I dont agree that batch RAW processing works as well as individual processing. I have just tried several batch RAW processors and they dont work anywhere near as well as image by image manual processing does ( at least the ones I tried). There are just too many factors like, exposure, contrast range of scene, lens used, etc that require manual RAw processing for good results IMHO. jco
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 11:13 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Pixel peeping and looking for defects (was Re: Fullframelensesandthe K10D, CA anyone?) On 4/14/07, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. True. That's when the lab comes in right handy. > 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... I used to feel the same way when I was using PS CS, but since CS2 it doesn't concern me nearly as much. This is where batch processing comes into its own. Assuming you have groups of shots with similar exposure & made under similar lighting, you can process 2, 5,10, 20 or more shots in the same amount of time that it takes to process 1 shot. > 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! This is the .jpg shooters argument. As long as you get it all right at the time of exposure your images are ready to print straight from the card. RAW gives you the freedom to be a little lazy at the time of capture. You don't have to fuss with WB & colour space etc. Cheers, Dave > -----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
