To each his own. It's good that at least some continue to strongly
support film. I don't like scanning very much and do actually enjoy the
raw conversion workflow... but I'd sure hate to see film disappear entirely.
Chuck Norcutt
On 9/19/2010 11:01 AM, Nicholas Herndon wrote:
>> 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/
|