I get a lot of emails asking what my personal workflow is when it comes to processing hundreds of images from an event. So here it is. Standard Disclaimer:Just because I do it this way doesn't mean it's the best
way or that it's the right way for you.
Just as there's no "best" way to configure your camera,
there's no "best" way to process a ton of images.
Adobe doing everything in their power to annoy me off their platform (slow
software, can't do anything else while it starts, constantly changing UI behavior, subscription
model, still not knowing how to handle rendering the workspace in Windows 10's
high-resolution screen), I still use Lightroom for processing large batches of
images, and Photoshop for tweaking images and doing special things that
Lightroom can't do.
We just returned from a month of travel, first giving 2 seminars in the UK (England and Scotland), and then vacationing in Southern Ireland (EU, not UK). The light was poor to average; it rained a lot, and I did the best I could with the six total minutes of good light I had. :-)
Lots of pictures to share and lessons regarding those pictures. I'll be as brief as I can.
This month features guest blogger Brian Ramage, whose dance photography was so impressive I wrote an article about him in an earlier issue of f2 Cameracraft (which you can read here for free - the article begins on page 25). Brian wanted to know which of four different 85mm lenses for the Sony FE mount would give him the best real-world results for his portraiture work, and so he got his hands on them, examined the results, and was just a little annoyed at what he found. His full article appears below after a few announcements.
So here I was, on my way back from Las Vegas, and I came across a run-down old building that has a certain "character". I pulled over and took a few pictures with my A99 II and Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8, then started to head back to the car. Then I hesitated.
"These conditions are pretty good. Strong light, so I can shoot at a low ISO with a small f/stop. I wonder how the RX-100 V compares in these ideal conditions?". I went back to the car and tried to duplicate the shots I just took using a small-sensor point-and-shoot. Then I drove home.
The subject matter and the lighting were so good that I suspected enlargements from the two cameras would be indistinguishable. (Click on any image to see a larger version.)
(Okay, that's a misleading headline, since you also need a camera and a
macro lens as well. But it works and the results are great!)
This method works
much better than the dedicated film scanners that were once available: Using a
24 megapixel camera, you get a larger file size: 6000 x 4000 pixels versus 3779
x 2522 of the Nikon Coolscan LS-2000 (which continues to gather dust under my
desk). If you use an even higher megapixel camera, you can easily see just how unsharp your old film lenses were.