On 02/19/2015 01:51 PM, John Andersen wrote:
Regardless, well over 80% of the shots taken will never see the light of day, and you will write them to disk and view them once and never again look at them.
Yes, I went though that in my 20s, learning the art. If I had one or two tolerably good shots out of a roll of 36 I was delighted. But back then I was buying my film in 100' rolls and cutting it down to canisters, paper by the 1000' roll and more cutting and had my own darkroom in the basement because my father had been a professional. The I came to Canada and had to pay for my processing and didn't have the short cut. Expense went up and up I made sure that everything was done much more carefully. I always had the feeling I never took enough shots, but I was getting an 80% or better 'acceptance' rate now. Think of it as actually applying what I'd learnt rather than the 'gay abandon' of my youth.
Unless you fancy yourself the second coming of Ansel Adams (a hubris all too common among amateurs), there is seldom a need to retain the RAW image format.
I'd say the opposite. Now I'm all digital (!sigh!) I can flip and chose. The quick shots I take, for example to sell stuff on kijiji, are all low-res jpeg, they are really 'use once and throw away'. I'm even starting to use my cell phone for that. For example I took a picture of a menu at a restaurant where I had a meal I liked, later transcribed the ingredients to a text file and threw away the JPG. Phones are great for things like that :-) The more I think about it, the more I seem to throw away the JPGS and keep the RAW. I can always reconstruct the JPGs, I have the XML files. The 'serious' stuff I use the professional grade cameras on, my Canon and the surprising high quality Fuji, are the RAW. The Architectural work for Relators always needs editing and they want it done over, which means keeping the RAW files around. Maybe even to the next time they sell that property or one next door to it :-) I also seem to take a lot of floral shots. Even those who don't win at the shows want a record of their 'babies'. Oddly, a woman who sells floral pictures for greeting cards decided she preferred mine .... If I made a few enhancements ... Which was possible because I had the RAW and darktable. People coming from FOSS should know that 'amateur' does not mean poor quality. Many of us have been though this before. We know that sometimes the dedicated 'amateur' produces better software than the 'professional' corporation.
Unless you do it professionally you are fooling yourself. Which of course is your right. But professionals wouldn't be obsessing over inodes. They'd just get on with the job.
Yes, we see that in software don't we? The professional has to work to the budget, the release date, its driven by what makes the professional different from the amateur, PROFIT. For the professional, "good enough is good enough"; if its good enough you get paid. I get paid for the stuff I sell on kijiji, but that has little to do with the quality - or not - of the photographs I take for the adverts I place there. Its a non issue. Some people sell stuff using photos out of catalogues, for ${DEITY}'s sake! -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org