Faster digital workflow sought

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 06:59:31 -0400, "Jimmy"
wrote:


"Derek Fountain" wrote in message
...

100 photos per hour? That's one every 36 seconds! 36 seconds isn't time to
find a subject, consider it, set the camera and get the shot.

I'm a professional photographer. I shoot a lot of weddings and other
events. 500 photos is pretty much the standard delivery expected from an
eight-hour wedding these days. I used to deliver 120 proofs for each
wedding, but clients now simply insist upon more.

I also shoot models' portfolios. Shooting only once every three minutes
would be rather lame. Imagine having a model pose for three minutes between
pictures! Thirty seconds is a long, long time between photos during any
action sequence.

I dont know what camera you have, but have you considered shooting
directly into the computer for some of them?

In article , Ron Hunter
wrote:


A wedding needs 10 pictures. More is just ripping off the customer.

Well, I did a lot more than 10, but 500 is ridiculous.

In article , Ron Hunter
wrote:


A wedding needs 10 pictures. More is just ripping off the customer.

Well, I did a lot more than 10, but 500 is ridiculous.

While I agree that paying some attention to composition, lighting, and
other 'artistic' considerations is important, so is getting the picture,
which may be of breaching whales, birds flying overhead, or other events
of a transitory and unpredictable nature. That is a different type of
photography, and requires a different approach.

Just because you can shoot 3-4 frames per second (or whatever) doesn't
mean that you should.

While I agree that paying some attention to composition, lighting, and
other 'artistic' considerations is important, so is getting the picture,
which may be of breaching whales, birds flying overhead, or other events
of a transitory and unpredictable nature. That is a different type of
photography, and requires a different approach.

Just because you can shoot 3-4 frames per second (or whatever) doesn't
mean that you should.

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
While I agree that paying some attention to composition, lighting, and
other 'artistic' considerations is important, so is getting the picture,
which may be of breaching whales, birds flying overhead, or other events
of a transitory and unpredictable nature. That is a different type of
photography, and requires a different approach.


Just because you can shoot 3-4 frames per second (or whatever) doesn't
mean that you should.

Sometimes, that is the preferred, or even the ONLY method of getting
what you need to get.

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
While I agree that paying some attention to composition, lighting, and
other 'artistic' considerations is important, so is getting the picture,
which may be of breaching whales, birds flying overhead, or other events
of a transitory and unpredictable nature. That is a different type of
photography, and requires a different approach.


Just because you can shoot 3-4 frames per second (or whatever) doesn't
mean that you should.

Sometimes, that is the preferred, or even the ONLY method of getting
what you need to get.

"GT40" wrote in message
...
Use Photoshops scripts. Once you have them setup its automated.


I would certainly be good for me to master Photoshop scripts better, but
most of the Photoshop work I do is touch-up work: pimples, knee scrapes,
that damn sparkly makeup that brides wear these days that shows up like a
pox in on-camera flash . . . . I haven't found scripts to be much use for
that kind of Photoshopping.

I wish I could script exposure and color corrections, but I use Canon 10Ds,
which, although great outdoors, are very inconsistent in indoor lighting.
Especially in mixed lighting. A turn in any direction throws off the
exposure and color balance, so I find I have to apply such corrections
individually for satisfactory results.

In article , Ron Hunter
wrote:

Just because you can shoot 3-4 frames per second (or whatever) doesn't
mean that you should.

Sometimes, that is the preferred, or even the ONLY method of getting
what you need to get.

Not at a wedding.

Well....you certainly have thought this through. You have an answer to all
of our suggestions. I think you just have to accept that you have all the
answers and most of your life from now on will be spent in front of the
computer. Have you heard of condom catheters or the Trucker's Buddy?


"Jimmy" wrote in message
...
"GT40" wrote in message
...
Use Photoshops scripts. Once you have them setup its automated.


I would certainly be good for me to master Photoshop scripts better, but
most of the Photoshop work I do is touch-up work: pimples, knee scrapes,
that damn sparkly makeup that brides wear these days that shows up like a
pox in on-camera flash . . . . I haven't found scripts to be much use for
that kind of Photoshopping.

I wish I could script exposure and color corrections, but I use Canon
10Ds,
which, although great outdoors, are very inconsistent in indoor lighting.
Especially in mixed lighting. A turn in any direction throws off the
exposure and color balance, so I find I have to apply such corrections
individually for satisfactory results.