I don't find it odd at all. Of course, I asked it. What I find odd is that one would use an *automated* *image adjustment workflow* in a manner that is like taking ones images to a 3rd party processor and having all images processed using the same parameters. One might get consistently mediocre or even decent results, but likely not optimal, unless each image in the batch being processed was very similar, and the adjustments were tuned to that batch or standard set of shooting conditions.
No surely, I don't mean that, and surely you don't believe me to be that stupid. Tom C. On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi <gdigio...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Tom C <caka...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> ... So do those of you using workflow do it largely for organizational >> purposes? > > The question is rather odd. The term "workflow" can be applied to any > sequenced series of steps that take you from one state to another in > accomplishing a task. Conceptually, a computer program is a very > precise workflow. We use workflows to do everything ... > > Surely you don't mean that you do your image processing by randomly > pushing and shoving on various controls until something looks good? > That's a scary thought: a terribly inefficient way to do it. > > -- > Godfrey > godfreydigiorgi.posterous.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.
