Guess I'll hang on to my Hasselblad V

D. Peter Maus wrote:

I do. Did this weekend, as well.

I've got an industrial shoot in two locations in 3 weeks. 1000 images
will be light.

You keep on shooting until your confidence that something useable might be
among the many shots has grown enough that you dare to stop?

On 07/15/09 13:10, Q.G. de Bakker wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:

I do. Did this weekend, as well.

I've got an industrial shoot in two locations in 3 weeks. 1000 images
will be light.

You keep on shooting until your confidence that something useable might be
among the many shots has grown enough that you dare to stop?


Not at all. I don't have image capacity for that.

I select my shots. But when I"m shooting industrial, or aerial,
I've got a lot of targets. And photo worthy moments develop VERY
fast. I get multiple interpretations of each target because I'm not
the one who's making the final selection of the images.

My industrials frequently have me shooting 200 or more targets. 4
different angles of each comes to a thousand images pretty quickly.

This coming shoot will be in two cities. The preliminary target
lists already exceed 350 targets. The last time I shot for this
company, there were that many targets in one city alone.


I shot power boat runs on Lake Michigan, last summer. 125 boats.
4 or 5 individual shots of each from various angles, performance
moments, or locations along the course, plus groups...that's more
than 700 alone. Not including unexpected spontaneously developing
photo worthy shots. Like the shots of the leading groups in an ad
hoc formation at high speed with two chase helicopters in frame. I
got several of those.

That shoot took most of the day, about 6 1/2 hours.

You don't want to know about the Motorcycle Ride I shot this weekend.

p

Lots of images. Several cards. Three batteries.

It was a big day. And a blast.

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:31:40 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

Stefan Patric wrote:

You're failing to see my point: I don't want to waste the time
converting regardless of what image format it's converted to just to
decide which images to delete. Most of the time, I don't even have
to do anything else to the remaining RAW files, since that's all most
ADs want from me as final output anyway.

Oh that. In Bridge you will see the images before importing them.

If you're seeing the images on the computer screen, they already have
been imported and converted for viewing, just not saved to the hard
drive. Right? No other way.

Besides, I'm a Unix/Linux/BSD, started-with-the-Amiga guy. Don't use
Photoshop (even if it were ported): more app than I will ever need.

Whatever works for you is of course your affair. And you're right that
unless the Hassy back embeds a small JPG into the raw file Bridge import
won't preview it to you.

My point. And that's for any viewer, regardless of OS.

My first DSLR was the Canon D30 (not 30D). It had a little 120 x 160
pixel jpeg embedded in its RAW file to view the image on the camera's
LCD; however, because of the image's small size, it was useless for
anything else. So, every time, before I could start my initial editing,
I had to convert every RAW file. What a pain in the butt! And on a 1
GHZ machine with 1.5g RAM, a fairly fast machine for the day, it would
take hours even though I had scripted the process. And the RAWs were
only 3 megs each.

(Note: Mac OS X _is_ UNIX compliant and PS runs under Mac OS X without
the need for X11).

Yes. Underneath that flashy Mac GUI with all the eye candy, you'll find
good 'ol NetBSD (http://www.netbsd.org/). And from what I've been told,
besides Mac apps, you can also run BSD and Linux apps, if you have the
appropriate libraries installed. But since I don't own a Mac, I've never
verified this.

Stef

Stefan Patric wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:31:40 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

Stefan Patric wrote:

You're failing to see my point: I don't want to waste the time
converting regardless of what image format it's converted to just to
decide which images to delete. Most of the time, I don't even have
to do anything else to the remaining RAW files, since that's all most
ADs want from me as final output anyway.
Oh that. In Bridge you will see the images before importing them.
If you're seeing the images on the computer screen, they already have
been imported and converted for viewing, just not saved to the hard
drive. Right? No other way.

Besides, I'm a Unix/Linux/BSD, started-with-the-Amiga guy. Don't use
Photoshop (even if it were ported): more app than I will ever need.
Whatever works for you is of course your affair. And you're right that
unless the Hassy back embeds a small JPG into the raw file Bridge import
won't preview it to you.

My point. And that's for any viewer, regardless of OS.

