Re: Upgrading thoughts, did we have to worry about this during the film years....

2010-10-29 Thread David J Brooks
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Charles Robinson  wrote:
> On Oct 29, 2010, at 11:16, Boris Liberman wrote:
>
>> On 10/29/2010 4:09 PM, Charles Robinson wrote:
>>> If the issue is reading the RAW files, why wouldn't you just shoot in
>>> the DNG format and be done with it?  Last I recall, Adobe is pretty
>>> good at reading their own RAW format.
>>>
>>> -Charles
>>
>> Charles, as far as I understand, Dave shoots mostly with Nikon D200 and that 
>> camera does not produce DNG files out of the box. I think K10D (came a bit 
>> later) was the first such camera.
>>
>
> My bad.  Wasn't thinking "Nikon" on the Pentax list!  :-)

or Olympus, or Canon.;-)

Dave
>
>  -Charles
>
> --
> Charles Robinson - charl...@visi.com
> Minneapolis, MN
> http://charles.robinsontwins.org
> http://www.facebook.com/charles.robinson
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.
>



-- 
Documenting Life in Rural Ontario.
www.caughtinmotion.com
http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/
York Region, Ontario, Canada

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.


Re: Upgrading thoughts, did we have to worry about this during the film years....

2010-10-29 Thread Charles Robinson
On Oct 29, 2010, at 11:16, Boris Liberman wrote:

> On 10/29/2010 4:09 PM, Charles Robinson wrote:
>> If the issue is reading the RAW files, why wouldn't you just shoot in
>> the DNG format and be done with it?  Last I recall, Adobe is pretty
>> good at reading their own RAW format.
>> 
>> -Charles
> 
> Charles, as far as I understand, Dave shoots mostly with Nikon D200 and that 
> camera does not produce DNG files out of the box. I think K10D (came a bit 
> later) was the first such camera.
> 

My bad.  Wasn't thinking "Nikon" on the Pentax list!  :-)

 -Charles

--
Charles Robinson - charl...@visi.com
Minneapolis, MN
http://charles.robinsontwins.org
http://www.facebook.com/charles.robinson


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.


Re: Upgrading thoughts, did we have to worry about this during the film years....

2010-10-29 Thread Boris Liberman

On 10/29/2010 4:09 PM, Charles Robinson wrote:

If the issue is reading the RAW files, why wouldn't you just shoot in
the DNG format and be done with it?  Last I recall, Adobe is pretty
good at reading their own RAW format.

-Charles


Charles, as far as I understand, Dave shoots mostly with Nikon D200 and 
that camera does not produce DNG files out of the box. I think K10D 
(came a bit later) was the first such camera.


Boris

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.


Re: Upgrading thoughts, did we have to worry about this during the film years....

2010-10-29 Thread Boris Liberman
Dave, I never had to process more than 300 shots at once. Well, I 
brought more than that from Norway in 2006 (by they were *istD files) 
and from Europe in 2008 (K10D) and even from Chicago this year (K7). But 
these are exceptions. Usually I shoot 60-something shots per outing and 
so does Galia. Very manageable amount if you ask me.


The issue with laptops is ability to calibrate their monitors. I am sure 
it is possible, but it may be probably a bit more difficult 
mechanically, 'cause that spyder thingie I am using is somewhat heavy, I 
think.


As for your Nikon RAW files. It might be a good idea to have them 
converted to DNG just in case. Even if they will not be /exactly/ the 
same as the originals, they will probably be as close to the original 
and as forward compatible with future computer software/hardware as one 
could get with current technology.


Hopefully, Adobe will keep backward format compatibility for 
sufficiently long time, although I admit this sentiment is not 
completely devoid of wishful thinking on my part.


Boris

On 10/29/2010 4:02 PM, David J Brooks wrote:

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 7:26 AM, Boris Liberman  wrote:


Personally, I upgrade my computer effectively when the time it takes to
process my stuff becomes unbearably long.


Well thats a good point. As you know i have mentioned my old PC is
terribly slow for with its USB 1.1 ports etc.
I am not processing 1000's of photos every weekend as i was in the
past, but i am working with Raw Nikon files a lot more now and working
with those is a real slow pain.
I have a faster Mac laptop, but the few prints i made from it looked
terrible so i stayed with the PC.
After my last post about my computer wows, i recieved several off list
emails from some listers i won't name, Cotty and Godders, opps, and
they both helped me see were i was going wrong and what i was doing
wrong on the Mac, and after that feel more confident with using it for
prints.
But back to my original thought. I don't need LR3 at the moment, which
according to Adobe will not run on this machine's OS, but if and when
i up date to a new camera and have to up date my editing software AND
computer to do so, adds a hefty expence, were as i said in the 35 mm
film days, the only expense was the new camera.:-)As long as the K10D
and D200 are working, I should be fine. By the time i can afford the
D300s or D700, whose raw files i can still access, a newer version
will be out and Adobe will make me upgrade software and computers to
process the files.
That was my point, i think.:-)

Dave




So, I suppose, indeed, from time to time one would have to update their
photography accessories, such as computer or printer if they print at home.

