The Digital Elephant

On 11 Mar 2005 20:25:06 -0800, "wilt" wrote:


So imagine 20 years from now how many more generations of PC busses and
harddrive interfaces have come and gone in the interim, and each time
you buy a new PC with a new buss and new new harddrive controller
interface you have to leap the data transfer hurdle yet again.


And how much effort is it, really?

I'm averaging about two years or so per PC.
I usually build my own, and it's usually a
weekend effort to put the machine together,
reinstall the apps and drivers, and move the
data from the old machine to the new --
usually over the LAN. It's almost become
routine.

Face it, every set of tools we use requres
some learning curve and aggravation. It was
true in the "wet" darkroom and remains true
in the digital one.

I can't think of anything that's reduced
labor and aggravation in the photo biz more
than the replacement of film with digital
capture. I mean, I almost feel guilty about
shooting with my G2 or 10D.

No trips to the processing lab. No scanning,
spotting or retouching. Hardly anything left
to do, even in Photoshop. It's just too damned
easy. I feel the need to shoot film in order
to get my fair share of abuse.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

In article .com,
wilt wrote:

Of course, there are those wonderful RAW formats that each manufacturer
invents their own version of, and evolve over time. The pros use the
RAW, so we can assume that after Nikon and Canon disappear into the
history books that some company will have Canon RAW and Nikon RAW
format reading capability into infinity?!?!? Right...hang on and let
me right you a receipt for that $10k check that is deposit on the
purchase of Yosemite that you're giving me.

http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/dcraw.c

Source code for an open source convertor which understands all current Canon
and Nikon raw formats. Just compile it up and off you go.

Recently, rafeb posted:

Neil Gould wrote:

Yes, I realize that Photoshop will open *some* TGA files, but
consider *how broad* the TGA spec is (btw - the "29 years" is a
typo, and should read "20 years")...

Neil, if you're just now discovering that you
can no longer access your 20-year old TGA
files... I feel for you, buddy.

It's not a problem; it was a concrete example. The discussion dealt with
the supposed permanence of "standards". The point was that, 20 years or so
ago, .TGA was what .TIFF is today. So, 20 years from now, can we expect
some person on a newsgroup to say to you, "rafe, if you're just now
discovering...."? ;-)

Seriously, I think sometimes I know how you
feel. I've been in high-tech these last 30
years or so... most of my co-workers are
half my age. Once in a blue moon I get to
teach them a trick or two, but most of the
time I feel like the guy at the circus
following the elephant around with a
shovel and a bucket.

I know what you mean.

Neil

Recently, Chris Brown posted:

Neil Gould wrote:
Recently, Chris Brown posted:

Photoshop CS loads Targa files. ImageMagick supports Targa files.
Even Netpbm supports Targa files.

Yes, I realize that Photoshop will open *some* TGA files, but
consider *how broad* the TGA spec is (btw - the "29 years" is a
typo, and should read "20 years"). Think Photoshop can work on some
files with a 14-bit color depth, color map, alpha channel, text
info, and so forth?

Photoshop's online help explains the level of support for Targa. It
includes lower colour depths, indexed colour, alpha channels, RLE,
etc.

I was referring to Photoshop's online help when I wrote the above example
that included some valid .TGA parameters that were excluded from its list.
None the less, you've missed the point.

Neil

Recently, Stacey posted:

Neil Gould wrote:

OTOH, getting images to end up more like one's previsualization is a
matter of building the skill set to control those images,

And you control the color and density balance when printing color
negs remotely with which skill set? i'd love to learn that one, I've
always had to hope they saw the negative the way I would when
printing which is purely hit or miss.

Understandable, and no, giving someone a negative and hoping for the
desired result probably won't work. ;-) The skill set needed to work with
color labs is to be able to communicate with them in terms that are
objective. For example, using a reference print and the readouts from your
colorimeter, describe the correction values that fit your intentions.

Regards,

Neil

"Neil Gould" wrote:

Understandable, and no, giving someone a negative and hoping for the
desired result probably won't work. ;-)

Uh, does that mean that at some time in the not too distant future, there
will be no way to turn a _color negative_ into a color print? I mean, if
there isn't a reliable way to get it done today, what makes you think it'll
suddenly become possible 10 years from now?

Seriously, ten years from now, my Nikon 8000 will be dead. At that point in
time, the only access I'll have to the photography (such as it is) that I'm
doing today may be to the extent that I get it into digital form now.

If the infrastructure for dealing with film disappears, all that wonderfully
archival film may be completely useless as a practical matter, making film
even more volatile than digital.

(By the way, I think that for every shoebox of photos we find, there were
hundreds and hundreds that were lost. I mean, one box for 100 years of
family snapshots? Where are the other 99 years of photos?)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"Chris Brown" wrote in message
...

http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/dcraw.c

Source code for an open source convertor which understands all current
Canon
and Nikon raw formats. Just compile it up and off you go.

'current' is the word. What about RAW formats developed tomorrow? BTW, Adobe
has an interesting DNG initiative. Check it out. I've used it and it
works - today.

Recently, David J. Littleboy posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote:

Understandable, and no, giving someone a negative and hoping for the
desired result probably won't work. ;-)

Uh, does that mean that at some time in the not too distant future,
there will be no way to turn a _color negative_ into a color print? I
mean, if there isn't a reliable way to get it done today, what makes
you think it'll suddenly become possible 10 years from now?

The question at hand was whether the person on the receiving end could
produce the preconceptions of the photographer, not whether or not there
would be a way to turn a color negative into a print.

If the infrastructure for dealing with film disappears, all that
wonderfully archival film may be completely useless as a practical
matter, making film even more volatile than digital.

I suspect that there will be more people capable of mixing the chemical
formulas necessary for printing film than those able to write their own
file format converters.

Neil

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...

The question at hand was whether the person on the receiving end could
produce the preconceptions of the photographer, not whether or not there
would be a way to turn a color negative into a print.

Of course.

An aside - a sophisticated digital camera can capture the actual color
temperature within the scene, in fact sampling from a number of points; that
would make it easier to produce a nominal standard print (but of course not
read the photographer's mind to interpret it.)

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:25:14 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote:


I suspect that there will be more people capable of mixing the chemical
formulas necessary for printing film than those able to write their own
file format converters.


I'd say that assumption is debatable.
Even so, you make a good point.

Further case in point:

There's a new commercial RAW converter in
beta, and available for download, that's
getting a lot of discussion on rec.photo.digital.
I downloaded it this morning and gave it a whirl.
Apparently this outfit is an offshoot of the
"other" major player in the market, Phase One.

(The older product was "Capture One", the
new arrival is called "Raw Shooter Essential";
the old outfit was PhaseOne, the new outfit
is called Pixmantic.)

Anyway, the new product (RSE) doesn't support
the Canon G2 RAW format. IOW, a fine camera
that's a bit over two years old is deemed as
not worthy of support. Kinda sad.

Of course, they may add this support at some
point -- RSE is still in beta. I'd love to
be able to use the same app for both cameras.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com