I would like some advice on something I hadn’t even thought about until recently. From the beginning, I have been using PL4 and the other tools to edit DIGITAL images from one of my cameras. Then I got out my old Leica M3 and got involved in my old negatives from years ago, and scanning film. So I’ve been using PL4 for the past few weeks on 35mm negatives scanned on my new Plustek scanner.
The more I did this, the more involved I got with film, and my M3 is now off at DAG Camera getting a 60-year clean&lube, and whatever else it needs, my M2 will probably get the same, and after digging out my Nikon F2, I got interested in that, which led to my getting out my huge and heavy Nikon F4 which is as good a camera for film, as my Digital cameras are for digital.
This led to a huge amount of feedback from so many people here, especially Joanna, such that my head is now spinning as I try to make sense of it all - but my images keep getting better.
This led to my reading this article:
…and that led me to 81 replies, including the following by Dug Sitowski: "Although I carry around a primo Leica digital I still tend to go to my trusty mechanical Spotmatic or F1 for my “money shots”. With 24 exposures, film holds me to a strct line of creative and judgemental discipline as to “the decisive moment” (Bresson), composition, f-stops, shutter speed, color management, and so forth. With digital I have an unfortunate tendency to “shoot it first and fix it later” via Photoshop. I also have a closer feeling of a hands-on connection with film than electronic digital much like driving a 350 Camaro with 4-on-the-floor as opposed to an automatic. The automatic will get you to where you’re going but you’ll have a heck of a lot more fun getting there with the 4-speed. Ansel Adams made an astute observation : “I am a fly-fisherman, I don’t drop a stick of dynamite into the creek”. So, what was good enough for him and Bresson I guess is good enough for me. Nuf said.
So, my question for this thread is that it seems to make sense that I should have a “Workspace” for film, and a different “Workspace” for digital, and I’m probably better off separating the images on my computer into one area for analog, and one area for digital. Right now, they’re all bunched up together.
Does this make sense to do it that?
(I’m also trying to sort out PL4 in my mind - so much of PL4 deals with specific corrections for different cameras, and different lenses, and how to correct the RAW files to make them more accurate, and then dealing with noise. NONE of that relates to my scanned images. So the whole process is different between “film” and “digital”. Then too, as what Dug wrote, I tend to spend a lot more time and take a single image with film, and since digital is “free” I tend to take a lot more, just in case, thinking I’ll fix it in the editor.)
I’m trying very hard to avoid Photoshop and Lightroom and all the other editors that are on my computer, and do everything in PL4 (and the related DxO software that works with PL4).
…or, I can continue as I’m doing now, just create different Workspaces, and mix all my images together regardless of the source, film or digital…