Boris

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.








--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.


Re: Upgrading thoughts, did we have to worry about this during the film years....

2010-10-29 Thread Bob Sullivan
Recollections of the past made me think about meetings with slide presentations.
You composed the text or selected the images, then had slides made.
You proofed the glass mounted slides,
loaded them upside down and backwards into the carousel,
then proofed the whole presentation in a dark meeting room.
Finally, you loaded up the bulky carousel and umpteen copies of the presentation
into your carry on luggage for the flight out of town.

All of this of this is now replaced by pictures/presentations from a laptop.

Regards,  Bob S.

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 6:26 AM, Boris Liberman  wrote:
> Dave, few points totally randomly popped in my mind.
>
> 1. I know for the fact that certain international corporation having 250
> thousand employees has a special storage where they keep not just the data
> but also the hardware of the same era the data was produced in order to be
> able to access the data if necessary. This was the question with which they
> approached the team I worked with at the time - can we provide them with
> sufficient knowledge so that they could take our system apart and put it in
> that storage.
>
> 2. During the film days... Well, exactly which film days? Before the
> commonly available film scanners or after that? Indeed, if you work in the
> dark room only - all you need is chemicals, which develop (no pun intended)
> but at slower pace than more modern tech. But if you're talking about hybrid
> process where film photos are scanned and processed on a computer, then the
> same question applies. Obviously you would want a stronger computer (so that
> you can take higher resolution scans) with stronger software so that you can
> take out the dust and hair and other particles automatically for you without
> damaging the underlying picture, etc.
>
> Personally, I upgrade my computer effectively when the time it takes to
> process my stuff becomes unbearably long. Presently rather outdated by
> modern standard dual core cpu with 8 gb ram does the job very nicely for me.
> I keep upgrading my software properly. For example, I follow updates of
> LightRoom and when 3.0 came out I bought an upgrade just like I did when 2.0
> came out like just I did when 1.0 came out with only exception that with 1.0
> it wasn't an upgrade, but an initial buy.
>
> So, I suppose, indeed, from time to time one would have to update their
> photography accessories, such as computer or printer if they print at home.
>
> Boris
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> follow the directions.
>

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.


Re: Upgrading thoughts, did we have to worry about this during the film years....

2010-10-29 Thread Charles Robinson
On Oct 29, 2010, at 9:02, David J Brooks wrote:
> But back to my original thought. I don't need LR3 at the moment, which
> according to Adobe will not run on this machine's OS, but if and when
> i up date to a new camera and have to up date my editing software AND
> computer to do so, adds a hefty expence, were as i said in the 35 mm
> film days, the only expense was the new camera.:-)As long as the K10D
> and D200 are working, I should be fine. By the time i can afford the
> D300s or D700, whose raw files i can still access, a newer version
> will be out and Adobe will make me upgrade software and computers to
> process the files.

If the issue is reading the RAW files, why wouldn't you just shoot in the DNG 
format and be done with it?  Last I recall, Adobe is pretty good at reading 
their own RAW format.

 -Charles

--
Charles Robinson - charl...@visi.com
Minneapolis, MN
http://charles.robinsontwins.org
http://www.facebook.com/charles.robinson


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.


Re: Upgrading thoughts, did we have to worry about this during the film years....

2010-10-29 Thread David J Brooks
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 7:26 AM, Boris Liberman  wrote:

> Personally, I upgrade my computer effectively when the time it takes to
> process my stuff becomes unbearably long.

