In my world at least,and I suspect in many others, proflic <> great, prolific <> good.
The good ones, ones worth keeping are far and few between, and the excellent ones even more rare. So routinely running a bunch of images through a workflow, only to have done so, and then writing them to some directory on a hard drive, possibly not to be viewed again (the vast majority not worthy of further processing), is a bit akin to taking a roll of film down to the local 'one size fits all 1 hour mini-lab', getting the prints and negs back, and then throwing them in a box somewhere. Again this is for me, and the way I work. I can tell quickly when looking at the RAW images, which are worthy of futher consideration and which are dustbin fodder. And those worthy of further consideration, aside from a handful, here or there, will likely not benefit from the same post-processing. So do those of you using workflow do it largely for organizational purposes? Tom C. > > If I were starting out again in stills and wanted to organise my work, > I'd try Lightroom and Aperture for sure - I think the workflow thing > with a prolific photographer would be pretty crucial. > > That said, I'm so comfortable with CS that I wouldn't give it up. > > > -- > > > Cheers, > Cotty > > > ___/\__ > || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche > ---------- http://www.cottysnaps.com > _____________________________ > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
