That is all well and good if you are a hobbyist or an artist. But if you are trying to make a living off your photography it is counter productive.
A case in point are the photos in my "For Sale" post (ebay ads). I shot the ME Super with the intention of cropping the photos. Then I realized that for that purpose the extra step was a waste of time and did not bother. The Canonet on the other hand I shot to be used full frame and for this purpose they work better. In other words, time is money. And the earlier in the process something is taken care of the less time it takes. Usually <grin>! graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" ----------------------------------- Digital Image Studio wrote: > On 14/07/07, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> One thing I have discovered though, is that while one can fix a bunch of >> stuff in post processing, it is still best to get it right in camera, and >> not waste your life fiddling with a substandard image later. > > Right in camera or not I find myself these days devoting much time to > post processing trying to reduce the effects of the limitations of the > equipment. If the photographer is perfectly happy remain > photographically within the technical bounds of the equipment then > that's great for them but for me the resolution, angle of view, > dynamic range and distortions can all be improved upon using various > post processing techniques. So these days the camera is just my > capture device, the serious work happens well after the shot was > taken. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