Well thats a good point. As you know i have mentioned my old PC is
terribly slow for with its USB 1.1 ports etc.
I am not processing 1000's of photos every weekend as i was in the
past, but i am working with Raw Nikon files a lot more now and working
with those is a real slow pain.
I have a faster Mac laptop, but the few prints i made from it looked
terrible so i stayed with the PC.
After my last post about my computer wows, i recieved several off list
emails from some listers i won't name, Cotty and Godders, opps, and
they both helped me see were i was going wrong and what i was doing
wrong on the Mac, and after that feel more confident with using it for
prints.
But back to my original thought. I don't need LR3 at the moment, which
according to Adobe will not run on this machine's OS, but if and when
i up date to a new camera and have to up date my editing software AND
computer to do so, adds a hefty expence, were as i said in the 35 mm
film days, the only expense was the new camera.:-)As long as the K10D
and D200 are working, I should be fine. By the time i can afford the
D300s or D700, whose raw files i can still access, a newer version
will be out and Adobe will make me upgrade software and computers to
process the files.
That was my point, i think.:-)

Dave


>
> So, I suppose, indeed, from time to time one would have to update their
> photography accessories, such as computer or printer if they print at home.
>
> Boris
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> follow the directions.
>



-- 
Documenting Life in Rural Ontario.
www.caughtinmotion.com
http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/
York Region, Ontario, Canada

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.


Re: Upgrading thoughts, did we have to worry about this during the film years....

2010-10-29 Thread Boris Liberman

Dave, few points totally randomly popped in my mind.

1. I know for the fact that certain international corporation having 250 
thousand employees has a special storage where they keep not just the 
data but also the hardware of the same era the data was produced in 
order to be able to access the data if necessary. This was the question 
with which they approached the team I worked with at the time - can we 
provide them with sufficient knowledge so that they could take our 
system apart and put it in that storage.


2. During the film days... Well, exactly which film days? Before the 
commonly available film scanners or after that? Indeed, if you work in 
the dark room only - all you need is chemicals, which develop (no pun 
intended) but at slower pace than more modern tech. But if you're 
talking about hybrid process where film photos are scanned and processed 
on a computer, then the same question applies. Obviously you would want 
a stronger computer (so that you can take higher resolution scans) with 
stronger software so that you can take out the dust and hair and other 
particles automatically for you without damaging the underlying picture, 
etc.


Personally, I upgrade my computer effectively when the time it takes to 
process my stuff becomes unbearably long. Presently rather outdated by 
modern standard dual core cpu with 8 gb ram does the job very nicely for 
me. I keep upgrading my software properly. For example, I follow updates 
of LightRoom and when 3.0 came out I bought an upgrade just like I did 
when 2.0 came out like just I did when 1.0 came out with only exception 
that with 1.0 it wasn't an upgrade, but an initial buy.


So, I suppose, indeed, from time to time one would have to update their 
photography accessories, such as computer or printer if they print at home.


Boris

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.


Re: Upgrading thoughts, did we have to worry about this during the film years....

2010-10-28 Thread Mark Roberts
Bran Everseeking wrote:

>On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 10:10:19 -0400
>David J Brooks  wrote:
>
>> Something i dont remember having to worry about in the film days.
>
>I tried running 35 mm through a MF body without the right back...

I once opened the back of a film camera to put film in and discovered
there already was film in it. Exposed film. (Really, really exposed
film at that point.) Doh!


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.


Re: Upgrading thoughts, did we have to worry about this during the film years....

2010-10-28 Thread Bran Everseeking
On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 10:10:19 -0400
David J Brooks  wrote:

> Something i dont remember having to worry about in the film days.

I tried running 35 mm through a MF body without the right back...


not really but the light proof box has really evolved.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.


Re: Upgrading thoughts, did we have to worry about this during the film years....

2010-10-28 Thread Godfrey DiGiorgi
Computing equipment is essential to virtually everything I do
nowadays, outside of taking a walk in the park, sleeping, eating and
taking a shower.

So ... it's an essential in my life, independent of cameras. I never
buy computer equipment expecting it to be viable forever. I always
budget for computer equipment based on a 3-4 year replacement cycle.

My recent update to a new cpu unit was driven by my need for software
development tools that are now only available on the newer hardware
and latest operating system. The fact that it's made my image
processing work about 10x as fluid and oodles more productive is a
wonderful side benefit.

By comparison to your old PC and iBook, anything you buy today will be
far far better suited for your photography work. Be sure to stuff at
least 4G RAM and a big hard drive in no matter what you buy. You won't
regret it.
-- 
Godfrey
  godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.


Re: Upgrading thoughts, did we have to worry about this during the film years....

2010-10-28 Thread eckinator
2010/10/28 Larry Colen :
>
> The good news is that every year and a half the amount of processing power 
> that you can get for your dollar doubles.  The bad news is that every year 
> and a half the amount of processing power that folks who write software 
> assume that you have doubles.

not sure who said this but there is a theorem that modern software
gets slower faster than hardware gets faster... I find it was true
quite often until some time ago; lately I get the impression that with
hardware design leaning more towards energy efficiency and low noise,
software designers are being a little less hard on our hardware for a
change - do you agree or is it only me?
Ecke

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.