My first DSLR was the Canon D30 (not 30D). It had a little 120 x 160
pixel jpeg embedded in its RAW file to view the image on the camera's
LCD; however, because of the image's small size, it was useless for
anything else. So, every time, before I could start my initial editing,
I had to convert every RAW file. What a pain in the butt! And on a 1
GHZ machine with 1.5g RAM, a fairly fast machine for the day, it would
take hours even though I had scripted the process. And the RAWs were
only 3 megs each.

(Note: Mac OS X _is_ UNIX compliant and PS runs under Mac OS X without
the need for X11).

Yes. Underneath that flashy Mac GUI with all the eye candy, you'll find
good 'ol NetBSD (http://www.netbsd.org/). And from what I've been told,
besides Mac apps, you can also run BSD and Linux apps, if you have the
appropriate libraries installed. But since I don't own a Mac, I've never
verified this.

I think Mac OS X resemblance to BSD has been severely changed over the
years - the kernel is the Mach kernel which is said to replace the BSD
kernel. Many -NIX apps will run under Mac OS X, often with X11 as the
GUI (The Gimp for example).

On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:56:51 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

Stefan Patric wrote:

(Note: Mac OS X _is_ UNIX compliant and PS runs under Mac OS X without
the need for X11).

Yes. Underneath that flashy Mac GUI with all the eye candy, you'll
find good 'ol NetBSD (http://www.netbsd.org/). And from what I've been
told, besides Mac apps, you can also run BSD and Linux apps, if you
have the appropriate libraries installed. But since I don't own a Mac,
I've never verified this.

I think Mac OS X resemblance to BSD has been severely changed over the
years - the kernel is the Mach kernel which is said to replace the BSD
kernel. Many -NIX apps will run under Mac OS X, often with X11 as the
GUI (The Gimp for example).

I don't even think the Mach kernel is still in development by the
originators. Apple, I've read, has taken it over for their own
purposes. Although, I'm sure Mach, in some form or other, is floating
around the open source development community. There are some, me
included, that prefer micro-kernels over Linux and BSD's standard
monolithic ones. They each have their advantages and disadvantages.


Stef

Stefan Patric wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:56:51 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

Stefan Patric wrote:

(Note: Mac OS X _is_ UNIX compliant and PS runs under Mac OS X without
the need for X11).
Yes. Underneath that flashy Mac GUI with all the eye candy, you'll
find good 'ol NetBSD (http://www.netbsd.org/). And from what I've been
told, besides Mac apps, you can also run BSD and Linux apps, if you
have the appropriate libraries installed. But since I don't own a Mac,
I've never verified this.
I think Mac OS X resemblance to BSD has been severely changed over the
years - the kernel is the Mach kernel which is said to replace the BSD
kernel. Many -NIX apps will run under Mac OS X, often with X11 as the
GUI (The Gimp for example).

I don't even think the Mach kernel is still in development by the
originators. Apple, I've read, has taken it over for their own
purposes.

It would appear. The claim that it is the Mach kernel is from Wikipedia
which is usually reliable for "nerd" input.

Although, I'm sure Mach, in some form or other, is floating
around the open source development community. There are some, me
included, that prefer micro-kernels over Linux and BSD's standard
monolithic ones. They each have their advantages and disadvantages.

At the level I use them, probably no difference. However one important
change to Mac OS X will come out in the 10.6 release this late summer.

Part of it is to get full benefit of 64 bit processors and the rest,
perhaps more important is for multi core / multi CPU environments. The
OS has changed how tasks are queued for execution in order that
resources be maximized without application programmers needing to worry
much about the target CPU architecture. Mo
http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/#grandcentral

as well as the use of the graphics processor as an additional CPU
(OpenCL) - requires Apps to be compiled for it however. (Same link
above). [Not sure if my machine will support that however].

Stefan Patric wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:08:55 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

You could (have someone) automate it, so it'd be as convenient.

Been there. Done that. Never, again.

You probably should upgrade your old 386, then.

Why do you think pro DSLRs have built-in the option for a high quality
JPEG in the RAW file or to be saved separately outside it?

Because consumer DSLRs offer the same.
Because they already offer JPEG-only in various sizes and
compressions as output. (as do consumer DSLRs)
Because sports shooters can amass serious numbers of shots in
an hour or two and they must be sighted very fast.

