converting raw images from Canon EOS 600D

nospam wrote:
In article , sid
wrote:

[...] 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.

...and having to think about how to maneuver around the arcane
mechanics of an OS to process digital images rather than the mechanics
of the style and subjects of our photography is an impediment &
distraction.

What "archane mechanics" do you suppose one has to maneuver inorder to
process images. Clicking an icon is way easier with osx I take it?

certainly easier than writing and debugging a script to process images,
such as what floyd suggests.

That was not what I suggested though, and the idiocy of thinking it
is clouds your ability to ever become really productive.

I suggested creating tools that can do what you need, rather
than merely being able to select from a list of generic tools.
You want to develop your workflow around the available tools, I
want to develop the tools around my workflow.

See the difference? In the end the more highly developed and
specialized tool set is what makes the difference.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Savageduck wrote:
Tell me that isn't arcane.

Detail and precision might well be arcane. It's also productive
and efficient.

Keep in mind that the degree of arcane is proportion to the
level of ignorance.

Do you really think that using your favorite RAW converter and
editor effectively is any less arcane? Do you really think a
beginner can sit down and in an hour be producing the same
quality product that they'll be making two months or even two
years later *after* they have acquired all of the arcane
knowledge it takes to be even partially efficient with it?

Just because *you* don't know how to use a tool effectively
doesn't mean the tool is not efficient, it doesn't mean the
arcane craft of using the tool is without value.

Clicking an icon is way easier with osx I take it?

Is that supposed to be some sort of OSX put down?

Probably not, but it does seem to be a put down of your absurd
assertions that lack logic.

You aren't familiar with OSX, Lightroom, or Photoshop are you?
I sure as Hell don't have to jump through the hoops Floyd has set out above.

Oh, you just picked up on effective use of those tools in the
first hour you used them eh?

I would suggest that any of them is vastly more arcane, with
more hoops in order to get a specific result than the tools that
I described. The primary reason for that are the layers of
abstraction which have to learned (in depth despite the
obfuscation) in order to *really* get results from products
designed to make a typical consumer feel less intimidated.

Of course for those who never get to that level of skill, and
are indeed satisfied with clicking on icons to see what happens,
the effect is less arcane. And lower quality work too.

I have a workflow in Lightroom & Photoshop which might come as a
surprise to you, is smooth and efficient, without a thought as to the
under pinnings of the OS, I am sure the same is true for those using LR
& PS in the Windows environment.

So what. Do you really think using UFRAW and GIMP are any
different in that way?

Your logic is absurd in the assumptions you make about what you
are ignorant of. What you know is { great | easy | necessary }
and what someone else knows or does that you don't is not.

That's religion, and sounds like everybody's definition of
perversion: "what you do that I don't."

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 13:50:24 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-11-30 21:38:17 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 09:55:32 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

Many a fine art print has been made with the 2880 and 3880. IMO the 4880
is designed for higher output. I may have been told wrong, but i thought
the 4880 produced prints that were equal in quality to the other two,
but was designed for higher production rates, and larger format.

... and roll feed.

The R2880 can deal with 13'' x 32' & 13'' x 20' rolls supplied by
Epson, Red River Paper, or Moab.

But the 3880 can't.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 17:43:48 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article 201311301350242657-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, savageduck1
says...

On 2013-11-30 21:38:17 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 09:55:32 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

Many a fine art print has been made with the 2880 and 3880. IMO the 4880
is designed for higher output. I may have been told wrong, but i thought
the 4880 produced prints that were equal in quality to the other two,
but was designed for higher production rates, and larger format.

... and roll feed.

The R2880 can deal with 13'' x 32' & 13'' x 20' rolls supplied by
Epson, Red River Paper, or Moab.

The 2880 is 13", the 3880 and 4880 are 17". The 4880 is apparently
discontinued in favor of the 4900.

The 4880 takes 220ml inks vs 80 for the 3880, is designed to take 132
foot rolls, and has a cutter. It also according to the specs typically
prints twice as fast.

While the 3880 can be made to print on rolls the lack of a cutter makes
it marginal for production use with roll-feed paper.

I wasn't aware of that. How is it done?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 14:11:03 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-11-30 21:41:13 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 01:00:33 -0900, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

I really only have one small nit with OSX, which is the effort
they went to to hide access to things like a shell command line.

Agreed

... and now I use Windows!

What's to hide, open the Terminal in a Mac and Unix lovers can go for
it, and play with the command line to their heart's content. It is
there, a click away for anybody who wants to go that route, and many do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_(OS_X)

It just adds to what we know Floyd, and I guess you are really not
familiar with Macs and OSX. There are all sorts of things you can do
with a Mac that have nothing to do with preconceived misconceptions of
OSX.

http://www.cultofmac.com/215174/mast...r-mac-feature/


Tch, tch, tch.

Careful. You are beginning to sound like nospam. :-)

A friend of mine sold Apple computers in the distant past and I kept
rejecting his attemptsto sell them to me for the simple reason that
they didn't have a command line. I would be very happy with the one
they have got now, if only they had it then.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , says...

nospam wrote:
In article , sid
wrote:

[...] 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.

...and having to think about how to maneuver around the arcane
mechanics of an OS to process digital images rather than the mechanics
of the style and subjects of our photography is an impediment &
distraction.

What "archane mechanics" do you suppose one has to maneuver inorder to
process images. Clicking an icon is way easier with osx I take it?

certainly easier than writing and debugging a script to process images,
such as what floyd suggests.

That was not what I suggested though, and the idiocy of thinking it
is clouds your ability to ever become really productive.

