I have been an advocate for image making and its art form from behind and through the camera, but over the passed year or so moving away from post and concentrating on getting it done in camera if I could. I still believe this is valid and am still an advocate, however I am wondering how the scales fair nowadays comparing image making with and without the influences of processing. In the years of film we handed over our valued chromes to a lab and most of the time let them do their thing. Obviously picking the lab that most suited our needs but in fact that was the only true influence we had. When making BW prints we found more tools to help us realize what we wanted to make in our images and for those who could afford it and with stand the learning curve – they did color as well.
Now it seems that the processing portion of the image making equation is moving much quicker and with more consistency than what we can produce out of camera. So my question is this:
Does post processing now finally have a real part of the image making process even though for some photographers, things like Photoshop was a “bad” word and only to be used as an excuse for a poor photograph. I say now more than ever we are living in an industry that demand quality from both sides of the lens and also that post is becoming (or for some us) already is an integral part of the process and without it the images would certainly suffer. In the film world, editing, can make or break a project and it has been this way for some time. I am a big proponent of collaboration and invite all photographers who have not done so already, to team up on a project with someone whose skills are equal in PS to the photographers photography and embrace the style in which will influence the final output. This is o different than what Miles Davis and Herbie Hancock have done with all of their collaborative adventures. I for one, get excited bringing others influences and strengths into a project, it is a wonderful environment, if you and your ego will allow it.
Finally, I am not too sure where I am going with all this except to say that using PS or the like as an excuse is like keeping an exposed roll of film in the cartridge.
Yes, very well. But also, not quite. With Apple’s 10.0.3 release of Final Cut Pro X, they added multicam support and a host of other features, but more importantly for some, they finally made it possible to move projects from Final Cut Pro 7 to Final Cut Pro X. Well, that’s not quite true. Apple didn’t actually make this possible – they are promoting the product of a 3rd party, Intelligent Design, to facilitate upgrading old projects. Here’s a quick overview of the process:
There’s a great write-up at ProVideo Coalition that details the process of taking a fairly complicated Final Cut Pro 7 project and bringing it into Final Cut Pro X. From their blog:
As different as FCP7 and FCPX are I don’t think anyone would expect prefect [sic] fidelity when moving between the applications unless Apple had designed some type of conversion in from the start. Yes they are different but they both have timelines that pretty much stack clips vertically, both have different camera angles grouped into one clip and both have places to store that original footage so they are similar enough that a good conversion is possible.
Intelligent Design seem to have really done their homework and have created a product that actually does what Apple has thus far refused to do: allow us to carry over our projects from Final Cut Pro 7. If you’ve got a relatively simple project, 7toX should work almost perfectly. If you’ve got a complicated multicam project, you may run into a few issues. But as Scott Simmons at ProVideo Coalition points out, this is partly the fault of Final Cut Pro X and the way that it deals with audio. There is a detailed list of everything that does, and does not translate on their website.
7toX costs $9.99 and is available in Apple’s Mac App Store. While I don’t like paying money to introduce functionality back into software that should already have it, $10 is a small price to pay for those of us who would like to add FCPX into our arsenal, but require the ability to open FCP7 projects.