Re: Close to Zero IQ (was Shoot now, focus later)
with such a PC, just use win2000 instead of XP to lost less power. > So, I would say that a decent 1000mhz, 512mb, machine with as much > harddrive space as you can afford is all that is needed (as opposed to > wanted) for photography. >
Re: Close to Zero IQ (was Shoot now, focus later)
CS2 runs fine on my 900mhz, 512mb Winblows box. Of course I am not used to running anything on a high-end gaming machine so my expectations are probaby lower than most. I find it adequate for most things; it seems that some where around there performance-wise things became adequate unlike previously when the machine just did not quite do what you wanted it to and you were glad to see every little improvement come along. In fact he only upgrades since I built it as a middle of the line machine 5 years ago are doubling the ram, and doubling harddrive capacity by putting in a second 40gig. So, I would say that a decent 1000mhz, 512mb, machine with as much harddrive space as you can afford is all that is needed (as opposed to wanted) for photography. Compared to the TRS-89 Model 3 I started on in 1980 this thing is a speed demon. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Shel Belinkoff wrote: Windows and Mac utilize memory differently. Photoshop CS may work well on a Mac with the memory you've described, but it may not run well on a Windows machine with similar memory - and then again, it might. Depends on how the memory, scratch disks, paging file are configured. Shel "You meet the nicest people with a Pentax" [Original Message] From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I can agree with you regarding the computer. You can get sufficient power from an old and cheap computer. My 3 years old iMac with 800MHz processor and 512MB RAM handled 60MB scans in PS CS without much problem.
Re: Close to Zero IQ (was Shoot now, focus later)
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005, Herb Chong wrote: then the camera. if you pay attention to what Frank posts, you'll see that sharpness isn't especially important. neither is high resolution since he doesn't go beyond 8x10 often. he can get a more than adequate camera that will take 80% of the shots he shows by looking for a used 4 megapixel P&S camera set to B&W mode. that's assuming that he doesn't have a friend looking to upgrade and letting him have their old one for next to nothing. if Frank really were interested in getting into digital, he could do it for about mostly likely no more than $150, $250 at the outside if he has to buy another computer, and at close to the same quality he shoots today. that camera would cover about 80% of his shooting that he shows us, all except the indoor shots. So, you are suggesting dumping the features of his DSLR system and his Leica in favour of low-res, small-and-crappy sensor, single-lens piece of crap. You may want to ask yourself "why does he not use single-use cameras, or even Pentax-110?". No, it's not cost. nonsensical figure and you swallowed it all. next thing i know, the lot of you will cheer Frank's heroic sacrifice for refusing to save up for a car because he'll never afford $100K for a decent BMW. His heroic sacrifice is not giving up his old, usable Jaguar for a new Trabant[1]. And mine too. But the backlash you got, you thoroughly earned. This wording below is unacceptable, irrespective of the point you want to put through: if that is a hardship, should you be shooting anything? Kostas [1] Conscious choice not to denigrate an existing, low-cost marque.
