On 14 Oct 2004 at 8:28, Don Sanderson wrote: > I was thinking the other day that all in all I spend MORE > time achieving a final print with digital then when I did it > all wet.
I've spent a day in the darkroom on one print and 1minutes preping a digital image for print, it really does depend on the desired result vs the original images and your skill. That said I wouldn't hesitate to say that in the long term once you are as familiar with digital post production techniques as you are with darkroom techniques the digital process will yield the largest time savings. > I do see however that being able to take more exposures without > additional cost and (very) roughly proof these on the LCD is > an advantage. I too was much stingier with film. A big positive in my books. > I am using the Pentax software and PS 7.01 plug-in to convert the > RAW files, perhaps that is a big part of my problem. > I'll pick up the CS upgrade today and see how it goes. > I've seen some excellent examples of images from the D taken by > you folks and was really wondering why mine were so inferior. > Is it simply the algorithms used in the CS convertor that > result in a superior end result? In really basic terms the PS CS RAW convertor will yield greater detail and contrast range from any RAW file. The Pentax PS plug-in and Pentax stand-alone RAW convertor offer the same processing capabilities and have an advantage only in that they fully and accurately report all EXIF data and the colour profiles are more accurate and mimic all the camera CT settings. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
