How come people always say stuff like that? For some reason everyone seems to be ok with a pro user using a mbp but not an imac.
They're the same machine.
Same ram lock-in.
Same video card lock-in.
An imac is acutally better than a mbp because of the 3.5" hd.
Plenty of pros do their rough cuts on pb and finish later on something better, plenty of pros used to find pbs good enough for apeture for live capture on shoots. Plenty of pros used pbs to run logic or pro tools setups that were flexible.
Right, but a notebook is an acceptable compromise. You're accepting the lock-in because (a) it's portable, and (b) it's not your primary machine.
Do you typically see rooms full of iMacs in professional settings?
The problem with your assertions is that you make the mistake of "blaming", rather than to think about what it takes to produce the software packages.
Again, you disregard what I say, and just go on as though I've said nothing.
It can get frustrating to constantly reply, when you pretend that I've said things that I didn't say, and that I didn't say things that I did.
I will repeat this for the last time.
I NEVER said that Shake should be out now. I never said that I EXPECTED Shake to be out now.
What you said is, "I just think that it's hypercritical (yes hyper) to chastise Adobe, considering all of the work that involves, while giving Apple a free ride."
Please correct me if I'm wrong. You're saying that Adobe has spent as much effort as Apple in producing UBs. What I'm saying is that, since FCSuite is easily as complex as Creative Suite, and that FCSuite is already out in UB and Creative Suite won't be out in its current version (ever) as a UB, that Apple has clearly expended a lot more effort for its customers.
If I understand you correctly, you've used the absence of Shake as an example of Apple not working any harder than Adobe. I and others have said that the lack of Shake is simply a prioritization by Apple, since there's no high-powered hardware to run it, and thus Apple has expended all its UB effort on its consumer (iLife, iWork) and other Pro apps (Aperture, FCSuite, etc.).
What you said is, "I just think that it's hypercritical (yes hyper) to chastise Adobe, considering all of the work that involves, while giving Apple a free ride."
Please correct me if I'm wrong. You're saying that Adobe has spent as much effort as Apple in producing UBs. What I'm saying is that, since FCSuite is easily as complex as Creative Suite, and that FCSuite is already out in UB and Creative Suite won't be out in its current version (ever) as a UB, that Apple has clearly expended a lot more effort for its customers.
If I understand you correctly, you've used the absence of Shake as an example of Apple not working any harder than Adobe. I and others have said that the lack of Shake is simply a prioritization by Apple, since there's no high-powered hardware to run it, and thus Apple has expended all its UB effort on its consumer (iLife, iWork) and other Pro apps (Aperture, FCSuite, etc.).
Do I understand you correctly?
Not quite. But closer.
I do think that Adobe has spent as much time as is possible on CS3 and Universalization. I don't know what "as much effort" could be, since they are different companies. But I do believe that Adobe is doing their damnedest to get this out. don't forget that if they didn't buy Macromedia when it came up for sale, then no doubt, we would have the suite sooner.
I don't agree that FCP Suite is as complex as CS3 will be. Apple surely hasn't expended any more effort for its customers than the owner of the OS and the machines it, and its software run on, should be. Apple MUST be in the lead here. If not, then other companies will point to Apple and say; If they aren't rushing, maybe they know something. Therefore, why should we?
If you want to point to the fact that video editing is, as, or more difficult, than work with PS is, as some have said (I really don't remember if you said that as well, so bear with me here), then perhaps Apple should also have not wasted time on the older programs, and did what Adobe is doing, and skipped to getting the new ones out the door sooner. After all, it's the same team. If we don't see FCP Studio 6 by NAB this month, we will know why! As I use it, I would rather wait longer for a new version, than to get the old one UV'd, and then have to wait even LONGER to get the new version. That goes for FCP as well as Shake.
Do you really believe that when Apple said, in June; Gentlemen (and ladies), start your engines!, that they hadn't been already working on their own programs from at least the previous January? Perhaps, they were working on them from a year before. I wouldn't be surprised, would you?