Re: Close to Zero IQ (was Shoot now, focus later)
On Nov 29, 2005, at 5:04 AM, Adam Maas wrote: ...Regular low costs are an easier burden than a high up front cost even for someone not on a fixed income. ... Sorry, i run my finances a little differently. At the peak of my film photography, I was spending $2800/year, more or less, on film and negative processing. Once digital camera prices for cameras capable of producing comparable quality were reasonable, it was an easy decision for me to save up enough money to buy a good digital camera. A DSLR like the *ist DS with a few lenses cost me $2000 and will last 3-6 years in use, which nets quite a bit less expenditure than $2800/ year. Even putting it on my credit card and paying it off over a year a 11% interest netted a worthwhile savings. Printing costs for me didn't change appreciably as I have been printing digitally for many years, so I don't factor that into my cost analysis. Same for computer equipment costs: I buy new systems every 2-4 years, upgrading capability along the way, and have been doing that since 1983, because I use my computers for a lot more than just photographic work. Godfrey
Re: Close to Zero IQ (was Shoot now, focus later)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 11/28/2005 6:17:40 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Frank's $6000 figure was disingenuous posturing for not going digital. my system didn't cost $6000, including the *istD. if he had just stayed with just saying he didn't like digital or didn't want to spend the time, he would have been like a bunch of other people on this list, agreeing to disagree. instead, he spouted a nonsensical figure and you swallowed it all. next thing i know, the lot of you will cheer Frank's heroic sacrifice for refusing to save up for a car because he'll never afford $100K for a decent BMW. Herb... I think I missed something here. Part of a thread or something. Okey, dokey. There is one thing Herb you may have forgotten, having been poor a large portion of my adult life (no more, thankfully), or having limited funds, anyway, I haven't forgotten it. It is MUCH, MUCH harder to come up with $1000 or so in one lump sum than to come up with $10 a week. Or whatever. Sure, over time, the bit by bit may actually cost more, but the funds may only be available in bit by bit amounts, not in large lump sum. That is just the way it is. I am really finding some of your comments lately too elitist, sorry. Not everyone has the financial resources to do what you think they should. And why should you care, really, what others do? Or how they spend their own money? I don't. And I don't care if finances are not their only reason, either. I've personally spent a lot on digital. Camera, cards, printer, paper, inks, PS, Spyder, etc. I don't even want to look at the total figure. But it certainly doesn't stop just with the camera. It can be a little cheaper if one wants to compromise, or it can be quite expensive. Oh, well, the above really rubbed me wrong. Seems sort of silly to argue against someone else's decision. Or whatever explanations they offer for their own decisions. Marnie aka Doe Marnie's right here. It's something that kept (and keeps) me shooting film. Regular low costs are an easier burden than a high up front cost even for someone not on a fixed income. I got lucky in that I had all the necessary bits other than the camera already due to previous investments when I lucked across an incredible deal on an *istD. That puchase still has my budget in tatters 3 months later though. -Adam
Re: Close to Zero IQ (was Shoot now, focus later)
I know. The previous PC I used at work had the same data, but chrashed each time I tried to load pictures larger than 40MB DagT > fra: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Windows and Mac utilize memory differently. Photoshop CS may work well on > a Mac with the memory you've described, but it may not run well on a > Windows machine with similar memory - and then again, it might. Depends on > how the memory, scratch disks, paging file are configured. > > Shel > "You meet the nicest people with a Pentax" > > > > [Original Message] > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > I can agree with you regarding the computer. > > You can get sufficient power from an old and cheap computer. > > My 3 years old iMac with 800MHz processor and 512MB > > RAM handled 60MB scans in PS CS without much problem. > > >
Re: Close to Zero IQ (was Shoot now, focus later)
Windows and Mac utilize memory differently. Photoshop CS may work well on a Mac with the memory you've described, but it may not run well on a Windows machine with similar memory - and then again, it might. Depends on how the memory, scratch disks, paging file are configured. Shel "You meet the nicest people with a Pentax" > [Original Message] > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I can agree with you regarding the computer. > You can get sufficient power from an old and cheap computer. > My 3 years old iMac with 800MHz processor and 512MB > RAM handled 60MB scans in PS CS without much problem.
