re: Mark Buckner's comments
re: Mark Buckner's comments
- Subject: re: Mark Buckner's comments
- From: Shepard Ferguson <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 06:36:43 -0500
One of the realities of professional photography is that the statistics
indicate that weddings represent 60% of total professional photographic
income worldwide. These are the photographers who need "mindless" color
workflow. If you add schools, etc., etc. to this number, high end
editorial, advertising, commercial photography probably represents 20%
to 25% of the field.
I am one of those. I have used photoshop for years on my own scanned
individual images in portraiture, documentary and other commercial and
personal work. However, when I get 800 images back from a wedding, I
don't want to have to correct each one. And I don't want to calibrate
each different light source I'm using. I want to send the files to my
computer or out to a lab and know they'll look right as do my photos
done with conventional film. I own a Fuji S2 and have been working on
this problem, as time permits, for three months now. Most of my
colleagues are doing likewise. It is not easy - none of the handling
software (photoshop browser, iview, cumulus, etc.) are yet truly
industrial strength and then there is color....
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.
_______________________________________________
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.