nope, as I just posted, if you shoot jpeg you have to be REAL careful with the exposure or you wont get as good a results as with film and this is even more work than RAW processing is. jco
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Stenquist Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 11:09 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Pixel peeping and looking for defects (was Re: Fullframelensesandthe K10D, CA anyone?) You can shoot jpeg and drop them off at a lab for processing, and some high-end labs now do RAW as well. It's the same equation as before. Those who will settle for someone else's work shoot jpeg and drop the card off at a lab. Those who wish to do their own, shoot RAW. I wouldn't have wanted someone else processing my BW film any more than I want someone else to process my digital images. What's more, very few photographers process every RAW image they shoot. When I shoot recreationally, I probably process only about 10%. The rest can continue to live as DNG files until I either decide to discard them or revisit them. When I shoot an event, I use the same parameters for a number of shots, and I can process them quickly. My photographic world is about the same as it was with film. Paul On Apr 14, 2007, at 10:55 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > I don't completely agree. Sure it's fun to tweek an occasional really > favorite image to perfection, but when you have to do dozens, > hundreds, thousands of them it just gets old pretty quick. I know when > I now shoot a 2GB card of RAW (about 180 images ) , I dread having to > do all the image processing, and > I have only had the camera a few months... > > And the really sad part is with > digital, you are pretty much on your own, you cant drop > your RAW images at a local lab and have them digitally processed for > you even if you are willing to pay a reasonable fee like you still can > with film. Maybe this will change in the future or RAW processing > automation software will improve, but for now IT SUCKS! > > jco > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of > David Savage > Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 10:43 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: Pixel peeping and looking for defects (was Re: > Fullframelensesand the K10D, CA anyone?) > > > Personally I always liked the darkroom aspect of photography. And the > digital equivalent is no different. > > Cheers, > > Dave > > > On 4/14/07, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Digital SLRS/photography is also a "pain in the ass" in >> some KEY ways. For good quality, you still have to "process" your RAW >> images. This is digital's "dirty little secret". I say its actually >> much easier to go shoot some color film, drop it off at a lab, and >> get nicely exposed, sharp prints. No, its >> not free like digital is, but if you actually value >> your time like your job, its probably as cheap or cheaper >> than shooting digital IF that's all you want >> or need. >> jco > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
