It's a shame we missed you at the first batch of online training classes we ran for 4.5. We'll probably run another set after 4.6 is released. There are so many small customizations and tweaks that make 4.X so much faster to work in. And it beats the pants out of improvising your solutions as-you-go.
Doug Peterson
Doug,
I appreciate the invitation, but working a schedule around a class is somewhat difficult.
When you work on deadline, it's always a time vs. quality battle.
Do you try a new software, take time to learn all the nuances just because it gives 10% better images, run the risk of glitches, or do you quickly run through your current workflow and worry about it later?
With this project and 19,000 files to edit, then process, then re-edit, I started in light-room because it would accept Phase, Canon, Nikon and Leica files and I shot all 4 systems, (though primarily Canon and Nikon).
The first stage of any project is the web galleries which I guess is the modern equivalent of contact sheets. I started with light-room and after about 6 hours of work just didn't like the look. I love the interface of light-room 2 and though adobe can write some very complicated interfaces, light-room is very well thought out.
What I didn't love, even downloading the various sets of light-room profiles was the color look. It just didn't get close to the native Canon and Nikon processors dpp and NX, so I downloaded 4.5.2 and gave it a try.
The look of 4.52 is good, though it required a new 8 core mac to run it with any speed, so there goes another 1/2 day and of course $5,000+.
In working 4.5.2 I did learn you can customize the interface and move some of the switches, learn the quick keys, etc. but it still starts out complicated and every hour spent learning is another hour out of my life I won't get back. It does make you wonder if phase, (or all the hardware/software makers) has ever set down cold and tried to work a huge volume of files from different cameras.
Why shoot different cameras, because we all live in megapixel fear. It's been beat into our heads for years by showing swatches of charts or brick buildings that medium format back x, is much better than dslr Y, and dslr Y is a larger file than dslr Z. You see it all the time on every forum, every manufacturer's website trying with all their might to prove to you that more megapixels equal a better photograph and for the majority of the real world that just isn't so.
I don't know about others but I start every project with the largest mpx camera I can use for the project and if it's a fast pace project I usually end up shooting the majority of it with the fastest and easiest camera. The client selects will always be the most spontaneous images, not the "hold still, don't move, don't change that pose photograph".
Regardless the first processing is the first look. You want it nice, hell you want it great, but you also do not have the time to take a large volume of files and do 12 photoshop actions to correct each color, or hold back shadows, add detail, kill noise, etc. etc. You can do it, but no client is going to wait 11 weeks for web galleries, no photographer can invest 11 weeks to process so for the first look it is always a compromise.
Actually, it makes you wonder if any of the camera makers really work their systems top to bottom in the real world. You want to learn focus, color response, highlight recovery, capable higher iso, mixed light, then shoot in a pressured situation for any period and you will quickly understand the strength and the weakness of each system. Canon's focus, Nikon's complicated menu, the Phase wb under mixed light, all of these can go from useful to nightmarish under pressure. In fact the thing I learned (actually always knew) that an in focus 12mpx image has ten times the detail of an soft or out of focus 31mpx photograph.
You also learn that on huge production days, a camera can wear you down, not because of weight but just usefulness. Nothing kills a buzz quicker than to get the shot set up, everybody in the room knows it's "there" and you look at the first 4 files and they are 3" back-focused. So you do it again, never quite as well as that first spontaneous moment. In today's double the project for the same price economy I'm getting a new thought as to how I select a camera. If it's in studio with thousands of watts and nobody is flying through the air, then load up the digital back (unless you have moire issues), but once you step more than three feet out of the studio door, leave the digital backs on the shelf, or you'll just beat yourself to death.
Put this down as just one person's opinion, because I'm sure others feel different, but from my experience the camera that allows you to get the shot, is much more important than the camera that doesn't allow you the time or the flexibility to finish the client's wish list.
Now with the new Nikon d3x I'm sure there will be 10,000 comparisons of walls, eyeballs, color charts and trees proving that the d3x is either better or worse than (you can fill in the blanks here for any type of camera). None of this means anything unless the tests are the way you exactly work.
But we're talking processing and yes 4.5.2 or 4.6 or whatever version it ends up to be is good software, but not great especially if it takes classes to learn the basics, especially with Adobe's light-room hovering high overhead as an example of a ten minute learning interface and especially since little Iridiens Raw Developer will process files as beautiful as any film ever devised. In fact it's just a shame that RD doesn't have the development money and time of the bigger companies because for single image processing it's just off the scale prettier.
Anyway, my 19,000 files are processed and delivered for review though yesterday I saw something very interesting with 4.5.2. I went back to the a folder to select an image and all the processing parameters are gone, as if I had never adjusted a single file, luckily the images are processed and on web galleries, but what a nightmare if all that adjustment work has disappeared.
I firmly believe with digital capture we are in the very early stages of capturing and workflow. Canons tether well but nothing like the Phase (with 3.7), Nikons tether clunky, all medium format backs (that are on the market today) have challenged lcd's and low base isos., and software seems to be an ever moving work in progress. This is just repeating what we've all said for years, but somewhere, somehow digital capture, especially in post processing has to become more standardized and easier.
Other than photoshop, there is no real standards for digital capture and post processing. Nothing like the film days where you knew the response and consistency of a certain film, the lab knew how to process, the delivery methods were standard and the time investment from the photographer was limited to maybe 1or 2 hours at the lab vs. 33 hours staring into a computer screen.
