pretty...

Well, as far as I'm concerned, I'm not really "judging" or "criticizing" people who shell out poor photos, although I do try to educate and help them whenever the opportunity arises.

In the context of this discussion I'm primarily pointing out the fact that by forcing free always-carry cameras upon those who do not care about pictures, the industry is actually inducing a decline in the general feeling for the aesthetics in photography.

Which, IMO, is unfortunate.

agedbriar wrote in post #11990808
In the context of this discussion I'm primarily pointing out the fact that by forcing free always-carry cameras upon those who do not care about pictures, the industry is actually inducing a decline in the general feeling for the aesthetics in photography.

Which, IMO, is unfortunate.

The cell phone/smart phone manufacturers and service providers of the world could care less about what they do to the photographic industry!

Hehehe you really have it backwards. Shooting jpeg can be fine, but you really hafta trust yourself that you got the exposure just right!