Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Photography General Interest

Photography General Interest Neat Photo stuff NOT particularly about Rangefinders.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Shooting RAW a waste of time?
Old 03-12-2013   #1
upceci
-
 
upceci is offline
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 75
Shooting RAW a waste of time?

I have no doubt RAW files will give better results with processing when it comes to IQ only, but processing also means a lot of time spent in pressing buttons and playing with sliders, the stuff that does not interest me because I'm interested in the photos not sitting there and "playing" with photos.

I have begun to actually see shooting RAW as making one's work more than it should be and a waste of time, not to mention making one susceptible to be a photoshoper than a photographer.

My new must-have criterion for buying a new camera, great jpgs.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #2
edge100
-
 
edge100 is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 757
Oh boy. Here we go...
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #3
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 52
Posts: 6,255
You have your own question answered. If you can get great jpegs every time RAW is a waste of time for you.
Of course, good luck rescuing a jpeg you shoot in difficult light or one that is poorly exposed
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #4
NicoM
Registered User
 
NicoM's Avatar
 
NicoM is offline
Join Date: Aug 2012
Age: 29
Posts: 497
It's part of the process. If you want the best possible image, RAW is the way to go. Many are happy with OOC Jpegs, but you can usually push those shots further if you edit them from RAW. Even minor tweaks to an image can make a big difference.

That's just my opinion though.
__________________
Website
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #5
EdwardKaraa
Registered User
 
EdwardKaraa's Avatar
 
EdwardKaraa is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Bangkok
Age: 51
Posts: 697
If you can get WB, contrast and exposure right in the camera, then by all means shoot jpg. I can't.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #6
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
 
Jamie Pillers's Avatar
 
Jamie Pillers is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 4,059
Because I have a Fuji X-Pro1 and Aperture, I'm stuck with jpegs. HOWEVER... the jpegs from the Fuji are very nice and so I'm not feeling a loss.

But what I wanted to add to the conversation is this. I've had digital cameras who's RAW files were recognised by Aperture. I have to say that when using these RAW files, I didn't see ANY difference in the processing procedures & time involved. I use exactly the same adjustments for both jpeg and RAW files. I understand that using RAW files allowed more room for adjustment, but from a workflow point of view, it made no difference.
__________________
Talk to a stranger today!

Fuji X30; waiting for X-T4

Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/albums
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #7
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
 
tbarker13's Avatar
 
tbarker13 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Orlando
Posts: 1,667
Part of digital photography is accepting that work once done in the darkroom is now done on the computer. Admittedly, working with photoshop or lightroom is a very different experience than making adjustments with chemicals, papers, filters, etc. in a darkroom.
But if you want the most out of your images, you should learn to effectively use the new "darkroom."

I just know that I've never regretted shooting raw and making my own jpgs. But I have regretted shooting in jpg and finding myself unable to fix an image that could have been better.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #8
Lund
Registered User
 
Lund is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 103
The ideal camera should of course have great jpegs straight out of it. That way you would be able trust them enough to really learn how your camera works and be able to visualize the photo while you compose. In a way I'm very attracted to that thought. Having the image done and ready in the moment I take the photo.

I however tend to work over my digital files until they are unrecognizable.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #9
daveleo
what?
 
daveleo's Avatar
 
daveleo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: People's Republic of Mass.
Posts: 3,686
I discovered for myself that, for me, shooting RAW is a waste of my time.
I don't have the calibrated monitor / printer / software / artistic eye that RAW deserves (demands ?) to get the most of it.

YMMV
__________________
Dave

  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #10
kbg32
neo-romanticist
 
kbg32's Avatar
 
kbg32 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 5,592
Is time spent in the darkroom a waste?
__________________
Keith

http://keithgoldstein.me/
Keith’s Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #11
FrozenInTime
Registered User
 
FrozenInTime's Avatar
 
FrozenInTime is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,766
These days I shoot jpeg only on my GRD IV - outstanding jpeg engine.
These shots end up directly on my ipad with very little if any tweaking and are very quickly ready to show.

With the M9 and MM, the end use of the photos is very different; more technical images ; so raw processing and extensive adjustments, mask etc. are not uncommon.