Don't forget that Apple said that the first machines would be out "by June". And most people, including most here, thought that the professional machines would not be among the first. In fact, the MBP wasn't expected until the Merom, third quarter! Remember how many people said that Apple would NEVER release it with the Yonah? The "Powermacs" weren't expected until the end of 2007, well after the time that CS3 came out. Do you have any evidence that Apple told Adobe that they were moving the schedule up by a full year?
People were complaining that FCP Suite wasn't ready during the January Macworld. We saw that here. Do you think that's fair? I don't.
Again, I don't think that either of these companies is doing anything other than the very best that they can do to get their works out the door.
Again, I don't think that either of these companies is doing anything other than the very best that they can do to get their works out the door....I think we should leave it at that.
The next question then that naturally follows is how will sales and profits of [hardware and software] for Apple and [software] for Adobe be affected? One would imagine Apple has iPod + related stuff + consumer side stuff to stay on course (although it's stock may be unfavoured for a while) ; while Adobe has a huge PC market to keep it chugging along.
I think through this very heated debate we have come to a better understanding of what is going on. It is probably true that some (most?) of us didn't read the blog links of the Adobe developers, and only when AppleInsider posted excerpts from it did we become aware of that side of things.
I'm not saying this just to please Melgross, but my initial vehemence for Adobe has subsided, now that I better understand the issue. Like most of us said, not much point "assigning blame" but clearly there were some areas both Apple and Adobe could have addressed better, in a perfect world, so that by now we'd have all apps as Universal Binaries.
I bring up the sales and profit issue for Apple (I assume Adobe|Macromedia is well covered by PC software sales) because it seems like this might kill a lot of their momentum that has been zooming along. Do you all think so? The flip side is that as Melgross and others have discussed is that the pro market operates in a slightly different buying pattern that Apple may still be well covered sales and profit-wise through 2006 and Rosetta is a strong enough proposition for pros to buy new machines through 2006.
Certainly all in all a complex state and I would not envy Apple management navigating this Intel transition. AAPL stock may hover at $60 or so until analysts see a bit more "positive" (whatever that may mean) or "stronger" pushing forward of the Intel transition.
Right, but a notebook is an acceptable compromise. You're accepting the lock-in because (a) it's portable, and (b) it's not your primary machine.
Do you typically see rooms full of iMacs in professional settings?
No I don't because professional settings don't follow the latest hardware trends and dump their machines multipul times a year to stay up to date.
They buy what they need and keep it as long as it's useful, usually years. So any pros that need stuff now can and will buy the stuff available now.
That's why apple still have ppc stuff, if I was a post house that needed stuff now I'd get quads etc, not hold out and complain until all the stuff I want is ported.
Why?
Because I won't get new computers for like 3 years anyways and my ppc won't be obsolete in 3 years, not by a long shot.
Even then everything coming out is universal and with a machine as strong as a quad I can easily run anything they throw at me in the next 3 years.
Obviously it matters more to people that aren't pros because it's a much more serious investment to them.
All the pros I know shrug at the stuff they buy for their jobs because as they say:
"It'll pay for itself in 1-2 months easy."
And it does.
Anyone that does real editing has their stuff given to them by their company or the stuff pays itself off.
Anyone needing and buying stuff now aren't going to left in the cold anytime soon.
And if you're werid and must wait a imac as a "compromise" isn't the worst thing to go through because like I said in the post you quote it can do the vast majority of work out there. And after whatever it is your waiting for drops you have a nice home computer. Or do your work on a mbp and screen span it, and then eventually you've got a nice notebook to put with your setup. That should be enough.
If its not then like I said you've already got stuff because you're currently working anyways.
We had, I seem to remember 24 Macs. We also had, I think 15 PC's.
The Mac's were used for the publishing, graphics, video, and photo departments. The PC's were used for the front counter, and for accounting, except for two units we had for file translation purposes, and for when we had to do something that really needed absolute PC compatibility that wasn't available when doing the work on a Mac.
For the front counter and accounting, we didn't replace the PC's until we really had to, because those uses weren't dependent so much on power. They would last 6 years.
But for the production areas, it was different.
I had a schedule that was fairly consistent.
