In a former life, I was a custom printer and dark-room technician- for 5 years, so I know well what is involved in that end of emulsion-based photography. But for the past 20 years, I've paid a lab a few dollars to "do the dirty work" for me. ;) I have to say that while I am not opposed to a computer and software upgrade, I just don't have the free time available to spend futzing with digital images, from what I'm hearing. This is much more time-intensive than conventional photography, assuming one isn't developing their own film and making their own prints. I'd soon have a lifetime's worth of raw images that I could just never get free to work on. I may have to re-think this. What little free time I have is already spoken-for. I'm usually looking for ways to spend less time at the keyboard/monitor. I had hoped that a higher-end camera would equate to less time spent processing. --- Kim <kimharch@cut.net> wrote:
I've spent as much as 30 minutes processing a single image, and as little time as simply changing the contrast, maybe a one-minute task. As I said, having to process at the computer is my least favorite part of digital photography. However, if you consider the comparable time it would take in the darkroom, digital imagery is the clear winner.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com