Google| Subject | Re: converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D |
| From | Eric Stevens |
| Date | 12/07/2013 00:45 (12/07/2013 12:45) |
| Message-ID | <hgn4a9pbcaqrihp51mc3p7t9n79i3fo02j@4ax.com> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | nospam |
| Followups | nospam (13m) > Eric Stevens Savageduck (21m) > Eric Stevens |
On Fri, 06 Dec 2013 12:42:39 -0500, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
nospam
In article <l7sq7l02hic@news6.newsguy.com>, PeterN <peter.newnospam@verizon.net>wrote:nospamPeterNEric StevensPeterNnospam
Is it your claim that in the film days, a good photo artist did not have to understand the how and why of film. He did not have to understand masking with film, the effect of various chemicals, and light sources on things such as contrast, and grain?
my claim is that in film days, knowing how and being proficient in darkroom work was not required.
some photographers did do their own darkroom work, but as i said, it wasn't required. many pro photographers worked with a pro lab who took care of the details.
And the photographer had no idea of what kind of things the lab could do for them.
And the good ones give precise instructions to the lab.
no they don't.
they describe what they want and leave the precise details to those in the lab.
I speak from watching professionals at work. If for any reason they had done anything out of the ordinary, they tell the lab and tell the lab staff what they want done about it in the developing process. The lab staff may discuss it with the photographer but the photographer usually has the final say. --PeterNnospam
In order to give instructions to the lab, the good photographer must understand what a lab can, and cannot do. If the instructions are not followed, the lab doesn't get paid.
wrong.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
11/30/2013-
-