I would buy new machines every year. But only to replace about one third of those we had. The highest end users would get a new machine. Those machines would be moved down the ladder, as would the machines at that level. The machines that were entirely bumped (now usually 3 years old), were offered to the employees, or offered to several schools.
This was repeated every year.
Perviously to the G5 models, we could upgrade the cpu's, and get another years worth out of them. We almost never upgraded the video cards. That was a waste of time and money. We always bought as much RAM as needed when first buying the machine. Same with the internal HD's. External drive towers were used for most files, as well as backup tape drives and DVD's.
Most businesses in the same business as we were, do about the same thing, though every company has some unique needs.
As Ecking says, few companies are going to rush out and buy new Intel machines. Even when CS2 is available, and the Intel PM's, most companies will buy, at most, one for evaluation purposes. After perhaps three months, or when the new buying cycle comes about, if ALL of the supporting software, from ALL other third party companies is available, and shown to be PRODUCTION READY, then companies will start buying in numbers.
We had, I seem to remember 24 Macs. We also had, I think 15 PC's.
The Mac's were used for the publishing, graphics, video, and photo departments. The PC's were used for the front counter, and for accounting, except for two units we had for file translation purposes, and for when we had to do something that really needed absolute PC compatibility that wasn't available when doing the work on a Mac.
For the front counter and accounting, we didn't replace the PC's until we really had to, because those uses weren't dependent so much on power. They would last 6 years.
But for the production areas, it was different.
I had a schedule that was fairly consistent.
I would buy new machines every year. But only to replace about one third of those we had. The highest end users would get a new machine. Those machines would be moved down the ladder, as would the machines at that level. The machines that were entirely bumped (now usually 3 years old), were offered to the employees, or offered to several schools.
This was repeated every year.
Perviously to the G5 models, we could upgrade the cpu's, and get another years worth out of them. We almost never upgraded the video cards. That was a waste of time and money. We always bought as much RAM as needed when first buying the machine. Same with the internal HD's. External drive towers were used for most files, as well as backup tape drives and DVD's.
Most businesses in the same business as we were, do about the same thing, though every company has some unique needs.
As Ecking says, few companies are going to rush out and buy new Intel machines. Even when CS2 is available, and the Intel PM's, most companies will buy, at most, one for evaluation purposes. After perhaps three months, or when the new buying cycle comes about, if ALL of the supporting software, from ALL other third party companies is available, and shown to be PRODUCTION READY, then companies will start buying in numbers.
Here's what I used to do at my company.....But for the production areas, it was different....As Ecking says, few companies are going to rush out and buy new Intel machines. Even when CS2 is available, and the Intel PM's, most companies will buy, at most, one for evaluation purposes. After perhaps three months, or when the new buying cycle comes about, if ALL of the supporting software, from ALL other third party companies is available, and shown to be PRODUCTION READY, then companies will start buying in numbers.
Remember that this would mean that Apple and Adobe revenue would continue to derive from PowerMac G5s, Final Cut Studio etc, and CS2 Suite respectively.
It would suggest that any sales and profit growth via Conroe/Woodcrest and CS3 for the pro market would be off by a year. Meaning, it's status quo on the pro scene, so drivers for growth of profits and Apple stock price would be Leopard, and strong consumer side offerings (Macbook, new(?) iPods)...
Here's what I used to do at my company.....But for the production areas, it was different....As Ecking says, few companies are going to rush out and buy new Intel machines. Even when CS2 is available, and the Intel PM's, most companies will buy, at most, one for evaluation purposes. After perhaps three months, or when the new buying cycle comes about, if ALL of the supporting software, from ALL other third party companies is available, and shown to be PRODUCTION READY, then companies will start buying in numbers.
Remember that this would mean that Apple and Adobe revenue would continue to derive from PowerMac G5s, Final Cut Studio etc, and CS2 Suite respectively.
It would suggest that any sales and profit growth via Conroe/Woodcrest and CS3 for the pro market would be off by a year. Meaning, it's status quo on the pro scene, so drivers for growth of profits and Apple stock price would be Leopard, and strong consumer side offerings (Macbook, new(?) iPods)...