Re: Upgrading thoughts, did we have to worry about this during the film years....

2010-10-28 Thread Matthew Hunt
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 2:15 PM, John Francis  wrote:

> I'm not sure I replace digital bodies faster than film bodies, either.

The difference for me is that when I was shooting film, I was shooting
Canon FD equipment around the year 2000--an obsolete system, and very
cheap on the used market.  My first real camera was my dad's TLb,
basically a K1000-equivalent that was older than me.  Then I bought an
A-1 for about $100.  I also bought a Canonet for $65 or so.  So I used
about 3 bodies in 5 years, but paid less than $200 total instead of
$1,000 or so for a new digital body.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.


Re: Upgrading thoughts, did we have to worry about this during the film years....

2010-10-28 Thread John Francis
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 01:17:38PM -0400, Matthew Hunt wrote:
> 
> I agree about the frequency of upgrades; when I say "only 500 rolls,"
> that's still a lot for me.  My K10D just rolled over 10,000 shots =
> ~300 rolls of film, and that's with me machine-gunning a heck of a lot
> more than I would with film. So if I replace it next year with a K-5,
> I'll probably just about break even with film, in terms of the body

Back in the film day I was shooting Fuji Provia 100F, and paying for
processing at a semi-pro lab (for fast service without scratches).
That meant that the price ended up pretty close to 50c per frame.
At those prices it took only 4000 or so frames for the *ist-D to
pay for itself (and the battery grip) in expendables alone, not to
mention the amount of time I saved by not having to scan the film
(plus, of course, I "saved" myself the cost of a new film scanner).

Even at the rate I shoot - a lot slower than most posters here -
the *ist-D has got to around 9000 frames, and the K10D (a cheaper
body) over 5,000.

I'm not sure I replace digital bodies faster than film bodies, either.
Between 1995 and 2003 I bought a PZ-1p and an MZ-S (plus a spare MX
body I spotted in the "used" case at Samy's camera when I stopped
there to pick up the first rolls of Kodak Portra I ever used).
That's two film bodies in eight years - about the same rate at which
I have maintained with the digital bodies (not counting the EPL-1).



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.


Re: Upgrading thoughts, did we have to worry about this during the film years....

2010-10-28 Thread Matthew Hunt
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Larry Colen  wrote:

> Today, for $1,000 you can buy a laptop computer with enough processing
> power that back then it would have given the researchers at LANL a
> priapism that lasted a week.

"I now have in my possession a pocket-sized computer which, when I
speak a question to it (“Who is the author of Kraken?” “Who was the
fourteenth president of the Unites States?” “What is the name of John
Scalzi’s cat?”) provides me an answer in just a few seconds. If I take
a picture of something, the same pocket computer will analyze the
photo and tell me what I’m looking at. Oh, and it makes phone calls,
too. Among other things.

"None of that is the cool part. The cool part is, when I speak a
question to my pocket computer and it gives me a bad answer, I get
annoyed. Because here in the future, when I talk to my pocket
computer, I expect it to get the answer right the first time."

- John Scalzi
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2010/07/28/a-passing-thought/

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.


Re: Upgrading thoughts, did we have to worry about this during the film years....

2010-10-28 Thread Larry Colen

On Oct 28, 2010, at 7:10 AM, David J Brooks wrote:

> .I say no.
> 
> BTW this is not meant to start an OS war, please.
> 
> I was pondering this last night. Lets see if i can convey the thoughts.;-)
> 
> When i decided to up grade a camera back in film days, i just did,
> then add the film and carried on.

The good news is that every year and a half the amount of processing power that 
you can get for your dollar doubles.  The bad news is that every year and a 
half the amount of processing power that folks who write software assume that 
you have doubles.

For many years it pretty much cost $2,000 for a standard home computer. If 
things worked like the film era, that $2,000 would still buy you an Osborne 1 
or a TRS-80.  Today, for $1,000 you can buy a laptop computer with enough 
processing power that back then it would have given the researchers at LANL a 
priapism that lasted a week.

> 
> Now i;m kinda stuck between the proverbial rock and a hard place.
> 
> Neither the PC i have nor the iBook have enough umph or proper OS to
> upgrade my editing programs such asLR2 to  LR3. That's not a problem
> unless i stick with the cameras i have or up grade to something LR2
> can handle Raw wise, like a D700 or D300s. I;m not even sure the new
> cameras like the D3100 and D7000 Raw files can be used.

You can always use third party raw converters. On the other hand, I find the 
noise reduction capabilities of LR3 to be the killer ap.

