William Robb wrote: > > I'm pretty sure I would still be on my second computer (I'm up to #5 now), > had it not been for digital photography and it's ever increasing vacuuming > up of resources, so for me I can add around 7K for that, plus another 2K for > a laptop for onsite use. > However, I like toys, so I don't begrudge that, but I seem to be spending a > lot more time in front of my computer working on digital imaging than I > spent in the darkroom producing silver prints, and am producing fewer > pictures of lower quality than I did when I was shooting medium and large > format film. > The tendency to shoot more has some drawbacks. When I was shooting film, I > might have shot 10 rolls of 120 film on a portrait session, now I'll shoot > 4-6 times that amount of digital frames, and have to sort through that many > pictures, at 4-6x more time. > My keeper % was way higher with film, approaching 100% with 4x5, 20-25% with > 120 film. I'm finding my keeper % with digital is around 5%, and I'm having > to fish through a lot of images to find them. > > William Robb > >
Ironically, it's film that has been driving my computer upgrades lately. Digital requires much less storage, RAM or processing power than manipulating high-res scans. My MF scans are easily in the 150MB range, and even 35mm is ~60MB. That's a big difference from 10-20MB RAWs. LF is even worse. Opening a single 4x5 scan brings my system to its knees. I actually have to downsize it to save a JPEG, otherwise PS runs out of RAM on a 2GB system. And I'm only scanning at 1200dpi (Scanning Fuji pack film prints). -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
