That was basically my point I was trying to make and you said it in far fewer words. Thank you. Now I'll blather more.
I am rather anti-workflow oriented. If I'm simply going to share a ream of photos with people who want copies of vacation pictures, I'll use a workflow because it will save me time. I can see in a studio setting where lighting conditions and composition are strictly controlled and somewhat static, that a workflow would save time and yield consistent results. But even there, unless the shooting situation is very static, I can't see that the same workflow would yield equally good results, day in day out, week in week out. My non-studio experience tells me it would need to be adjusted to the scene, to achieve optimum results. I find I may have a wide range of lighting conditions and compositions on a single card. Some may be night shots, snow scenes,water scenes, moody light, you name it. If I ran each image through the same workflow it would be the same as taking a roll of negative film down to the local 1 hour photo lab and having them process the entire roll, each image at the same settings. Maybe some are fine but likely none are optimal. Therefore I look at my images in ACR and Photoshop and decide which one's I think are worth spending the effort to post-process and I concentrate on those only. Even at 5 minutes an image or 2 minutes an image, a significant amount of time is spent in the post-processing. And what about sharpening, not every image should get receive the same degree of USM - How will a workflow make that decision? Maybe where the subject is the same for the entire set of images being processed a single setting works for all images, but not for me. I'm not complaining as much as I am simply making the observation. With transparencies I could say 'toss' or 'keep' pretty easily. And yes when digitized maybe adjustments were made in Photoshop (I didn't forget that point). With digital, I have exposure inaccuracy (can't believe the meter), lower dynamic range, and the .jpg image displayed on the LCD is not always accurate. I find myself making adjustments more than I did with film photography, likely because the tool is readily available. Shots that I earlier may have discarded are now possible keepers. I also try to get the image "right" in the shooting process, but before where I may have blamed myself, now I find myself thinking, I can fix that, it was the stupid camera. Tom On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 6:13 PM, William Robb <[email protected]> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom C" > Subject: The BS of Digital Photography > > >> <snip>> >> Nevertheless, with the advent of digital capture, it seems or feels as >> if the process is far more complicated. >> <more snip> >> Does it seem that way to others as well? >> > > Digital photographers have taken the photofinisher and all that he or she > did for them out of the equation. > You are now the photolab as well as the photographer. > No surprise it seems more complicated, good photofinishing is a fairly > complicatred process. > > William Robb > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