> The jpegs i shoot with my K10D are fine sharpness wise so i don't
> bother with Raw, however i have noticed with the Nikons with the
> higher mp's shooting in Raw is the way to go to get sharper photos, at
> least with the D200, which after 4 years i have figured out.
> 
> So when i comes time to upgrade, if i'm allowed, it looks like not
> only the expense of the camera, possibly lenses as well, but new
> computers and software.

How old are your computers?  You can't do much about the iBook, but you could 
possibly save a few dollars upgrading the M/B in your PC.  If it's an older PC, 
you may also need to spring another $70 to buy a 1TB SATA drive for it.

If you aren't looking for the latest and greatest, and can still use your video 
card:
$120 for M/B, $100 for CPU, $100 for memory should make a huge step up.

> 
> Something i dont remember having to worry about in the film days.

I know what you're saying.  My car is the same way. The cost of gas keeps going 
up, I need to get it smogged every two years, not to mention the price of oil 
changes, tune ups, insurance and registration.  We just didn't have to worry 
about this back in the horse and buggy days.


> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Documenting Life in Rural Ontario.
> www.caughtinmotion.com
> http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/
> York Region, Ontario, Canada
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.

--
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.


Re: Upgrading thoughts, did we have to worry about this during the film years....

2010-10-28 Thread Matthew Hunt
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 1:51 PM, David J Brooks  wrote:

> Maybe i looked at the spec;s on the Adobe web site wrong, my
> impression was my 9 year old clone PC pentium 4 with XP home and 756
> meg memory, service pack 3 was not enough to run the program.

The 756 MB of memory falls short of the 2 GB requirement, and even if
you upgraded the memory, you probably won't enjoy working with it.

What I was getting at was, for me, a 9-year-old computer is way past
the point that it needs to be upgraded, whether you're doing
photography or not.  That's why I don't view the upgrade burden as
being particularly linked to photography.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.


Re: Upgrading thoughts, did we have to worry about this during the film years....

2010-10-28 Thread David J Brooks
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Matthew Hunt  wrote:

>
> The LR3 system requirements are pretty modest, and can be met by a
> 5-ish-year-old system:
>    *  Intel® Pentium® 4 processor or equivalent
>    * Microsoft® Windows® XP with Service Pack 3; Windows Vista® Home
> Premium, Business, Ultimate, or Enterprise (32 bit and 64 bit); or
> Windows 7 (32 bit and 64 bit)
>    * 2GB of RAM
>    * 1GB of available hard-disk space
>    * 1,024x768 display
>    * CD-ROM drive
>
> So when someone says their system isn't powerful enough for LR3, they
> probably mean it's not as fast as they would like for LR3...

Maybe i looked at the spec;s on the Adobe web site wrong, my
impression was my 9 year old clone PC pentium 4 with XP home and 756
meg memory, service pack 3 was not enough to run the program.

Dave


but for
> me personally, photography isn't "the one thing" that makes me hit
> that wall.  I don't feel like the computer is too slow for
> photography, but just dandy for everything else.
>
> Scott mentioned having an old Celeron that he feels is fast enough for
> everything else, and I'm jealous of his patience.  I just upgraded my
> dad from a similar system.  He didn't think it was too slow,
> either--he just ran out of disk space, and without any SATA support in
> his machine, I pushed him to a sub-$500 Core i3 system.  I found
> working on his old machine to be really painful, just for things like
> web browsing and navigating the filesystem.  I was swearing at it
> pretty much constantly.  I think it comes down to temperament, and how
> used you are to faster computers... my dad has since said how much he
> likes the new computer, and I bet if I switched him back to the old
> one, he would not tolerate it like he did before.
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.
>



-- 
Documenting Life in Rural Ontario.
www.caughtinmotion.com
http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/
York Region, Ontario, Canada

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.


Re: Upgrading thoughts, did we have to worry about this during the film years....

2010-10-28 Thread Matthew Hunt
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 1:06 PM, eckinator  wrote:

> OK point taken, I guess my figure was a little high, even though I was
> counting in printer, consumables, storage, backup... etc. - also
> people seem to upgrade bodies a lot more often with digital

Yeah, I wasn't counting printer and consumables, because I didn't
count fine prints on the film side, and those were also expensive,
especially from a lab.  (4x6" C-41 proofs are, for me, replaced by
looking at the images on the computer.)

