Google| Subject | Re: converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D |
| From | Floyd L. Davidson |
| Date | 11/30/2013 23:11 (11/30/2013 13:11) |
| Message-ID | <87vbz9mtec.fld@apaflo.com> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Tony Cooper |
| Followups | nospam (1h & 56m) Tony Cooper (4h & 9m) > Floyd L. Davidson |
Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com>wrote:
Tony CooperRead just what was said, and do not imagine what you think should/could have been said.
On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 00:47:30 -0900, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:Floyd L. DavidsonTony Cooper
Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com>wrote:Tony CooperFloyd L. Davidson
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 17:45:26 -0900, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:Floyd L. DavidsonTony Cooper
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>wrote:SavageduckFloyd L. Davidson
[...] most importantly I have a feeling your hardline choice of OS is your real problem, and it is distracting you from paying attention to improving your photography.
That in fact seems to be *your* most serious impediment to improving your photography.
The OP seems to be well aware that a more functional OS is eventually going to allow him to produce better results...]
I am curious how you come up with this. To me, it's like saying a better developing pan will lead to better photographs when working with film.
No, it's more like having a drawer full of different sized trays means the user can choose which one is most efficient for any given job. That leads to a more effective system than one where the only trays available come in just one size (that fits all, supposedly).
Since most people never printed anything larger that an 8x10, they don't see a difference. But for the photographer that pushes the limits, trays large enough for 16x20 and 20x24 prints make a huge difference. Not to mention they immediately bought something like an El Nikkor lens rather than use the one that came with the enlarger.
And while a 35mm enlarger from Ponder and Best or Durst, or even the low end Beseler or Omega models might seem like a great production tool for many, real darkroom workers wouldn't consider anything less that a Beseler 23C, and would rather have either a Beseler or an Omega 4x5 enlarger, even if all they ever work with is 35mm film.
It's the difference between printing today with an Epson 2800 or using an Epson 4880 or 7890.
I'm trying to follow this, Floyd, in a non-argumentative way, but I still don't get it. As far as I know, there is no limitation of which printer can be used based on the OS. I see nothing in the specs for the Epson 4880 that says I can't add it to my Windows system or to an Apple system.
I didn't discuss how printer operation might change with the OS, I compared using printers *to* using OS's.
So, that seems to mean that external device usage is not your reason for preferring one OS to another.Well, goodness... Perry Mason might hire you as an investigator?
Pay attention to what was said!
Another poster has suggested availability of more apps. For this to be the case, there would have to be apps on the market that are not already available cross-platform, and that these apps would offer some significant advantages to the apps that are available cross-platform.I could care less. It's just not important.
What would these apps be?
It's also been suggested, in a roundabout way, that reducing post-processing time allows the user to spend more time photographing things. There's some validity to that concept, but taking more photographs doesn't mean taking better photographs unless you consider that more photographs means better chances of taking a good photography by accident.Another bogus argument.
What does make a difference is realizing that Ansel Adams was right, we take exposures and *make* photographs. Of course better tools do help to make better photographs. And learning those better tools allows one to be more creative with pre-visualization in the preliminary steps of creating a photograph, when we are engaged in taking the exposures.
For the high-volume photographer, organization for selection is the most time-consuming aspect. If that photographer took 1,000 shots of an event, reviewing those 1,000 shots and determining which are worthy of efforts in post is the part that takes up time. The actual post work on the individual shots is minimal if the photographer has decent skills using the camera.Bullshit son. I use a highly modified version of a very old program called XV to sort images. Going through 1000 pictures takes about 15 to 20 minutes at most. Just about 1 per second, more or less.
The actual processing of most of the selected images might take many minutes each. It of course depends on what the images are used for. When I shoot events I might well shoot up to 1000 exposures, and of those there might be 90% that get batch processed in a relative uncritical way. For that particular part of the production processing and previewing might, at best, happen to be nearly equal. But then the selected 50 or so images that I want to create photographic art from may take 20 minutes each, or 2 hours or more each for the best of those.
Regardless, processing is always far more time consuming than previewing. That is probably due to both the tools and talent used for sorting, and certainly relates to the artistic intent for processing.
The more skill one has with a camera the more likely there will be images that take more than an hour to process. I don't shoot with the intention of ever using a camera produced JPEG image, I shoot to collect data targeted at being processed very precisely and I make every effort to provide a data set appropriate to my workflow.
If one OS means the organization can be done faster or simpler, then you'd have a point for a limited number of photographers. But, is it the OS that would allow this?It is.
So, how can a different OS make a person a better photographer?There are other requirements. One is being able to *use* an OS to *make* better tools. If selecting what has been made by others is the upper limit, it perhaps doesn't make a lot of difference. Of course there are variations on that too, and while some people can never visualize how to put three or four primitives together, or how to generalize a procedure to create a useful tool, others can do that to varying degrees. There are people who write scripts at the drop of a hat, others compile plugins with no hesitation, and some can throw together an entire application. Different OS's make that process more or less difficult, in varying ways at different levels!
-- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
11/30/2013-
-
