Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/03/04

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Subject: [Leica] Changing face of photoraphy
From: images at InfoAve.Net (Tina Manley)
Date: Fri Mar 4 19:08:35 2005
References: <030420051959.26776.4228BE12000A237D000068982200735834C8C7C9C99C9D0A090B019D0B@comcast.net> <008201c520f6$7de0df20$6501a8c0@ccapr.com> <4cfa589b0503041805160c13a9@mail.gmail.com>
 
At 09:05 PM 3/4/2005, you wrote:
>I agree with B.D. (again...OMG) but I'll add this - the cost of
>digital is in the photographer's time after the shoot. It's in
>downloading, sorting, converting from RAW, categorizing, etc etc.

I do all that and it's still much faster than developing film, editing on a 
light box, mounting individual frames, scanning, labeling, and then 
sorting, categorizing, filing both as digital and actual frames, burned to 
DVDs, etc.  Digital is there in the computer and has to be edited, put in 
folders, filed with Portfolio and burned to DVDs.  The processing time in 
PhotoShop is shorter for digital because I don't have examine at 100% for 
dust and scratches.  Everybody complains about processing time after the 
shoot for digital, but I'm sure if they'd compare, the time for film would 
actually be longer to reach the same archive.

Tina


Tina Manley, ASMP
www.tinamanley.com
In reply to: Message from drodgers7798 at comcast.net (drodgers7798@comcast.net) ([Leica] Changing face of photoraphy)
Message from bdcolen at earthlink.net (B. D. Colen) ([Leica] Changing face of photoraphy)
Message from abridge at gmail.com (Adam Bridge) ([Leica] Changing face of photoraphy)