no, but I often take safety shots bracketing whatever parameter I feel needs bracketing, and these have to be opened and viewed at 100% to evaluate. No I dont fully process every image and delete the unwanted but even doing this takes a lot of time. Thumbnails are useless for critical evaluation of which shots to use and which shots to delete and the kiosks arent doing RAW are they? jco
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 3:50 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Pixel peeping and looking fordefects(wasRe:FullframelensesandtheK10D, CA anyone?) On 4/15/07, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Huh, now your'e arguing MY point, and that is that > digital photography requires a lot of processing > that film photography doesnt. Yes and no. I initially stated that I enjoyed darkroom work, and that I enjoy digital image processing just the same. Back when I was processing my own B&W film I didn't make prints of every frame. I made my contact sheet, selected what I wanted to print and carried on from there. The selection process is the same now. The only reason I've got packets and packets of colour 6x4 prints in storage is because it was too expensive to just get a contact sheet (and that was only an option if I took my film to a custom lab). > Its a big myth > that digital is "instant" or "you dont have > to get the images processed", you DO, and you > have to do it YOURSELF, and it's very time consuming. > Thats what sucks about it (currently). > jco I doubt that all the people queued at the photo kiosks at my local department store spent any time processing their images (I've seen people take the card out of the camera). For the majority, digital is a huge step up from film, as they only have to print, & more importantly to the masses, pay for the photos they like. Digital can be quick, but because exposures are "free" you tend to make more, so you have to be more selective about what you process. Just because you've taken 180 photos, doesn't mean they all need to be prepared for printing. Cheers, Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of David Savage > Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 2:38 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: Pixel peeping and looking for > defects(wasRe:FullframelensesandtheK10D, CA anyone?) > > > Oh OK. > > My goal is not to process every photo I take that way. I dial in the > RAW setting, review the image thumbnails, and from there pick those > that I want to process further. I have neither the time nor the > inclination to process each and every shot I take (not all of them are > worth it anyway ;-). > > I'd probably fully process about 10-20% of the shots I take. And FYI > my image sharpening process for those shots that make the grade is > even slower than using plain old USM at 100% view. > > Cheers, > > Dave > > On 4/15/07, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Im not talking about just a reduced size web image with regards to > > USM, Im talking about creating full size, fully processed, archive > > type (ready to print) images from RAW. And to do that you need to > > see the image at full size to set the USM properly because it varies > > a lot depending on lens used, fstop, etc. 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