Aha! And this is precisely what the analysts have been saying. It's the December quarter when Apple will BEGIN to see the fruits of the switch.
They expect 2007 to be a very good year, as Frank used to say.
What this review has taught me RAW conversion is pretty subjective. Because RAW conversion itself is just a software interpretation without any concrete standards for how it needs to render the final image.
The reviewer just looks at the image and says "I like that one and I don't like that one." That type of analysis has no relationship to the actual picture the camera took.
In some situations Aperture 1.0 could have been showing the literal picture the camera took with its noise, digital artifacts, and all. While Aperture 1.1 and Adobe Lightroom are masking and smoothing noise and digital artifacts.
What this review has taught me RAW conversion is pretty subjective. Because RAW conversion itself is just a software interpretation without any concrete standards for how it needs to render the final image.
The reviewer just looks at the image and says "I like that one and I don't like that one." That type of analysis has no relationship to the actual picture the camera took.
In some situations Aperture 1.0 could have been showing the literal picture the camera took with its noise, digital artifacts, and all. While Aperture 1.1 and Adobe Lightroom are masking and smoothing noise and digital artifacts.
BEIGE is ghey. So is Ars. Just leave BEIGE and Ars be.
What this review has taught me RAW conversion is pretty subjective. Because RAW conversion itself is just a software interpretation without any concrete standards for how it needs to render the final image.
The reviewer just looks at the image and says "I like that one and I don't like that one." That type of analysis has no relationship to the actual picture the camera took.
In some situations Aperture 1.0 could have been showing the literal picture the camera took with its noise, digital artifacts, and all. While Aperture 1.1 and Adobe Lightroom are masking and smoothing noise and digital artifacts.
To a certain extent, that's correct. But, after a while of doing this work, either your own, or for others, you do get the experiance required to "know" what is correct.
One of the reasons why I would rather hire photographers, and teach them to use PS, rather than the other way around, is that I can always teach someone to use a program well, but I can't teach them to have a good "eye".
Aha! And this is precisely what the analysts have been saying. It's the December quarter when Apple will BEGIN to see the fruits of the switch. They expect 2007 to be a very good year, as Frank used to say.
Who the F*** is Frank? Well... anyway yeah, Apple still has a few quarters to deliver outstanding profits and revenues before the fruits ripen. On a scale of 1-10, this year Steve will be turning the RDF up to 12.
Just read the Aperture 1.1 review on Ars. What this review has taught me RAW conversion is pretty subjective. Because RAW conversion itself is just a software interpretation without any concrete standards for how it needs to render the final image...In some situations Aperture 1.0 could have been showing the literal picture the camera took with its noise, digital artifacts, and all. While Aperture 1.1 and Adobe Lightroom are masking and smoothing noise and digital artifacts.
Aha! And this is precisely what the analysts have been saying. It's the December quarter when Apple will BEGIN to see the fruits of the switch. They expect 2007 to be a very good year, as Frank used to say.
Who the F*** is Frank? Well... anyway yeah, Apple still has a few quarters to deliver outstanding profits and revenues before the fruits ripen. On a scale of 1-10, this year Steve will be turning the RDF up to 12.
Frank Sinatra? The Song? The line?
Hey, I know where you live, but, that's no excuse!
Heh. Not a big Sinatra fan myself. Too old skool. You're showing your age, Mel. You should be listening to stuff on this website: www.di.fm (the top several channels, not the channels at the bottom)
Heh. Not a big Sinatra fan myself. Too old skool. You're showing your age, Mel. You should be listening to stuff on this website: www.di.fm (the top several channels, not the channels at the bottom)
DUF DUF DUF DUF DUF DUF DUF w00t !!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm not a big Sinatra fan myself. I have one of his albums. But, a famous song is still a famous song.
To a certain extent, that's correct. But, after a while of doing this work, either your own, or for others, you do get the experiance required to "know" what is correct.
That's extremely subjective and leaves wide margin for personal taste. This also leaves any real useful evaluation of RAW converters based strictly on opinion.