I suggested creating tools that can do what you need, rather
than merely being able to select from a list of generic tools.
You want to develop your workflow around the available tools, I
want to develop the tools around my workflow.

See the difference? In the end the more highly developed and
specialized tool set is what makes the difference.

Hey, if you want to roll your own tools, Visual Studio Express is
freeware.

On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 14:22:46 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-11-30 21:55:40 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 12:25:36 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-11-30 17:28:31 +0000, sid said:

Additional Snip

What Lloyd has described is the setup and configuration he uses for
his process. It seem s hell of a long and convoluted but it's no worse
than the process I'm still going through for setting up LR5. If I've
understood him correctly it will be no more difficult for Lloyd to run
than LR5 will be for me once I've got it all sorted out.

It isn't complicated. Just start by importing your latest captures and
work backwards. Don't try to import everything at once, especially if
you have a catalog of 10+ years of digital images.

Then take a break. Take a look at a tutorial video or two. Try out what
was demonstrated in the video, and move on.
http://www.jkost.com/lightroom.html

Clicking an icon is way easier with osx I take it?

Is that supposed to be some sort of OSX put down?

You aren't familiar with OSX, Lightroom, or Photoshop are you?
I sure as Hell don't have to jump through the hoops Floyd has set out above.

You have probably already done it but using configuration windows and
menus etc. Lloyd uses a script.

So? That is what he needs to do because he is using Linux, with OSX,
LR, & PS, I don't need to do that, but I could if I needed to.
...but why go to the effort?

What effort? Scripts are straightforward once you get the hang of them
(which isn't hard).

I have a workflow in Lightroom & Photoshop which might come as a
surprise to you, is smooth and efficient, without a thought as to the
under pinnings of the OS, I am sure the same is true for those using LR
& PS in the Windows environment.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_422.jpg
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_423.jpg
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-11-30 20:59:47 +0000, nospam said:

In article 2013113012253670791-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

Clicking an icon is way easier with osx I take it?
Is that supposed to be some sort of OSX put down?
You aren't familiar with OSX, Lightroom, or Photoshop
are you?
I sure as Hell don't have to jump through the hoops Floyd has set out above.
indeed you don't. a few clicks and you can do what he
described, and
more.

It seems to be that way to me.

But of course it isn't.

You have used that software for years, hence you don't recognize
it as arcane. But for someone who has never seen it, it is
arcane.

This "a few clicks" is silly too, because once someone has
learned to use UFRAW, it is also just a few clicks to do that
and more.

But the real question here is why do some of you have to say
derogatory things about skills you don't have, tools you don't
know, and whole areas you are ignorant of?

None of you seem to have anything in the way of photographic
talents to support all of this, and it appears as if that is
exactly the reason for it: ego adjustment to make up for what
someone else may have that you don't!

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-11-30 21:41:13 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 01:00:33 -0900, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

I really only have one small nit with OSX, which is the effort
they went to to hide access to things like a shell command line.
Agreed
... and now I use Windows!

What's to hide, open the Terminal in a Mac and Unix lovers can go for
it, and play with the command line to their heart's content. It is
there, a click away for anybody who wants to go that route, and many do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_(OS_X)

It just adds to what we know Floyd, and I guess you are really not
familiar with Macs and OSX. There are all sorts of things you can do
with a Mac that have nothing to do with preconceived misconceptions of
OSX.

Note that I'm not the one ranting about what someone else's OS
can or cannot do. YOU ARE.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In article , says...

Savageduck wrote:
Tell me that isn't arcane.

Detail and precision might well be arcane. It's also productive
and efficient.

Keep in mind that the degree of arcane is proportion to the
level of ignorance.

Do you really think that using your favorite RAW converter and
editor effectively is any less arcane? Do you really think a
beginner can sit down and in an hour be producing the same
quality product that they'll be making two months or even two
years later *after* they have acquired all of the arcane
knowledge it takes to be even partially efficient with it?

Just because *you* don't know how to use a tool effectively
doesn't mean the tool is not efficient, it doesn't mean the
arcane craft of using the tool is without value.

Clicking an icon is way easier with osx I take it?

Is that supposed to be some sort of OSX put down?

Probably not, but it does seem to be a put down of your absurd
assertions that lack logic.

You aren't familiar with OSX, Lightroom, or Photoshop are you?
I sure as Hell don't have to jump through the hoops Floyd has set out above.

Oh, you just picked up on effective use of those tools in the
first hour you used them eh?

I would suggest that any of them is vastly more arcane, with
more hoops in order to get a specific result than the tools that
I described. The primary reason for that are the layers of
abstraction which have to learned (in depth despite the
obfuscation) in order to *really* get results from products
designed to make a typical consumer feel less intimidated.

Of course for those who never get to that level of skill, and
are indeed satisfied with clicking on icons to see what happens,
the effect is less arcane. And lower quality work too.

I have a workflow in Lightroom & Photoshop which might come as a
surprise to you, is smooth and efficient, without a thought as to the
under pinnings of the OS, I am sure the same is true for those using LR
& PS in the Windows environment.

So what. Do you really think using UFRAW and GIMP are any
different in that way?

Your logic is absurd in the assumptions you make about what you
are ignorant of. What you know is { great | easy | necessary }
and what someone else knows or does that you don't is not.

That's religion, and sounds like everybody's definition of
perversion: "what you do that I don't."

On the one hand you go on about "customizing tools" and on the other you
go on about "UFRAW and GIMP". So which is it, do you have customized
tools or are you using canned tools on Linux?