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