Both workflows have their time and place.
__________________
It's the weird colour scheme that freaks me. Every time you try to operate one of these weird black controls, which are labeled in black on a black background, a small black light lights up black to let you know you've done it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #12
upceci
-
 
upceci is offline
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 75
Lets analyze some common objections to jpg:

-White Balance

Instagram has made a billion$ business by screwing up the WB of photos. Slide film's charm was incorrect WB... WB accuracy is another digital era photoshoper obsession rather than photographer one.

-Noise

Noise is no longer an issue with almost all digital cameras.

-Detail

If the detail is too small to get lost with jpg then its useless detail.

-Large printing

What % of photographers print that large?

--Dynamic range

HDR has made it quite obvious that too much DR is in fact a sure way to kill an image. High contrast images are still liked by everyone because it only makes one notice the important stuff. I don't care whats in the shadows or highlights if the image is useless to begin with it.


The obsession with RAW is simply due to image quality becoming the only profitable business in photography, from software to sensors to RAW converters...
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #13
rbelyell
Registered User
 
rbelyell is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,340
there are a number of issues here. OP recognizes there is 'no doubt' RAW files provide more info. thats a fact, and a fact is objective.

whether that info is necessary in all situations or whether having it generally leads to a noticeably better result are in fact different questions the answers to which are subjective.

nothing prevents a photographer deciding after experimentation that in the great majority of situations RAW is a waste for them. in addition, one could come to that exact conclusion, and yet still shoot RAW in difficult situations. indeed that is the conclusion to which i came, and i'm damned happy with it!

back to OT, if you want the best jpegs, seems the consensus is behind fuji. i certainly can vouch for the high quality jpegs i get from the now-hopelessly-outdated x100.
tony
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #14
burancap
Registered User
 
burancap's Avatar
 
burancap is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Location: South Carolina
Age: 54
Posts: 2,193
I'm split. Simple as that. I understand the OP and I also understand rescuing a shot.
__________________
Jeff
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #15
btgc
Registered User
 
btgc's Avatar
 
btgc is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,754
If we leave alone fact that most of exposures made daily are waste of time and resources, then JPG vs RAW isn't too crucial. OP worries about photoshoppers, but skilled RAW shooters do it all in converter so they can not be blamed for photoshopping (beyond technical stuff like levels/USM). Probably we are too close to doomed "straight scan(or JPG), not manipulated" purist issue.
__________________
MyFlickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #16
angelog
formerly agianelo
 
angelog's Avatar
 
angelog is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 151
I have raw files from 10 years ago that I recently reprocessed in Lightroom and I was surprised at how raw processing software has matured in that period of time. Back then there were embedded Jpegs or you could process all your raw files into whatever format you chose. Now, I shoot Raw plus small jpegs just like for film where I get Negatives plus an "Econoscan" disc. Storage space is cheap. I would recommend to anyone that shooting Raw is worth the effort. You can always delete the Raw files later if you need the space.

Angelo
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #17
upceci
-
 
upceci is offline
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by btgc View Post
OP worries about photoshoppers...
I have nothing against photoshopers, I was basically referring to photoshoper syndrome, if i can put it that way, a sort of situation where photos become RAW material for playing later on.

Dan Margulis is a great photoshoper, in his own right his a skilled individual, but his not a photographer.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #18
daveleo
what?
 
daveleo's Avatar
 
daveleo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: People's Republic of Mass.
Posts: 3,686
something about that last statement is bothersome . . . if you are saying that people who do heavy computer post-processing are "not photographers", I am not going to argue about it, but I absolutely disagree - and I don't connect that to the original question (it seems now to be a diversion).

Anyway FWIW, I love manipulated images - has nothing to do with shooting RAW files.
__________________
Dave

  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #19
edge100
-
 
edge100 is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 757
Now we're getting there...

Raw isn't about "rescuing" a photograph. It's about extracting the maximum amount from a given exposure.

And this business about too much dynamic range ruining an image (à la HDR) is ridiculous. Does Portra 400 have "too much" dynamic range? Not for me, it doesn't (and it has FAR more DR than any digital photo, shot in Raw or otherwise). I'd much rather be able to add contrast as needed, than have too much to start with.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #20
Bill Clark
Registered User
 
Bill Clark's Avatar
 
Bill Clark is online now
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Minnetonka, Minnesota
Age: 71
Posts: 2,621
Quote:
Shooting RAW a waste of time?
Not anymore than shooting with film is a waste of time.