There must be a reason, yes?

Sure. It's called "sales".

It's to save time! And like they say, time is money.

It's there not to hurt sales. And if you bought a backend that
doesn't support that, well, why did you? Didn't you know your
own needs?

You often come back to the computer with new 1.000 images?

Quite often.

Most people who have never shot full time, professionally don't realize
how much pros really shoot.

That depends entirely on what the pros shoot --- I imagine
most of the many-images-per-day pros use DSLRs.

For example, since 2006, for just one
client, I shot over 250,000 exposures, wore out two bodies (shutters
failed), and am on my third one. And I only averaged about 3 days a week
shooting for them 9 to 10 months a year.

You probably should rethink whose bodies to buy if your shutters
fail that often. But then you are shooting more than a photograph
per minute all the time through if you do 8 hour days --- and
that's only ~500 shots/day.

... and have the art director and client waiting for you?

Lots of times, they are with you at the shoot.

So your computer is also at the shoot. How about
transferring the images *as they are shot*, using WiFi or
firewire or whatever technology and converting them as they
arrive? That way, no more waiting for slow card readers and
flash memory ... time is money.

Or maybe you should return to your computer more often than
every few days.

However, my guess is there is an embedded JPEG in the RAW, if only a
low res one, for quick image viewing on the digital back's LCD. I have
an old Canon D30 (not 30D) that does that, even though it makes no
mention of such in any official Canon literature.

How slow *is* dcraw -h for your RAWs? And did you try dcraw -e yet?

As I said above: "Been there. Done that. Never, again."

You didn't even *try* to understand what dcraw -e does. Well,
your loss, if your knee jerk reaction forces you to buy a
different backend it's not my problem.

Of course, if you had a backend driven by open source, you
could have asked someone to implement a straight to JPEG
conversion, no problem.

-Wolfgang

On 07/16/09 06:22, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

And if you bought a backend that
doesn't support that, well, why did you? Didn't you know your
own needs?


That may be the $64,000 question.

On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:22:47 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

Stefan Patric wrote:

I don't even think the Mach kernel is still in development by the
originators. Apple, I've read, has taken it over for their own
purposes.

It would appear. The claim that it is the Mach kernel is from Wikipedia
which is usually reliable for "nerd" input.

Apple took the Mach kernel and massaged it to suit its purposes for OS
X. I don't know if that code is available, but under the Open Source
license, it's suppose to be.

Although, I'm sure Mach, in some form or other, is floating
around the open source development community. There are some, me
included, that prefer micro-kernels over Linux and BSD's standard
monolithic ones. They each have their advantages and disadvantages.

At the level I use them, probably no difference. However one important
change to Mac OS X will come out in the 10.6 release this late summer.

Very generally, monolithic kernels work best with servers while micros
are more suitable for desktops.

Part of it is to get full benefit of 64 bit processors and the rest,
perhaps more important is for multi core / multi CPU environments. The
OS has changed how tasks are queued for execution in order that
resources be maximized without application programmers needing to worry
much about the target CPU architecture. Mo
http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/#grandcentral

Sounds like the way cluster supercomputer kernel-OSes work, so that how
the app is distributed and executed through the cluster is transparent to
the user, and doesn't require special compiling of the app itself.

as well as the use of the graphics processor as an additional CPU
(OpenCL) - requires Apps to be compiled for it however. (Same link
above). [Not sure if my machine will support that however].

Don't know about the Mac, but I read a couple years ago, that some team
was working on a Linux kernel that would automatically distribute
execution of the OS, apps, etc. over multi-core/multi-cpus without the
need for custom compile of anything except the kernel.

Ain't progress grand?


Stef

In article , Stefan Patric
wrote:

I don't even think the Mach kernel is still in development by the
originators. Apple, I've read, has taken it over for their own
purposes.

It would appear. The claim that it is the Mach kernel is from Wikipedia
which is usually reliable for "nerd" input.

Apple took the Mach kernel and massaged it to suit its purposes for OS
X.

actually next did for nextstep/openstep and apple inherited that.

I don't know if that code is available, but under the Open Source
license, it's suppose to be.

it's available.