The amount of time you spend is entirely up to you--theoretically at least. If you're looking for minimal editing time, then I think you'd use the built-in image processor of the camera and shoot JPEGs. You'd still get the benefit of superior optics and the larger sensor with its better signal-to-noise ratio. I can shoot up to ISO-400 before I notice any objectionable noise--try that with a point and shoot. And things still look pretty decent if I have to go to 800. The problem comes when you being to take a more discriminating look at the images. You'll see highlights that need taming, areas of low exposure, white balances that are off--the list goes on forever. I guarantee you that Rob takes less time per image in Photoshop than I do. He has the benefit of being a professional and knowing what he's doing. As for me, a knockoff image takes me a couple of minutes. But if I think the basic composition is good and I haven't blown out the highlights, 20-30 minutes or even more isn't out of the realm of possibility. If it's an HDR (stacked) shot or a panorama, say bye- bye to the evening. But I think individual mileage will vary. For me it's a hobby, but one that's become more serious. There's a lot of art in my house and I tend to look pretty closely at this sort of stuff. The beauty of a good camera is that you can enjoy the images right away and then go back and edit them when you're old and crotchety. MC On Dec 18, 2006, at 9:36 AM, Chuck Hards wrote:
Am I going to be spending a lot of time at the computer? That could be a deal-killer for me.
Say I shoot 50 or a 100 shots, the equivalent of a few rolls of 35mm film.
How long will I be at the keyboard, processing these images?