Every digital photo I make is RAW. I think of this as undeveloped film.

I develop the RAW files with my computer rather than having the camera make decisions, when converting from RAW to JPEG.

I work hard at getting it "right" during capture as I use RAW with Bridge as a way of achieving proper color balance and exposure.

Just what I do as it's my work flow.
__________________
Predictions are hard, especially about the future.”
-Yogi Berra
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #21
mike-s
Registered User
 
mike-s's Avatar
 
mike-s is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: BELFAST
Posts: 83
I hate RAW. Trouble is I'm not a good enough photographer to shoot JPEGs all the time.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #22
hausen
Registered User
 
hausen is offline
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Auckland
Posts: 910
Maybe I am reading it wrong, and forgive me if I am, but the OP seems to have some real angst regarding this subject. I never thought I would enjoy the processing part of photography on my computer but I have grown to enjoy at and I got better at it. To the point where my actual darkroom lies dormant. But what is the point of this thread? If you feel jpegs give you the information needed and look you desire then don't shoot Raw. If you can't get what you want then Raw it has to be. Are you trying to convince the rest of us of the error of our ways or is the thread merely an attempt to start a bunfight? Again I apologise if I read this wrong.
__________________
David
Auckland, NZ

Far too many cameras & lenses!
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #23
kxl
Social Documentary
 
kxl's Avatar
 
kxl is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sunny SoCal
Posts: 3,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by upceci View Post
Lets analyze some common objections to jpg:

-White Balance

Instagram has made a billion$ business by screwing up the WB of photos. Slide film's charm was incorrect WB... WB accuracy is another digital era photoshoper obsession rather than photographer one.

-Noise

Noise is no longer an issue with almost all digital cameras.

-Detail

If the detail is too small to get lost with jpg then its useless detail.

-Large printing

What % of photographers print that large?

--Dynamic range

HDR has made it quite obvious that too much DR is in fact a sure way to kill an image. High contrast images are still liked by everyone because it only makes one notice the important stuff. I don't care whats in the shadows or highlights if the image is useless to begin with it.


The obsession with RAW is simply due to image quality becoming the only profitable business in photography, from software to sensors to RAW converters...
You're funny.
__________________
Keith
My Website
RFF feedback


"... I thought the only way to give us an incentive, to bring hope, is to show the pictures of the pristine planet - to see the innocence.” ― Sebastiao Salgado
  Reply With Quote

Have not taken a RAW capture in 4 years...
Old 03-12-2013   #24
kuzano
Registered User
 
kuzano is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,952
Have not taken a RAW capture in 4 years...

Post Processed to the point of "strain" for five years before that. Became an adept photoshopper.

Finally decided to put the emphasis on improvements in camera for Large Fine near compressionless JPEGS. Quit RAW altogether and started paying attention to camera development and in camera process capabilities.

Now that the camera manufacturers are tackling the last big hurdle I saw to excellent quality after the camera processes the image, I will probably never again shoot RAW.

Primary reasons for me. RAW not condusive to fast action events (and aren't they all) because of time the camera is out of comission to write files.

Time spent at the computer, since my occupation is computer consulting and teching..... You can only stare at computer screens for so long every day.

The hurdle that is being overcome, aside from all the recent developments, is the weakening, or complete removal of Low Pass filtering (AA). I found that Olympus took leaps forward with weaker AA filters 4-5 years ago and have been shooting Olympus M4/3 as a result.

Now Canon and Nikon are both removing or cancelleing out AA filtering, ie the Canon 6D and the Nikon D800E. Other manufacturers following suit are Sony, Pentax, etc.

Olympus is still using weak lowpass filtering and out shot both Canon and Nikon for the Camera of The Year 2012 award from DPreview. Not exlusively as a result of the low pass filtering changes, but also as a result of what Olympus does better than anyone else... innovation and taking risks in the marketplace.

So, RAW is history for me.

Reasons like maintaining a properly calibrated system, ISO and WB certainly play a role in my decision. I don't need a computer in my camera to do WB and I don't need RAW. I can change white balance on JPEGS as easily as I can control it on a RAW file in a RAW convertor.

Arguments like having more control with RAW over letting the camera process a JPEG are totally absurd. If you know how much control you have over the processing a good camera enables you to do with JPEG from the camera, you would wipe the whole CONTROL issue off your slate of "whines".

