Frank, Nor I. It's the end product I consider important. In my case, when I say I don't consider work flow, that means I don't allow it to influence my choice of work. If my work involved high volume rapid paced commercial image production, it might, of necessity, be considered. If I had a problem with work flow, I wouldn't have shot a MF rangefinder (Mamiya 6) for so many years.
Jack --- Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > frank theriault wrote: > > >I don't need or want to consider "work flow" or any of that crap. > > Oh man, this is great! I was just talking about this very subject > with > a photographer friend a couple of days ago. > > Frank, you *do* have "work flow" and you *have* considered it, as all > of us have done. You shoot film of a particular type that you have > selected amongst thousands (well, maybe hundreds or dozens these > days) > available. You then take the exposed film to a lab you trust and have > the film developed and prints made. Sometimes you follow this by > scanning the prints and uploading them to Photo.net. I'm guessing > even > you have some way of storing your negatives ;-) > > All this *is* workflow. Photographers have always done workflow. We > haven't really noticed it before (at least *I* hadn't - perhaps this > says something about me, but let's not go there!) because A) We have > each developed our own procedures gradually over a long period of > time, and B) we didn't have the word "workflow" to describe the > process. > > The workflow of all my photography (I still do shoot some film, you > know) has improved since I started shooting digital, simply because I > am now aware of the concept of photographic workflow and the fact > that > it can be modified and improved. My friend Steve (who shoots > weddings, > corporate "grip-n-grin" and horse shows) and I were discussing how > "workflow" had entered the modern lexicon and how it really applied > to > lots of things outside photography. > > Anyway, you *have* designed your own workflow and, as far as I can > tell, it's a damned good one for your purposes. (At least as far as > the resulting images are concerned. I know you well enough to be wary > of inquiring too deeply into the negative storage and archiving end > of > it <g>) > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
