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
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 7:26 AM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com 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
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
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
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
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
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
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Charles Robinson charl...@visi.com 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,
.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
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:10 AM, David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com 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
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 sdlovel...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:10 AM, David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote:
So when i comes time
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
David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com 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
On 10/28/2010 10:24 AM, m...@robertstech.com wrote:
David J Brookspentko...@gmail.com 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
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:10 AM, David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com 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
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:17 AM, eckinator eckina...@gmail.com 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
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Matthew Hunt m...@pobox.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:10 AM, David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com 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
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 pentko...@gmail.com wrote:
.I say no.
BTW this is not meant to start an OS war, please.
I was
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
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 12:28 PM, John Francis jo...@panix.com 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
2010/10/28 Matthew Hunt m...@pobox.com:
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 AI lab. 500 rolls at that price would give you
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 1:06 PM, eckinator eckina...@gmail.com 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
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Matthew Hunt m...@pobox.com 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,
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 1:51 PM, David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com 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
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
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com 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
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
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 2:15 PM, John Francis jo...@panix.com 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
2010/10/28 Larry Colen l...@red4est.com:
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
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
On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 10:10:19 -0400
David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com 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
Bran Everseeking wrote:
On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 10:10:19 -0400
David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com 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
32 matches
Mail list logo