Admitedly its a foreign concept to me because motion film color software does not work this way at all.
That's extremely subjective and leaves wide margin for personal taste...
Well, that can play to the photographer's strengths. If the RAW files as interpreted by the software have enough resolution and minimal noise and a wide enough latitude of colors and textures, and the software is able to provide good tweaking and organising of the imagery without resorting to having to always open photoshop, then the software is useful to the photographer and their workflow.
That's my understanding of it. Whatever RAW file as seen by the software is almost never the final print(s) that the photographer will deliver. In the analog darkrooms there were always tons of "tweaks" you could do in the developing process. I suppose Aperture seeks to do the same, be a complete "digital darkroom" to organise and tweak the imagery -- but with the choosing of photos and adjusting of the photos -- that's all done "by eye" as melgross mentions:
AFAIK no pro photographer will just take that RAW file and go, okay, it's "done". The idea of RAW is that it has the maximum digital information possible that will "survive" the tweaking process, and that RAW retains the most color information possible... A pro photographer makes a living by developing (heh... pun unintended) a style and workflow that produces distinct results that clients desire. The photographer will work out a balance of how much of that style is realised "in camera" (during the shooting process) and how much the style is realised in post production. Again, if the software fits into their workflow and process of adjusting/finalising the image to their taste, then the software will be useful to them.
It IS interesting that you mention that the software shows an image that "has no relationship to the actual picture the camera took" and that different software seems to be processing RAW differently -- that's why photography is an art. Even if we are talking taking photos of cells, MRI etc, in *science*, the process of observation itself affects the results.
It IS also interesting that gone are the days of choosing film stock and choosing ISO and all that -- with digital it's all down to the way a particular digital SLR's CCD/CMOS handles various shots and light conditions -- that's your "film stock and ISO settings" there. Which I still find weird because digital shots have such a "harshness" to it and sometimes old skool film stock still can produce some beautiful results you can't replicate in digital.
Comments
Originally posted by ecking
How come people always say stuff like that? For some reason everyone seems to be ok with a pro user using a mbp but not an imac.
They're the same machine.
Same ram lock-in.
Same video card lock-in.
An imac is acutally better than a mbp because of the 3.5" hd.
Plenty of pros do their rough cuts on pb and finish later on something better, plenty of pros used to find pbs good enough for apeture for live capture on shoots. Plenty of pros used pbs to run logic or pro tools setups that were flexible.
Right, but a notebook is an acceptable compromise. You're accepting the lock-in because (a) it's portable, and (b) it's not your primary machine.
Do you typically see rooms full of iMacs in professional settings?
Originally posted by melgross
The problem with your assertions is that you make the mistake of "blaming", rather than to think about what it takes to produce the software packages.
Again, you disregard what I say, and just go on as though I've said nothing.
It can get frustrating to constantly reply, when you pretend that I've said things that I didn't say, and that I didn't say things that I did.
I will repeat this for the last time.
I NEVER said that Shake should be out now. I never said that I EXPECTED Shake to be out now.
What you said is, "I just think that it's hypercritical (yes hyper) to chastise Adobe, considering all of the work that involves, while giving Apple a free ride."
Please correct me if I'm wrong. You're saying that Adobe has spent as much effort as Apple in producing UBs. What I'm saying is that, since FCSuite is easily as complex as Creative Suite, and that FCSuite is already out in UB and Creative Suite won't be out in its current version (ever) as a UB, that Apple has clearly expended a lot more effort for its customers.
If I understand you correctly, you've used the absence of Shake as an example of Apple not working any harder than Adobe. I and others have said that the lack of Shake is simply a prioritization by Apple, since there's no high-powered hardware to run it, and thus Apple has expended all its UB effort on its consumer (iLife, iWork) and other Pro apps (Aperture, FCSuite, etc.).
Do I understand you correctly?
Originally posted by bikertwin
What you said is, "I just think that it's hypercritical (yes hyper) to chastise Adobe, considering all of the work that involves, while giving Apple a free ride."
