Re: Mark Buckner's comments
Re: Mark Buckner's comments
- Subject: Re: Mark Buckner's comments
- From: Andrew Rodney <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 07:10:37 -0700
on 1/16/03 4:36 AM, Shepard Ferguson wrote:
>
I know high end photographers who have been all digital who have
>
flipped back because they have found digital work flow is more labor
>
intensive than traditional film for a studio. On the other hand,
>
Miller's Professional Imaging, one of the biggest wedding / portrait
>
labs, recently reported that 20% of their 2002 billing was digital.
Workflow (such a buzz word) is truly the area that needs a LOT of attention.
Wedding photographers are not alone in this problem. I was speaking with a
good friend who's a pretty well know celebrity photographer that has been
shooting more and more with a digital camera (most recently a Canon D1s) and
he loves the quality of the images. I should say he is a beta for this
product from Adobe which helps tremendously but he still spends far too much
time editing the shots, archiving them and occasionally even doing dust
busting (dust gets on the CCD, a huge problem with most camera systems with
interchangeable lens). Even with 1 gig storage cards, on location it is
still a lot of work to juggle all the files and insure they are safe and
backed up. So I agree that workflow (or whatever you want to call getting
all these images into the computer and out again) is a huge issue. Profiles
and color management are the least of our problems (and as I mentioned
before the firestorm, newer products will make a lot of these color issues a
lot easier on us or better, a none issue).
I have another client that has 6 portrait studios. He's using 100% digital
capture. But he has to go through tons of images. Just making proof sheets
(clients still want them and they are a good sales tool) are a bitch to
crank out. He's got a huge Kodak Pegasus printer but that's tied up doing
real work (final prints). He's tried using a small warehouse of Epson ink
jets all hooked up just to crank out proofs. It's working but not easily.
Then there is the issues of archiving all this data and finding it.
The camera manufacturers are making bigger and bigger chips but I think
based on what I've seen recently, we are where we need to be for 95% of
digital capture. We don't need a 30 megapixle back. I'd like to think that
the camera manufactures would concentrate on workflow but that's naove. They
want to sell hardware (well how about some better lens built for digital?).
Film and scanners are not a growth market (although last year wasn't so hot
for digital camera sales but all sales may have been down).
Andrew Rodney
_______________________________________________
colorsync-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.