Re: Close to Zero IQ (was Shoot now, focus later)
On 29/11/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: >Unsharpness in one of the reasons why I still use film, especially >medium format. Mark! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Close to Zero IQ (was Shoot now, focus later)
In a message dated 11/28/2005 6:17:40 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Frank's $6000 figure was disingenuous posturing for not going digital. my system didn't cost $6000, including the *istD. if he had just stayed with just saying he didn't like digital or didn't want to spend the time, he would have been like a bunch of other people on this list, agreeing to disagree. instead, he spouted a nonsensical figure and you swallowed it all. next thing i know, the lot of you will cheer Frank's heroic sacrifice for refusing to save up for a car because he'll never afford $100K for a decent BMW. Herb... I think I missed something here. Part of a thread or something. Okey, dokey. There is one thing Herb you may have forgotten, having been poor a large portion of my adult life (no more, thankfully), or having limited funds, anyway, I haven't forgotten it. It is MUCH, MUCH harder to come up with $1000 or so in one lump sum than to come up with $10 a week. Or whatever. Sure, over time, the bit by bit may actually cost more, but the funds may only be available in bit by bit amounts, not in large lump sum. That is just the way it is. I am really finding some of your comments lately too elitist, sorry. Not everyone has the financial resources to do what you think they should. And why should you care, really, what others do? Or how they spend their own money? I don't. And I don't care if finances are not their only reason, either. I've personally spent a lot on digital. Camera, cards, printer, paper, inks, PS, Spyder, etc. I don't even want to look at the total figure. But it certainly doesn't stop just with the camera. It can be a little cheaper if one wants to compromise, or it can be quite expensive. Oh, well, the above really rubbed me wrong. Seems sort of silly to argue against someone else's decision. Or whatever explanations they offer for their own decisions. Marnie aka Doe
Re: Close to Zero IQ (was Shoot now, focus later)
I can agree with you regarding the computer. You can get sufficient power from an old and cheap computer. My 3 years old iMac with 800MHz processor and 512MB RAM handled 60MB scans in PS CS without much problem. But, you make some strange assumptions regarding the camera requirements. As I see Franks pictures they often rely on timing and often shallow DOF. None of these are available with P&S cameras. Just because they are seldom sharp does not mean that small sensors and low resolution is OK. Unsharpness in one of the reasons why I still use film, especially medium format. DagT > fra: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > dato: 2005/11/29 ti AM 03:16:09 CET > til: > emne: Re: Close to Zero IQ (was Shoot now, focus later) > > i go on vacation and come back to this. has it occurred to any of you to > work out how much it costs Frank to shoot each year doing what he does > today? how many rolls do you think he shoots in a year? you can figure that > out just by counting the times he posts and his discourses on the rolls he > has shot. how much does a roll of film, processing, and printing cost him? > do the arithmetic and you will find he is spending a fair fraction of that > $600 already. wait until the cost of materials goes up. so i have every > reason to ask if saving $600 over a year is a hardship, why isn't what he > spends already a hardship? > > as for the actual dollar figure, $600 is the most possible that Frank needs > to spend. he has a scanner and scans his B&W prints to show us. that means > he has an adequate image editing program on a good enough computer right > now. if his scanner is a USB scanner, he is done. no computer upgrade needed > for B&W. the monitor quality isn't so important because he's doing B&W. if > his computer doesn't have a USB port, he has a couple of options. looking > for a hand-me-down from a friend that has a USB port for perhaps $100, go to > a refurbished computer place that takes them off-lease and resells them for > perhaps $150 for an older but adequate system unit (on occasion, i've seen > some refurbished desktops for $80 that will do the job.), go to PC > Connection or some similar place and configure a new system unit for $250. i > walk around computer shows and see some new system units for $200 and under. > getting a laptop like Rob suggests is about the least cost-effective way of > buying computing power. even then, i see refurbished laptops at computer > shows for $200 that will do what Frank needs doing. > > then the camera. if you pay attention to what Frank posts, you'll see that > sharpness isn't especially important. neither is high resolution since he > doesn't go beyond 8x10 often. he can get a more than adequate camera that > will take 80% of the shots he shows by looking for a used 4 megapixel P&S > camera set to B&W mode. that's assuming that he doesn't have a friend > looking to upgrade and letting him have their old one for next to nothing. > if Frank really were interested in getting into digital, he could do it for > about mostly likely no more than $150, $250 at the outside if he has to buy > another computer, and at close to the same quality he shoots today. that > camera would cover about 80% of his shooting that he shows us, all except > the indoor shots. > > the rest of you who responded with all those negatives, i thought i saw > plenty of group no-think on other mailing lists, but this takes the cake. > just about no-one questioned whether Frank needed a new computer to go > digital or not. only a few people questioned the cost. just about no-one > questioned whether Frank needed a DSLR or not. just about no-one questioned > whether he even needed a new anything. i do 5 seconds of arithmetic in my > head and conclude that Frank spends a fair amount of the actual cost needed > to go digital on his photography already and would save a lot of that by > buying a small digital camera and not printing as much. some of you thought > of this, but none of the negative responses did. Frank's $6000 figure was > disingenuous posturing for not going digital. my system didn't cost $6000, > including the *istD. if he had just stayed with just saying he didn't like > digital or didn't want to spend the time, he would have been like a bunch of > other people on this list, agreeing to disagree. instead, he spouted a > nonsensical figure and you swallowed it all. next thing i know, the lot of > you will cheer Frank's heroic sacrifice for refusing to save up for a car > because he'll never afford $100K for a decent BMW. > > Herb...
