I am considering moving from film to digital, but I'm worried about how much computer fiddling might be necessary to get the photos finished for printing or sharing. Would I have to make computer adjustments to every shot?

Me: complete amateur, have used a Canon Elan II SLR for five years, 95% of the shots in automatic mode, i.e. idiot mode except that I control the use of flash. On average I only shoot a few rolls per month. Usually the most creative I get, besides composition, is choosing focal length to control depth of field somewhat (wide v. zoom on the basic 28-85 lens that came with the camera; I've also got a basic 50mm lens).

One reason I'm considering going digital is how much easier it would be to learn how to really use an SLR, with instant feedback rather than getting film developed. I never seem to get around to doing that with film. I've been happy enough with the quality of my automatic mode shots, but I want to do better.

Question(s): suppose I get a Rebel XT or D50 or D70 camera, the most likely candidates. What else do I need?

1) Do you really have to make adjustments in Photoshop on every photo to get the same quality shots I get from my Elan film photos? I can understand using software to perfect a photo, but I would prefer not to have to use much processing effort on basic family photos.

2) Is the mini version of PS that you sometimes get with the camera good enough for basic processing, or would I have to purchase the real thing?

3) How much hard drive space will I need to store all of these photos for the foreseeable future (I tend to be a packrat)?

4) How much for a good enough printer?

5) Anything else come to mind that I would need?

I realize the answers to these questions are not the same for everyone, but I never really considered what has to happen to a digital photo after I take it, and I've read some comments recently that make me wonder what all is involved to achieve even my current basic SLR quality level. Again, I'm not looking to be a pro right out of the gates, but I get pretty good quality with not much effort in my current film setup, and I would hate to take a step back in final photo quality by going digital if I don't spend tons of time in Photoshop. I know that you can take a $200 digital point and shoot camera and print straight from the camera, but obviously I'm used to a higher quality photo than that, even in idiot mode, with my SLR.

Sorry for the long post, and thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Here are my thoughts. If you want to take snapshots of stuff where quality is not critical, shoot JPG and use the built in features of the camera to do automatic sharpening and colour adjustment. More than sufficient.

However, if you're shooting something where you need to take full advantage of the camera, use RAW. This is where the 'digital dark room' comes into play. At a VERY simplistic level here's what I do:

- move files to your hard drive
- adjust color balance, levels, etc.
- do any touchup if required
- resize image if needed
- apply any sharpening if required (sometimes resizing something down smaller doesn't require sharpening but this depends on what you want to get out of the photo)
- print off or upload the photo to your website
- store/backup files

That's it really :)

I use my own batch file to move the files off the CF and onto my hard drive. There are various programs that do this for you but I never bothered looking at those.

I don't bother with printing, if I need something developed, well, I send it to a lab to get it printed. Of course you need to consider about the colour calibration of your monitor otherwise the colours in the print might be slightly off.

As for software, if you're starting out, you can use the DPP software that comes with the camera to convert your RAW images to TIFF images for example, or JPG if you don't need the larger colour space and don't mind the JPG compression. For applications to do the touchup, you could try out GIMP - it's free, but the one thing that it lacks is the ability to work in 16-bit colour space. With 16-bit (well, really 12-bit), you have a little bit more room for adjustments, especially with levels. Photoshop is the ultimate graphic tool.

Storage... RAW's files are large, TIFF even more and demands a lot of memory too. I keep the TIF and RAW images. JPGs can be throw away if I have the RAW/TIFF file. Of course if you shoot JPG, then don't delete the original file. Also, I never modify the original JPG file if I need to do something to it. Backup - back it up to other media such as DVD or some redundante storage if you don't want to lose the photos. TIF files are large so they tend to gobble space up fast.

Overally, there is no one single process or set of tools that will work for everybody.

I used a Nikon D70 and Photoshop Elements 3.0. I am in no way a professional, but I shoot all photos in RAW Format then converted them to .jpg...

Adjustments were minimal...I just leave the thing on Auto setting...

Hard drive space is needed unless you go with a removeable hard drive...I had to upgrade to a 250GB main drive and 160GB removeable...

If you are going to print, I recommend a camera specialty shop...Not mall stores, but a well established local camera shop where the pros or wedding photographers go to buy equipment.<ul><li><a href="http://pictureposter.audiworld.com/users/93072.phtml">http://pictureposter.audiworld.com/users/93072.phtml</a</li></ul>

I'll probably be replacing my computer before the end of the year, is there a particular technology I should look for in the monitor to help with color balancing photos? Even if I don't move to digital photos now, I should be ready.

I just bought an HP Photosmart PC with windows Media Center from Costco and it came with a 21" Wide Screen monitor. What's really cool about it other than the HD capacity was the LightScribe DVD RW. Now I can burn the tops of DVD R or CD R with Audi pictures. Resolution on the monitor is 1000+ X 1000+ unknown exact numbers.

Unlimited budget -&gt; Apple Cinema LCD (pick your size) and one of these (see link).

On a budget, Dell LCD and a cheaper calibration kit.<ul><li><a href="http://www.colorvision.com/profis/profis_view.jsp?id=341">http://www.colorvision.com/profis/profis_view.jsp?id=341</a</li></ul>

Maybe when I edit my photos I can get people to say it's Lava Gray and not Black.