True enough. in big cities there is plenty of support for digital workflow. In other locations, it's probably lacking. I don't think most shooters will continue to do their own processing. But for now that seems to be the best way to go. One of the most successful wedding photogs around here shoots with a 1DS, then batch processes his exposures and gang prints them on an Epson 2200. That's the way I would go. Even now, I'll gang print 12 proofs for clients. I find that easier than having a lab do it. I also like the fact that I can maintain control. Paul
> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: Film Still Best for Many Applications? (was > Ruminations... ) > > > > You're right, the big dollar pros do have tech assistants. But I > > don't consider the digital darkroom to be dirty work. The PS > > conversion is as much fun as the old chemical darkroom. Of course, > > if someone comes into it cold and assumes that their digital camera > > is going to spit out great images without any post processing, > > they're not going to be happy. In that case they're better off > > going back to film. Then they can let someone else turn the > > exposure into a picture. > > The issue with the guys I know who have gone this route (I know a > couple myself) is the time factor. > They can drop film at the lab, and pick up proofs a few hours later > or..... > They can shoot a few hundred digital exposures, post process them, > then bring the files to the lab for printing. > Some people would rather not work in front of a computer screen, the > same way they would rather bring their film to a lab. > > William Robb > > >