No RAW Please. Let me go out and shoot (with a properly adjusted and setup camera). And also thankful that I can now get the sharpness that my lenses are capable of.... not smudged OOF by the AA filters.
  Reply With Quote

No didn't read wrong, but another take might be.....
Old 03-12-2013   #25
kuzano
Registered User
 
kuzano is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,952
No didn't read wrong, but another take might be.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by hausen View Post
Maybe I am reading it wrong, and forgive me if I am, but the OP seems to have some real angst regarding this subject. I never thought I would enjoy the processing part of photography on my computer but I have grown to enjoy at and I got better at it. To the point where my actual darkroom lies dormant. But what is the point of this thread? If you feel jpegs give you the information needed and look you desire then don't shoot Raw. If you can't get what you want then Raw it has to be. Are you trying to convince the rest of us of the error of our ways or is the thread merely an attempt to start a bunfight? Again I apologise if I read this wrong.
I am beginning to think of RAW as the digital photographys means to avert people from competing with professionals.

I mean, come on, how many newbys are going to persist in tackling photography as a career, once they hit the RAW and Post Processing plateau.

While at the same time, Professional Photographers hourly rates are going down if they are not making price adjustments to compensate themselves for Post Processing time on ALL their work.

Double edged sword. Post Processing well managed may be just fine for many. As a hobby in which one does not begrudge the separation of digital photography into two pastimes....1) Photography and 2) Graphic Artistry, which is the real exchangeable term for Post Processing/RAW, the RAW and PP is an obvious choice.

Personally, I don't believe that people are necessarily getting better pictures than I can get with No RAW and minimal post. Yet at the same time, I have looked at more than just a few abominations coming out the hind side of RAW Convertors, Light Room, Photoshop and Aperture.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #26
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Silly Valley, California, USA
Posts: 9,464
There's nothing wrong with using JPEGs produced in-camera if you get the results you want that way. Olympus digital cameras, in particular, tend to make outstanding JPEGs right out of the camera. Get the image processing settings right, focus and expose correctly, right out of the camera they'll be excellent.

However, I tend to separate what I do in capturing the image from what I do when rendering it. It's just the way I prefer to work. So I set my cameras to output raw files and leave the image processing settings at their defaults. I learn to work exposure using the ISO, aperture and shutter time speeds just like I always do with film cameras. I learn to focus and control focus zone with aperture and focal length just like I always do with film cameras.

I vet my exposure work against my raw processor (Lightroom). If the exposure is right, I tweak the image processing adjustments until I get the results I want, then save those as the defaults for the camera.

If I've done my job successfully, for MOST average photos all I do is import from camera card into Lightroom, annotate with my IPTC information, then output to the JPEGs I need to deliver for a website. Done. It's an almost effortless operation.

For the special photos that are going to a full exhibition print, etc, I put in a little more processing time to optimize them. This typically takes less than five minutes on a given photo. Since it's one out of a {large number} of average photos that needs this kind of effort, I don't find it particularly burdensome.

Raw capture data provides much more image processing leeway and allows you to get the most a camera/sensor can deliver. But if your needs are satisfied by the camera itself, using the camera's JPEG engine, sure: use it! It can save some effort and time.

G
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #27
nobbylon
Registered User
 
nobbylon's Avatar
 
nobbylon is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Nederlands
Posts: 2,681
I wouldn't even consider taking ANYTHING important, paid or unpaid unless I shoot it in RAW. As Tim said, 'I just know that I've never regretted shooting raw and making my own jpgs. But I have regretted shooting in jpg and finding myself unable to fix an image that could have been better'.
I recently shot a wedding at some botanical gardens, Green, green and more damn green everywhere! No other choice for the group shots, too many people there so it was out on the lawns with nothing but green in the background!
ALL and I mean ALL jpegs from guests cameras I've seen are awfull. My own in camera jpegs were awfull. Skin tones green, cream dress with green cast and all in all a nightmare scenario. Open up the RAW in Capture One, adjust WB, levels and exposure for optimums, selectively pick up the green and adjust to look as it did on the day, job done. You simply cannot do this if you shoot only in jpeg.
If your photography doesn't need the versatility of RAW capture then fine but it's not just about image quality. And for the record I hardly use photoshop .
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #28
btgc
Registered User
 
btgc's Avatar
 
btgc is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,754
Quote:
Originally Posted by upceci View Post
Dan Margulis is a great photoshoper, in his own right his a skilled individual, but his not a photographer.
I get your point. Great cook isn't a chief, deciding on menu and nuances.

