Search results

I loathe both Canon and Nikon's native RAW editors. They both seemed designed by engineers who truly hate humanity. Perhaps newer editions are better but Lr has really won me over despite my initial fears of being trapped in a database world.

I don't delete anything but those shots which are obviously under or overexposed by more than 3 fstops (you would be surprised at how much latitude you have to recover from if something really matters to you) or grossly our of focus. Hard drive space is cheap and with my organizational system...

"culling" is my least favorite part of photography. Fortunately I have a very fast and simple plan. -All shoots go into their own individual set in Lightroom on import. Sets are in super sets by year. -All shoots are culled in one sitting. -From grid mode open a set, go to first image...

Absolutely. For me the difference is that we get to choose, for the most part, who we are exposed to. And that's why I think that we have to think about raw streams like Flickr and curated experiences like websites in different frames of view. Also, as an aside, I lost a round of...

Oh I'm not complaining! I've enjoyed seeing your efforts! I'm just saying I follow a LOT of very high volume folks on Flickr and some of em have blogs and some don't. I like those who do because I can see what they curate and pick out as their best to showcase.

True, but in your case you put a lot of sketches in there, including some nudes. Surfing those at work can be... problematic =)

I consider Flickr to be my archive and my blog to be my showcase. If someone were to view my Flickr Stream (www.flickr.com/photos/kadath) it would look like a jumbled mess. If someone were to view my blog (www.navesink.net) I'd hope it would be a lot less boring and more focused. And I try...

Even negatives are vulnerable, just ask the scores of 'togs who had their negatives stored in the safety deposit boxes of the WTC.... (not making light of the loss of life there, just that 'this too shall pass' is true of everything) Anyway SOOC Raw files converted in photoshop are flat for...

30 seconds worth of contrast and saturation bumps. Hope this is ok. For the record, I like this one better than I do your film version but I'm multiple kinds of color blind, so ymmv. =)

Well again, it's not just tweaking to taste. Raw files are like your negatives, you get to decide how your negatives are going to develop into prints. If you let the lab decide for you then you LIKE the look of your lab more than you do the look of the film you are shooting, especially if...

Well let's be fair here, you are comparing sooc digital (with whatever presets you chose) versus a negative that's been lab processed. Post a full size shot for editing and I bet a few here could whip up a version that's just as striking as the top one, I bet a minor tweak to contrast would do...

I dont know about that Man-Fai. With the Mac leading the charge on easy entry to digital audio and video editing the same way Canon and Nikon and the other camera/software vendors are doing digital imaging, you would think that there would be a real explosion of GOOD quality experimental films...

Clearly I'm not qualified to continue arguing any of these technical points, but I would like to add a few more philosophical ones. I think that a better thread title might have been 'Progress stinks'. Or 'Changes in market forces stink'. Putting up pixel peeping strawmen comparing digital...

Hehe, very true, its all about priorites and showing off for the neighbors. It happens at every level tho, I've got a great HT and a lousy bathroom. We are, as a society all sizzle and no steak =) Sam

Nobody questions your talent, you have more than most of us will ever dream to have. Nor your principles. That you fight for your clients to want and get quality results speaks volumes. It is a balancing act tho, and I'm sure its not fun to be in your position. Sam

Again, it gets back to business, but this time its THEIR business and not yours. From their perspective, the ROI of using their own shots vs. yours isnt worth it to them personally. Weigh it out: Costs of you shooting each run -Your pro gear -your editing time -your shooting time -their...

What this conversation comes down to is the intersection between the art and business of photography. I have to hand it to the pros today who are able to make it work, when you think about it most businesses fail within 2-3 years of starting up, to be successful you have to be both artistically...

Thank you Man-Fai, you nailed exactly what I am trying to say, with much more clarity and grace than I am capable of. Sam

Ya know, it occurs to me that this might be true of ALL professions. There are those who do them for the love of it, there are those who do it for the money, there are those who do it to feed their family, there are those who do it cause it seemed like fun when they started. I've seen it in at...

Saying exactly the same that you did, some wont handle the extra competition, some will take advantage of what digital has to offer them to enhance rather than steamroll them. Like it or not Photography is becomming a commodity service where it once was a very specialized one. Those who can...

You definitly dont want to read this thead then John... Others mioght want to tho, like it or not photography is changing constantly, and pros will either adapt or fade... http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...ad.php?t=61210

Good discussion. Great variety of skills in the participants. Me, I'm much much closer to 'Guy with Camera' than Photographer, but I can tell you based on my experience as both a voracious consumer of photo magazines and books and as a previous student in a film class on a college campus, there...

I took a black and white/chemichal processing class just so I wouldt ever miss out before tehy all go away. It was cool but it didnt convince me that losing the film tradition is any great culturla loss. No more than vinyl to CD any way. Getting rid of the earth burning caustic chemicals is a...