OK I finally got some sleep so I'm not quite so cranky today. ;-) I'm glad to see this subject come up. I was thinking the other day that all in all I spend MORE time achieving a final print with digital then when I did it all wet. I do see however that being able to take more exposures without additional cost and (very) roughly proof these on the LCD is an advantage. I too was much stingier with film. I am using the Pentax software and PS 7.01 plug-in to convert the RAW files, perhaps that is a big part of my problem. I'll pick up the CS upgrade today and see how it goes. I've seen some excellent examples of images from the D taken by you folks and was really wondering why mine were so inferior. Is it simply the algorithms used in the CS convertor that result in a superior end result?
Thanks for all the responses, I didn't mean to slam the D. I was just getting pretty frustrated at the percentage of acceptable images I was getting. So far about 10% with the D versus about 30% on film. Of course someone else mentioned 4x6, I NEVER make 4x6s, except perhaps if someone requests one for some reason. Though I will admit to a very few 5x7's. And of course weddings (aarg) and such. To me if it's worth printing it's going on 8x10 or larger. Of course this reduces the "worth printing" shots to very few. Even in the darkroom I seldom made smaller prints, except as test prints for color balance and exposure. Ah well, as they say, practice,practice,practice. 8-/ Don > -----Original Message----- > From: Frantisek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 6:34 AM > To: William Robb > Subject: Re: *ist D image quality-_Was -Stupid Question #999 > > > Hi, see below > > WR> It might have represented an unwelcome cost to the client. > WR> Instead, I shot some 750 pictures. I didn't shoot a whole lot more > WR> poses, but I got a lot of different expressions that I wouldn't have > WR> got had I shot less (film). > WR> This is value added for the client. They > > Well, how much time did you spend on it yourself? That's unpaid hours > of photoshop work I surmise? A lot of my smaller clients are really > surprised that I ask for "that much" when I am shooting on digital... > not getting that I have to work at it on the computer, even if I got > the photographs pretty right in the first place. > > WR> Digital has become a societal buzzword. We've been trained as a > WR> society to think that if the word digital is used as an adjective, > WR> the noun will automatically be better. > > Yep! Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy - first sentences - apes with > digital clocks, anybody remembers ;-) ? > > > > > > > > > > > > Good light! > fra >
