Comments on: Digital Workflow http://www.tonywublog.com/20071009/digital-workflow.html Pix and Thoughts about Underwater Photography & Stuff Mon, 15 Mar 2010 07:14:44 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: tony http://www.tonywublog.com/20071009/digital-workflow.html/comment-page-1#comment-1479 tony Sun, 11 Nov 2007 10:11:04 +0000 http://www.tonywublog.com/20071009/digital-workflow.html#comment-1479 Hi Lazaro, I'm glad to hear your experience w/ DPP has been similar. I hate the workflow and the slowness of the software (though I haven't used DPP 3.0 yet), but for some of the difficult images (and for print), I have to resort to DPP to get the colors, sunbursts, etc right. In most cases though, I'm lazy and just use Aperture or Photoshop, which are quicker and easier. Cheers, Tony Hi Lazaro,

I’m glad to hear your experience w/ DPP has been similar. I hate the workflow and the slowness of the software (though I haven’t used DPP 3.0 yet), but for some of the difficult images (and for print), I have to resort to DPP to get the colors, sunbursts, etc right. In most cases though, I’m lazy and just use Aperture or Photoshop, which are quicker and easier.

Cheers,

Tony

]]> By: Lazaro Ruda http://www.tonywublog.com/20071009/digital-workflow.html/comment-page-1#comment-1469 Lazaro Ruda Fri, 09 Nov 2007 14:13:17 +0000 http://www.tonywublog.com/20071009/digital-workflow.html#comment-1469 Good article, Tony. With camera (frame rates) getting faster, megapixels growing, and workflows expanding, I am sure the day will come when all digital photographers will once again regress to 36 exposures. I am glad to hear your thoughts on DPP. I have been looked upon strangely by fellow Canon'ers for mentioning how DPP performs RAW conversion much better than the competition. The difference in some of my photos (ie. sunbursts) is quite extreme. After numerous conversations with Bruce Fraser, our conclusion was that Photoshop's RAW could not reproduce DPP's results. Unfortunately, DPP's workflow is horrible and I only find myself using it in extreme cases or when the final output is for print. Good article, Tony. With camera (frame rates) getting faster, megapixels growing, and workflows expanding, I am sure the day will come when all digital photographers will once again regress to 36 exposures.

I am glad to hear your thoughts on DPP. I have been looked upon strangely by fellow Canon’ers for mentioning how DPP performs RAW conversion much better than the competition. The difference in some of my photos (ie. sunbursts) is quite extreme. After numerous conversations with Bruce Fraser, our conclusion was that Photoshop’s RAW could not reproduce DPP’s results. Unfortunately, DPP’s workflow is horrible and I only find myself using it in extreme cases or when the final output is for print.

]]> By: Gunther Deichmann http://www.tonywublog.com/20071009/digital-workflow.html/comment-page-1#comment-1409 Gunther Deichmann Wed, 10 Oct 2007 05:45:22 +0000 http://www.tonywublog.com/20071009/digital-workflow.html#comment-1409 Hi Tony, nice one, thanks for mention my name, I know what you are saying, yes it can and has been a hard road to get to this point, but as you said this is all fairly new stuff (most of the software) You know I am an addict using Aperture and it works for me just fine. I shoot 95% above and little UW. I guess it is a different story here, I chec out a few things and maybe get some more info re. the UW photography from Apple. Happy that you point out the "fix in Photoshop" issue, if it is bad then it is a bad.As mention to you before I think my Philosophy is very simple get it right in the first place and dont relay on Photoshop or some other software to fix it after the event, photography starts out there and the image is taken a split second before we press the shutter, this is the case now and has been long before the digital age. To many photographers today relay way to much on Photoshop these days, wrong! Anyway great information and I pass this one on have a nice day my friend, Cheers Gunther or GD. Hi Tony,
nice one, thanks for mention my name,
I know what you are saying, yes it can and has been a hard road to get to this point, but as you said this is all fairly new stuff (most of the software) You know I am an addict using Aperture and it works for me just fine. I shoot 95% above and little UW. I guess it is a different story here, I chec out a few things and maybe get some more info re. the UW photography from Apple.
Happy that you point out the “fix in Photoshop” issue, if it is bad then it is a bad.As mention to you before I think my Philosophy is very simple get it right in the first place and dont relay on Photoshop or some other software to fix it after the event, photography starts out there and the image is taken a split second before we press the shutter, this is the case now and has been long before the digital age.
To many photographers today relay way to much on Photoshop these days, wrong!
Anyway great information and I pass this one on have a nice day my friend,
Cheers Gunther or GD.

]]>