Re: Close to Zero IQ (was Shoot now, focus later)
I'd disagree about the camera costs. With what I've seen from Frank, he seems to shoot spur of the moment grab shots, with an emphasis on quickly getting the shot, which a 4MP consumer P&S will not do due to shutter lag. He's either looking at a high-end P&S like the Canon G6 or a DSLR unless he wants to spend the ridiculous amount Epson wants for the RD1. -Adam Herb Chong wrote: i go on vacation and come back to this. has it occurred to any of you to work out how much it costs Frank to shoot each year doing what he does today? how many rolls do you think he shoots in a year? you can figure that out just by counting the times he posts and his discourses on the rolls he has shot. how much does a roll of film, processing, and printing cost him? do the arithmetic and you will find he is spending a fair fraction of that $600 already. wait until the cost of materials goes up. so i have every reason to ask if saving $600 over a year is a hardship, why isn't what he spends already a hardship? as for the actual dollar figure, $600 is the most possible that Frank needs to spend. he has a scanner and scans his B&W prints to show us. that means he has an adequate image editing program on a good enough computer right now. if his scanner is a USB scanner, he is done. no computer upgrade needed for B&W. the monitor quality isn't so important because he's doing B&W. if his computer doesn't have a USB port, he has a couple of options. looking for a hand-me-down from a friend that has a USB port for perhaps $100, go to a refurbished computer place that takes them off-lease and resells them for perhaps $150 for an older but adequate system unit (on occasion, i've seen some refurbished desktops for $80 that will do the job.), go to PC Connection or some similar place and configure a new system unit for $250. i walk around computer shows and see some new system units for $200 and under. getting a laptop like Rob suggests is about the least cost-effective way of buying computing power. even then, i see refurbished laptops at computer shows for $200 that will do what Frank needs doing. then the camera. if you pay attention to what Frank posts, you'll see that sharpness isn't especially important. neither is high resolution since he doesn't go beyond 8x10 often. he can get a more than adequate camera that will take 80% of the shots he shows by looking for a used 4 megapixel P&S camera set to B&W mode. that's assuming that he doesn't have a friend looking to upgrade and letting him have their old one for next to nothing. if Frank really were interested in getting into digital, he could do it for about mostly likely no more than $150, $250 at the outside if he has to buy another computer, and at close to the same quality he shoots today. that camera would cover about 80% of his shooting that he shows us, all except the indoor shots. the rest of you who responded with all those negatives, i thought i saw plenty of group no-think on other mailing lists, but this takes the cake. just about no-one questioned whether Frank needed a new computer to go digital or not. only a few people questioned the cost. just about no-one questioned whether Frank needed a DSLR or not. just about no-one questioned whether he even needed a new anything. i do 5 seconds of arithmetic in my head and conclude that Frank spends a fair amount of the actual cost needed to go digital on his photography already and would save a lot of that by buying a small digital camera and not printing as much. some of you thought of this, but none of the negative responses did. Frank's $6000 figure was disingenuous posturing for not going digital. my system didn't cost $6000, including the *istD. if he had just stayed with just saying he didn't like digital or didn't want to spend the time, he would have been like a bunch of other people on this list, agreeing to disagree. instead, he spouted a nonsensical figure and you swallowed it all. next thing i know, the lot of you will cheer Frank's heroic sacrifice for refusing to save up for a car because he'll never afford $100K for a decent BMW. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Ann Sanfedele" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 1:15 AM Subject: Re: Shoot now, focus later Herb Chong wrote: as Rob said it earlier, $600, not $6K. if that is a hardship, should you be shooting anything? Herb... What a very bigoted comment , Herb. How sad. ann, to whom $600 is a hell of a lot of money
