Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I've seen where digital has in some ways raised the bar. To get the >exposure latitude with digital that is inherent in color negative film, >you have to shoot RAW and you have to know what you're doing.
Agreed. I've seen many who don't. >For the time being at least, that means doing it yourself. A few of the >lightweight pros I've met who went back to film after a brief foray in >digital, complained that it "was too hard to get it right." I haven't known any who've gone back to film yet, but then I no longer work with any wedding pros and don't encounter them on a day-to-day basis since the photo shop closed. I'll bet the one I knew who *should* go back to film hasn't done so :) He went with the Nikon D70 and I bet that godawful viewfinder didn't help him at all. >By the way, I see a business opportunity for someone who opens a pro >lab that knows how to handle RAW and can automate the process -- or >charge enough to make piecemeal work pay. I've talked to a number of >wedding photographers who are looking for just such a lab. I think Tom Van Veen has found such a lab in/near DC. He told me he sends all his printing out and relies on the lab to get the skin tones right. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