For me it's simple - RAW is just like negative. One can make several prints from negative, all different. Printer can just print and don't be photographer. Photographer can be printer, too or just leave printing to someone, but he should have his own decisions and preferences on how print should look.

Back to RAW - in this context JPG is more like chromes, more "what you got is what you print". Yes, some adjustments can be made but not as extreme as working with negative. If one knows look he needs and can get it shooting JPG - that's way to go, nothing wrong with it.
__________________
MyFlickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #29
bobbyrab
Registered User
 
bobbyrab is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 674
Nobbylon has it spot on, my preference to work in raw is entirely for the WB stability.
If your forced to shoot in less than ideal light as I often am, then raw's the only way to go regarding accurate colour. If jpg WB was stable I'd have no problem with it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #30
haempe
negative guy
 
haempe's Avatar
 
haempe is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 955
RAW is a waste of time - if you have no idea what you can do with it...
__________________

haempe.net
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #31
user237428934
User deletion pending
 
user237428934 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,675
All my digital cameras deliver pure BS directly out of the camera. When I load the RAW files into Lightroom even with a standard adobe profile the files look better. With LR it makes no difference if you work on a jpg file or a raw file. Software behaves almost the same. Why the hell should I waste my time with jpg?
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #32
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,943
What isn't a waste of time, unless you care enough about what you're doing to do it properly? And who defines 'properly'?

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #33
tbhv55
Registered User
 
tbhv55 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Devon, UK
Age: 64
Posts: 634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie Pillers View Post
I have to say that when using these RAW files, I didn't see ANY difference in the processing procedures & time involved.
I agree with this - I can see no real need for extra time to be spent in Raw processing, unless one chooses to indulge. The only argument that I can see for not using Raw is the question of storage space (both on the camera card, and on the computer) - and this one can't be denied, because Raw files (from any given camera) are always larger than the Jpegs.

Beyond this, it seems to me that Raw vs. Jpeg is purely down to individual preference - neither is right, nor wrong.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #34
daveleo
what?
 
daveleo's Avatar
 
daveleo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: People's Republic of Mass.
Posts: 3,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbyrab View Post
Nobbylon has it spot on, my preference to work in raw is entirely for the WB stability.
If your forced to shoot in less than ideal light as I often am, then raw's the only way to go regarding accurate colour. If jpg WB was stable I'd have no problem with it.
You could manually set white balance with a white card before you made the shot.
__________________
Dave

  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #35
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,373
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdwardKaraa View Post
If you can get WB, contrast and exposure right in the camera, then by all means shoot jpg. I can't.
This succinctly sums up the entire situation. There is really nothing more to say.
__________________
Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form.
Garry Winogrand
williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #36
ihorzu
Registered User
 
ihorzu is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 10
Why don't you shoot both RAW and JPG files? If it's everything OK with image quality just use JPG. If you want to change something in the image use RAW though.
You can buy that huge cards 16, 32, 64GB and forget about space even shooting RAW+JPG.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #37
tbhv55
Registered User
 
tbhv55 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Devon, UK
Age: 64
Posts: 634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
What isn't a waste of time
Quite! Absolutely nothing isn't a waste of time (apologies for the clumsy double-negative sounding structure there!)

As an adjunct to this, though, I enjoyed a comment that I heard recently: "Wasted time isn't wasted, if you enjoyed wasting it". That rather appeals to me...
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #38
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbhv55 View Post
Quite! Absolutely nothing isn't a waste of time (apologies for the clumsy double-negative sounding structure there!)

As an adjunct to this, though, I enjoyed a comment that I heard recently: "Wasted time isn't wasted, if you enjoyed wasting it". That rather appeals to me...
Beautiful!

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #39
Samouraï
Registered User
 
Samouraï's Avatar
 
Samouraï is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 505
If you were printing your own film, you'd be spending a lot more time in the darkroom than you would in Lightroom.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #40
tbhv55
Registered User
 
tbhv55 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Devon, UK
Age: 64
Posts: 634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Beautiful!

Cheers,

R.
Fun isn't it?

I wish I could claim it as my own, but sadly, I can't...
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:12.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.