I agree about the frequency of upgrades; when I say "only 500 rolls,"
that's still a lot for me.  My K10D just rolled over 10,000 shots =
~300 rolls of film, and that's with me machine-gunning a heck of a lot
more than I would with film. So if I replace it next year with a K-5,
I'll probably just about break even with film, in terms of the body
purchase.  Not the computer or anything else, although that doesn't
bother me for reasons I've expressed elsewhere in this thread.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.


Re: Upgrading thoughts, did we have to worry about this during the film years....

2010-10-28 Thread eckinator
2010/10/28 Matthew Hunt :
>
> That seems steep to me.  I doubt that I averaged less than $10 per
> roll of film (film purchase and processing).  Probably a good bit
> more, since I had the misfortune of living within walking distance of
> an A&I lab.  500 rolls at that price would give you a $5,000 budget,
> which should be good enough for a new body, new computer, and upgraded
> processing software for most people.

OK point taken, I guess my figure was a little high, even though I was
counting in printer, consumables, storage, backup... etc. - also
people seem to upgrade bodies a lot more often with digital
Ecke

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.


Re: Upgrading thoughts, did we have to worry about this during the film years....

2010-10-28 Thread Matthew Hunt
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 12:28 PM, John Francis  wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:31:13AM -0400, Matthew Hunt wrote:
>>
>> From my point of view, a computer is something that needs to be
>> upgraded every few years whether I use it for photography or not.
>> Some portion of the expense can be "charged" to photography, but not
>> all of it.  I guess it depends on what all you use it for.
>
> I don't think that's true any more.
> ...
> I'd consider it quite reasonable to assume that anything bought
> today, as long as it isn't a really low-end system, should be
> capable of being used for at least five years.

I don't think we're really disagreeing.  Your historical and
forward-looking timescales for upgrades are not much different from my
own.  I just upgraded from a Socket 939 Athlon 64 X2 3800+ (3-5+ years
old, depending on what part you're looking at) to a Core i7-930 system
(which I expect to use for 5-ish years).  But I could work with raw
K10D images on the old system with just a little patience, and I don't
think that would have changed much with a new camera body, even if it
was 15 Mpix or so.  My upgrade was motivated by factors unrelated to
photography; the machine could not play back HD video without dropping
(lots of) frames, couldn't play modern games well, Flash bogged down
web browsing, etc.  I also wanted to upgrade to Win 7, having gotten
used to it at work, and it seemed appropriate to upgrade the hardware
at the same time.

The LR3 system requirements are pretty modest, and can be met by a
5-ish-year-old system:
*  Intel® Pentium® 4 processor or equivalent
* Microsoft® Windows® XP with Service Pack 3; Windows Vista® Home
Premium, Business, Ultimate, or Enterprise (32 bit and 64 bit); or
Windows 7 (32 bit and 64 bit)
* 2GB of RAM
* 1GB of available hard-disk space
* 1,024x768 display
* CD-ROM drive

So when someone says their system isn't powerful enough for LR3, they
probably mean it's not as fast as they would like for LR3... but for
me personally, photography isn't "the one thing" that makes me hit
that wall.  I don't feel like the computer is too slow for
photography, but just dandy for everything else.

Scott mentioned having an old Celeron that he feels is fast enough for
everything else, and I'm jealous of his patience.  I just upgraded my
dad from a similar system.  He didn't think it was too slow,
either--he just ran out of disk space, and without any SATA support in
his machine, I pushed him to a sub-$500 Core i3 system.  I found
working on his old machine to be really painful, just for things like
web browsing and navigating the filesystem.  I was swearing at it
pretty much constantly.  I think it comes down to temperament, and how
used you are to faster computers... my dad has since said how much he
likes the new computer, and I bet if I switched him back to the old
one, he would not tolerate it like he did before.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.


Re: Upgrading thoughts, did we have to worry about this during the film years....

2010-10-28 Thread John Francis
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:31:13AM -0400, Matthew Hunt wrote:
> 
> >From my point of view, a computer is something that needs to be
> upgraded every few years whether I use it for photography or not.
> Some portion of the expense can be "charged" to photography, but not
> all of it.  I guess it depends on what all you use it for.

I don't think that's true any more.

I used to upgrade a computer every two years or so, alternating
between our two machines, so a computer used to get four years
of use, of which two were as the main system.  But the machines
got to be so powerful that I could continue to get useful work
out of them beyond that time.  In fact the last two machines
(a regular home machine, and a notebook for work) both served
for six years before being replaced (although the notebok did
get disk and memory upgrades to max out the configuration).

I'd consider it quite reasonable to assume that anything bought
today, as long as it isn't a really low-end system, should be
capable of being used for at least five years.  The one thing
that argues most tellingly agains that position is the speed
with which solid state drives are becoming viable; it may be
that relying on rotational storage for the system drives will
make a machine bought today obsolete faster than it otherwise
would based on processor and system bus speeds.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.


