frank theriault wrote: >I don't need or want to consider "work flow" or any of that crap.
Oh man, this is great! I was just talking about this very subject with a photographer friend a couple of days ago. Frank, you *do* have "work flow" and you *have* considered it, as all of us have done. You shoot film of a particular type that you have selected amongst thousands (well, maybe hundreds or dozens these days) available. You then take the exposed film to a lab you trust and have the film developed and prints made. Sometimes you follow this by scanning the prints and uploading them to Photo.net. I'm guessing even you have some way of storing your negatives ;-) All this *is* workflow. Photographers have always done workflow. We haven't really noticed it before (at least *I* hadn't - perhaps this says something about me, but let's not go there!) because A) We have each developed our own procedures gradually over a long period of time, and B) we didn't have the word "workflow" to describe the process. The workflow of all my photography (I still do shoot some film, you know) has improved since I started shooting digital, simply because I am now aware of the concept of photographic workflow and the fact that it can be modified and improved. My friend Steve (who shoots weddings, corporate "grip-n-grin" and horse shows) and I were discussing how "workflow" had entered the modern lexicon and how it really applied to lots of things outside photography. Anyway, you *have* designed your own workflow and, as far as I can tell, it's a damned good one for your purposes. (At least as far as the resulting images are concerned. I know you well enough to be wary of inquiring too deeply into the negative storage and archiving end of it <g>)
