I had to chuckle - this reminded me. An acquaintance (who didn't use my services) came to me with a couple of cd's from their wedding. They had purchased, along with all their prints, the CD's of images. When they looked at them on a computer, they were horrified to discover that they looked mediocre to really poor. Nothing like the prints. What had happened is the photographer uses a lab to do all the corrections, like what was just mentioned - but the disks he gave them were the originals, untouched. So they were unrotated, no color correction (shot on AWB - so heavy yellow casts with incandescents, etc). I was rather surprised and amused that he would give them uncorrected images. I'm sure he looked at the cost of correcting them first and didn't want to take the time. Needless to say, he had an unhappy customer and some bad publicity from it.
Moral is that if you are going to function like you did in film days, then don't give out disks, unless you charge like you did in the past for a lab to scan and correct them. -- Best regards, Bruce Monday, March 27, 2006, 7:12:42 AM, you wrote: WR> ----- Original Message ----- WR> From: "Aaron Reynolds" WR> Subject: Re: Bailing out. >> Another thought here, Frank -- you can treat your digital images just like >> film and go with the standard film workflow: take card to lab, get proofs, >> agonize over proofs, return to lab for enlargements. WR> The pros I work with that seem happiest are doing just that. WR> William Robb