Re: Close to Zero IQ (was Shoot now, focus later)
i go on vacation and come back to this. has it occurred to any of you to work out how much it costs Frank to shoot each year doing what he does today? how many rolls do you think he shoots in a year? you can figure that out just by counting the times he posts and his discourses on the rolls he has shot. how much does a roll of film, processing, and printing cost him? do the arithmetic and you will find he is spending a fair fraction of that $600 already. wait until the cost of materials goes up. so i have every reason to ask if saving $600 over a year is a hardship, why isn't what he spends already a hardship? as for the actual dollar figure, $600 is the most possible that Frank needs to spend. he has a scanner and scans his B&W prints to show us. that means he has an adequate image editing program on a good enough computer right now. if his scanner is a USB scanner, he is done. no computer upgrade needed for B&W. the monitor quality isn't so important because he's doing B&W. if his computer doesn't have a USB port, he has a couple of options. looking for a hand-me-down from a friend that has a USB port for perhaps $100, go to a refurbished computer place that takes them off-lease and resells them for perhaps $150 for an older but adequate system unit (on occasion, i've seen some refurbished desktops for $80 that will do the job.), go to PC Connection or some similar place and configure a new system unit for $250. i walk around computer shows and see some new system units for $200 and under. getting a laptop like Rob suggests is about the least cost-effective way of buying computing power. even then, i see refurbished laptops at computer shows for $200 that will do what Frank needs doing. then the camera. if you pay attention to what Frank posts, you'll see that sharpness isn't especially important. neither is high resolution since he doesn't go beyond 8x10 often. he can get a more than adequate camera that will take 80% of the shots he shows by looking for a used 4 megapixel P&S camera set to B&W mode. that's assuming that he doesn't have a friend looking to upgrade and letting him have their old one for next to nothing. if Frank really were interested in getting into digital, he could do it for about mostly likely no more than $150, $250 at the outside if he has to buy another computer, and at close to the same quality he shoots today. that camera would cover about 80% of his shooting that he shows us, all except the indoor shots. the rest of you who responded with all those negatives, i thought i saw plenty of group no-think on other mailing lists, but this takes the cake. just about no-one questioned whether Frank needed a new computer to go digital or not. only a few people questioned the cost. just about no-one questioned whether Frank needed a DSLR or not. just about no-one questioned whether he even needed a new anything. i do 5 seconds of arithmetic in my head and conclude that Frank spends a fair amount of the actual cost needed to go digital on his photography already and would save a lot of that by buying a small digital camera and not printing as much. some of you thought of this, but none of the negative responses did. Frank's $6000 figure was disingenuous posturing for not going digital. my system didn't cost $6000, including the *istD. if he had just stayed with just saying he didn't like digital or didn't want to spend the time, he would have been like a bunch of other people on this list, agreeing to disagree. instead, he spouted a nonsensical figure and you swallowed it all. next thing i know, the lot of you will cheer Frank's heroic sacrifice for refusing to save up for a car because he'll never afford $100K for a decent BMW. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Ann Sanfedele" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 1:15 AM Subject: Re: Shoot now, focus later Herb Chong wrote: as Rob said it earlier, $600, not $6K. if that is a hardship, should you be shooting anything? Herb... What a very bigoted comment , Herb. How sad. ann, to whom $600 is a hell of a lot of money