Re: Upgrading thoughts, did we have to worry about this during the film years....

2010-10-28 Thread Nick David Wright
With film the burden of technological upgrades lies mostly with the photo lab.

With digital it lays almost entirely with the photographer.



On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 9:10 AM, David J Brooks  wrote:
> .I say no.
>
> BTW this is not meant to start an OS war, please.
>
> I was pondering this last night. Lets see if i can convey the thoughts.;-)
>
> When i decided to up grade a camera back in film days, i just did,
> then add the film and carried on.
>
> Now i;m kinda stuck between the proverbial rock and a hard place.
>
> Neither the PC i have nor the iBook have enough umph or proper OS to
> upgrade my editing programs such asLR2 to  LR3. That's not a problem
> unless i stick with the cameras i have or up grade to something LR2
> can handle Raw wise, like a D700 or D300s. I;m not even sure the new
> cameras like the D3100 and D7000 Raw files can be used.
> The jpegs i shoot with my K10D are fine sharpness wise so i don't
> bother with Raw, however i have noticed with the Nikons with the
> higher mp's shooting in Raw is the way to go to get sharper photos, at
> least with the D200, which after 4 years i have figured out.
>
> So when i comes time to upgrade, if i'm allowed, it looks like not
> only the expense of the camera, possibly lenses as well, but new
> computers and software.
>
> Something i dont remember having to worry about in the film days.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> --
> Documenting Life in Rural Ontario.
> www.caughtinmotion.com
> http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/
> York Region, Ontario, Canada
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.
>



-- 
~Nick David Wright
http://www.nickdavidwright.net/

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.


Re: Upgrading thoughts, did we have to worry about this during the film years....

2010-10-28 Thread Scott Loveless
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Matthew Hunt  wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:10 AM, David J Brooks  wrote:
>
>> So when i comes time to upgrade, if i'm allowed, it looks like not
>> only the expense of the camera, possibly lenses as well, but new
>> computers and software.
>>
>> Something i dont remember having to worry about in the film days.
>
> >From my point of view, a computer is something that needs to be
> upgraded every few years whether I use it for photography or not.
> Some portion of the expense can be "charged" to photography, but not
> all of it.  I guess it depends on what all you use it for.

It does, in fact, depend what you use it for.  Aside from photography,
my 11 year old 500MHz Celeron machine works just fine.  If your work
doesn't rely on some specific version of whatever application you're
running, computers can simply be upgraded when they fail.

-- 
Scott Loveless
http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/
    __o
  _'\<,_
 (*)/  (*)

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.


Re: Upgrading thoughts, did we have to worry about this during the film years....

2010-10-28 Thread Matthew Hunt
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:17 AM, eckinator  wrote:

> noone ever said digital was forcibly cheaper than film =(
> break even probably happens somewhere around several thousand rolls
> per OS cycle equivalent

That seems steep to me.  I doubt that I averaged less than $10 per
roll of film (film purchase and processing).  Probably a good bit
more, since I had the misfortune of living within walking distance of
an A&I lab.  500 rolls at that price would give you a $5,000 budget,
which should be good enough for a new body, new computer, and upgraded
processing software for most people.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.


Re: Upgrading thoughts, did we have to worry about this during the film years....

2010-10-28 Thread Matthew Hunt
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:10 AM, David J Brooks  wrote:

> So when i comes time to upgrade, if i'm allowed, it looks like not
> only the expense of the camera, possibly lenses as well, but new
> computers and software.
>
> Something i dont remember having to worry about in the film days.

>From my point of view, a computer is something that needs to be
upgraded every few years whether I use it for photography or not.
Some portion of the expense can be "charged" to photography, but not
all of it.  I guess it depends on what all you use it for.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.


Re: Upgrading thoughts, did we have to worry about this during the film years....

2010-10-28 Thread P. J. Alling

On 10/28/2010 10:24 AM, m...@robertstech.com wrote:

David J Brooks  wrote:


.I say no.

BTW this is not meant to start an OS war, please.

I was pondering this last night. Lets see if i can convey the thoughts.;-)

When i decided to up grade a camera back in film days, i just did,
then add the film and carried on.

If you did your own darkroom work you *did* have to upgrade back in
the film days: From B&W to color, from 35mm to medium format, from
medium format to large format...
Not if you stayed with one format, and many wouldn't consider a move to 
color film an upgrade.
Still I did some pretty nice color printing in a B&W darkroom with 
Cibachrome and the kit wasn't that expensive.