Please correct me if I'm wrong. You're saying that Adobe has spent as much effort as Apple in producing UBs. What I'm saying is that, since FCSuite is easily as complex as Creative Suite, and that FCSuite is already out in UB and Creative Suite won't be out in its current version (ever) as a UB, that Apple has clearly expended a lot more effort for its customers.
If I understand you correctly, you've used the absence of Shake as an example of Apple not working any harder than Adobe. I and others have said that the lack of Shake is simply a prioritization by Apple, since there's no high-powered hardware to run it, and thus Apple has expended all its UB effort on its consumer (iLife, iWork) and other Pro apps (Aperture, FCSuite, etc.).
Do I understand you correctly?
Not quite. But closer.
I do think that Adobe has spent as much time as is possible on CS3 and Universalization. I don't know what "as much effort" could be, since they are different companies. But I do believe that Adobe is doing their damnedest to get this out. don't forget that if they didn't buy Macromedia when it came up for sale, then no doubt, we would have the suite sooner.
I don't agree that FCP Suite is as complex as CS3 will be. Apple surely hasn't expended any more effort for its customers than the owner of the OS and the machines it, and its software run on, should be. Apple MUST be in the lead here. If not, then other companies will point to Apple and say; If they aren't rushing, maybe they know something. Therefore, why should we?
If you want to point to the fact that video editing is, as, or more difficult, than work with PS is, as some have said (I really don't remember if you said that as well, so bear with me here), then perhaps Apple should also have not wasted time on the older programs, and did what Adobe is doing, and skipped to getting the new ones out the door sooner. After all, it's the same team. If we don't see FCP Studio 6 by NAB this month, we will know why! As I use it, I would rather wait longer for a new version, than to get the old one UV'd, and then have to wait even LONGER to get the new version. That goes for FCP as well as Shake.
Do you really believe that when Apple said, in June; Gentlemen (and ladies), start your engines!, that they hadn't been already working on their own programs from at least the previous January? Perhaps, they were working on them from a year before. I wouldn't be surprised, would you?
Don't forget that Apple said that the first machines would be out "by June". And most people, including most here, thought that the professional machines would not be among the first. In fact, the MBP wasn't expected until the Merom, third quarter! Remember how many people said that Apple would NEVER release it with the Yonah? The "Powermacs" weren't expected until the end of 2007, well after the time that CS3 came out. Do you have any evidence that Apple told Adobe that they were moving the schedule up by a full year?
People were complaining that FCP Suite wasn't ready during the January Macworld. We saw that here. Do you think that's fair? I don't.
Again, I don't think that either of these companies is doing anything other than the very best that they can do to get their works out the door.
I think we should leave it at that.
Again, I don't think that either of these companies is doing anything other than the very best that they can do to get their works out the door....I think we should leave it at that.
The next question then that naturally follows is how will sales and profits of [hardware and software] for Apple and [software] for Adobe be affected? One would imagine Apple has iPod + related stuff + consumer side stuff to stay on course (although it's stock may be unfavoured for a while) ; while Adobe has a huge PC market to keep it chugging along.
I think through this very heated debate we have come to a better understanding of what is going on. It is probably true that some (most?) of us didn't read the blog links of the Adobe developers, and only when AppleInsider posted excerpts from it did we become aware of that side of things.
I'm not saying this just to please Melgross, but my initial vehemence for Adobe has subsided, now that I better understand the issue. Like most of us said, not much point "assigning blame" but clearly there were some areas both Apple and Adobe could have addressed better, in a perfect world, so that by now we'd have all apps as Universal Binaries.
I bring up the sales and profit issue for Apple (I assume Adobe|Macromedia is well covered by PC software sales) because it seems like this might kill a lot of their momentum that has been zooming along. Do you all think so? The flip side is that as Melgross and others have discussed is that the pro market operates in a slightly different buying pattern that Apple may still be well covered sales and profit-wise through 2006 and Rosetta is a strong enough proposition for pros to buy new machines through 2006.
Certainly all in all a complex state and I would not envy Apple management navigating this Intel transition. AAPL stock may hover at $60 or so until analysts see a bit more "positive" (whatever that may mean) or "stronger" pushing forward of the Intel transition.
