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. 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...
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! jco -----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
