>I highly recommend forgeting about film. It?s even worse than RAW
>processing.
Oh yes, now I'm convinced.
>I can do post at least 10 times faster than scanning.
Well Chuck, I find scanning to be much more
satisfying/interesting/pleasureable than processing RAW images. If I have
to sit and process several hundred RAW images, it will probably take about
the same amount of time as scanning a 36 shot roll of 135 film, but I'll
take the scanning every time. And, ironically, I'll probably get the same
number of useable shots. Not to mention, I'd need to buy a backup hard
drive because RAW files take up so much damn space.
Re: film vs. digital, I have already decided, for better or worse and for a
variety of reasons, that I prefer using film. Digital has its place,
certainly, and that place for me is when I need high volume or quick
turnaround, which isn't really often. And I'm simply more comfortable with
a film workflow, and prefer the results that *I* get using film.
But my initial email was never about that, I already know what I like and
how I like to work. My initial email was simply a comment that Panasonic's
jpegs SUCK, sensor specs be damned.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|