George,
but, boy, did Kodachrome add pizzazz to landscapes! I'm not talking about the negative aspects of particular types of film but the "look" they gave you. Kodachrome always gave us that punchy, contrasty, in-your-face color. And the negative films had their own look, too whether Kodak or Fuji.

My point is the same as yours: once you capture the image, how you reproduce it in media (prints, websites, etc.) depends totally on your vision of that image and not just what the camera's sensor picked up. Having spent my own time in the darkroom breathing hypo-clearing agent I can tell you that magic happened back there in the dark . We were able to tone down those highlights and pull up those shadows, to dodge and burn and make the images look the way they should look.

Today, PS lets us do much of that. And, yes, I usually shoot RAW as well because I like the ability to control the post-processing in a way not possible with jpegs. But when I do shoot jpeg, I use a profile that gets me as close as possible to the look I want. And I guess I can't help but make the analogy to film in that look.

Tony, I'm glad those film days are gone, too. But I do like to sometimes recreate that look of TriX pushed to as high an ISO as possible. Ah, the grain . . . .

Jim