--
"His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral 
bankruptcy."
 -Woody Allen


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.


Re: Upgrading thoughts, did we have to worry about this during the film years....

2010-10-28 Thread mark
David J Brooks  wrote:

>.I say no.
>
>BTW this is not meant to start an OS war, please.
>
>I was pondering this last night. Lets see if i can convey the thoughts.;-)
>
>When i decided to up grade a camera back in film days, i just did,
>then add the film and carried on.

If you did your own darkroom work you *did* have to upgrade back in
the film days: From B&W to color, from 35mm to medium format, from
medium format to large format...


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.


Re: Upgrading thoughts, did we have to worry about this during the film years....

2010-10-28 Thread P. J. Alling

On 10/28/2010 10:10 AM, David J Brooks wrote:

.I say no.

BTW this is not meant to start an OS war, please.

I was pondering this last night. Lets see if i can convey the thoughts.;-)

When i decided to up grade a camera back in film days, i just did,
then add the film and carried on.

Now i;m kinda stuck between the proverbial rock and a hard place.

Neither the PC i have nor the iBook have enough umph or proper OS to
upgrade my editing programs such asLR2 to  LR3. That's not a problem
unless i stick with the cameras i have or up grade to something LR2
can handle Raw wise, like a D700 or D300s. I;m not even sure the new
cameras like the D3100 and D7000 Raw files can be used.
The jpegs i shoot with my K10D are fine sharpness wise so i don't
bother with Raw, however i have noticed with the Nikons with the
higher mp's shooting in Raw is the way to go to get sharper photos, at
least with the D200, which after 4 years i have figured out.

So when i comes time to upgrade, if i'm allowed, it looks like not
only the expense of the camera, possibly lenses as well, but new
computers and software.

Something i dont remember having to worry about in the film days.

Dave
Didn't you know, you're supposed to replace your computer every year or 
two anyway, so you shouldn't have that problem...

(sez, the man typing on the Win2K box).

--
"His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral 
bankruptcy."
 -Woody Allen


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.


Re: Upgrading thoughts, did we have to worry about this during the film years....

2010-10-28 Thread eckinator
noone ever said digital was forcibly cheaper than film =(
break even probably happens somewhere around several thousand rolls
per OS cycle equivalent

2010/10/28 Scott Loveless :
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:10 AM, David J Brooks  wrote:
>>
>> So when i comes time to upgrade, if i'm allowed, it looks like not
>> only the expense of the camera, possibly lenses as well, but new
>> computers and software.
>>
>> Something i dont remember having to worry about in the film days.
>
> Dig out your film cameras and buy an enlarger.
>
> --
> Scott Loveless
> http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/
>     __o
>   _'\<,_
>  (*)/  (*)
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.
>

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.


Re: Upgrading thoughts, did we have to worry about this during the film years....

2010-10-28 Thread Scott Loveless
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:10 AM, David J Brooks  wrote:
>
> So when i comes time to upgrade, if i'm allowed, it looks like not
> only the expense of the camera, possibly lenses as well, but new
> computers and software.
>
> Something i dont remember having to worry about in the film days.

Dig out your film cameras and buy an enlarger.

-- 
Scott Loveless
http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/
    __o
  _'\<,_
 (*)/  (*)

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.


Upgrading thoughts, did we have to worry about this during the film years....

2010-10-28 Thread David J Brooks
.I say no.

BTW this is not meant to start an OS war, please.

I was pondering this last night. Lets see if i can convey the thoughts.;-)

When i decided to up grade a camera back in film days, i just did,
then add the film and carried on.

Now i;m kinda stuck between the proverbial rock and a hard place.

Neither the PC i have nor the iBook have enough umph or proper OS to
upgrade my editing programs such asLR2 to  LR3. That's not a problem
unless i stick with the cameras i have or up grade to something LR2
can handle Raw wise, like a D700 or D300s. I;m not even sure the new
cameras like the D3100 and D7000 Raw files can be used.
The jpegs i shoot with my K10D are fine sharpness wise so i don't
bother with Raw, however i have noticed with the Nikons with the
higher mp's shooting in Raw is the way to go to get sharper photos, at
least with the D200, which after 4 years i have figured out.

So when i comes time to upgrade, if i'm allowed, it looks like not
only the expense of the camera, possibly lenses as well, but new
computers and software.

Something i dont remember having to worry about in the film days.

Dave



-- 
Documenting Life in Rural Ontario.
www.caughtinmotion.com
http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/
York Region, Ontario, Canada

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.