Phew. Thanks for your time
Originally posted by bikertwin
Right, but a notebook is an acceptable compromise. You're accepting the lock-in because (a) it's portable, and (b) it's not your primary machine.
Do you typically see rooms full of iMacs in professional settings?
No I don't because professional settings don't follow the latest hardware trends and dump their machines multipul times a year to stay up to date.
They buy what they need and keep it as long as it's useful, usually years. So any pros that need stuff now can and will buy the stuff available now.
That's why apple still have ppc stuff, if I was a post house that needed stuff now I'd get quads etc, not hold out and complain until all the stuff I want is ported.
Why?
Because I won't get new computers for like 3 years anyways and my ppc won't be obsolete in 3 years, not by a long shot.
Even then everything coming out is universal and with a machine as strong as a quad I can easily run anything they throw at me in the next 3 years.
Obviously it matters more to people that aren't pros because it's a much more serious investment to them.
All the pros I know shrug at the stuff they buy for their jobs because as they say:
"It'll pay for itself in 1-2 months easy."
And it does.
Anyone that does real editing has their stuff given to them by their company or the stuff pays itself off.
Anyone needing and buying stuff now aren't going to left in the cold anytime soon.
And if you're werid and must wait a imac as a "compromise" isn't the worst thing to go through because like I said in the post you quote it can do the vast majority of work out there. And after whatever it is your waiting for drops you have a nice home computer. Or do your work on a mbp and screen span it, and then eventually you've got a nice notebook to put with your setup. That should be enough.
If its not then like I said you've already got stuff because you're currently working anyways.
We had, I seem to remember 24 Macs. We also had, I think 15 PC's.
The Mac's were used for the publishing, graphics, video, and photo departments. The PC's were used for the front counter, and for accounting, except for two units we had for file translation purposes, and for when we had to do something that really needed absolute PC compatibility that wasn't available when doing the work on a Mac.
For the front counter and accounting, we didn't replace the PC's until we really had to, because those uses weren't dependent so much on power. They would last 6 years.
But for the production areas, it was different.
I had a schedule that was fairly consistent.
I would buy new machines every year. But only to replace about one third of those we had. The highest end users would get a new machine. Those machines would be moved down the ladder, as would the machines at that level. The machines that were entirely bumped (now usually 3 years old), were offered to the employees, or offered to several schools.
This was repeated every year.
Perviously to the G5 models, we could upgrade the cpu's, and get another years worth out of them. We almost never upgraded the video cards. That was a waste of time and money. We always bought as much RAM as needed when first buying the machine. Same with the internal HD's. External drive towers were used for most files, as well as backup tape drives and DVD's.
Most businesses in the same business as we were, do about the same thing, though every company has some unique needs.
As Ecking says, few companies are going to rush out and buy new Intel machines. Even when CS2 is available, and the Intel PM's, most companies will buy, at most, one for evaluation purposes. After perhaps three months, or when the new buying cycle comes about, if ALL of the supporting software, from ALL other third party companies is available, and shown to be PRODUCTION READY, then companies will start buying in numbers.
Originally posted by melgross
Here's what I used to do at my company.
We had, I seem to remember 24 Macs. We also had, I think 15 PC's.
The Mac's were used for the publishing, graphics, video, and photo departments. The PC's were used for the front counter, and for accounting, except for two units we had for file translation purposes, and for when we had to do something that really needed absolute PC compatibility that wasn't available when doing the work on a Mac.
For the front counter and accounting, we didn't replace the PC's until we really had to, because those uses weren't dependent so much on power. They would last 6 years.
But for the production areas, it was different.
I had a schedule that was fairly consistent.
I would buy new machines every year. But only to replace about one third of those we had. The highest end users would get a new machine. Those machines would be moved down the ladder, as would the machines at that level. The machines that were entirely bumped (now usually 3 years old), were offered to the employees, or offered to several schools.
This was repeated every year.
Perviously to the G5 models, we could upgrade the cpu's, and get another years worth out of them. We almost never upgraded the video cards. That was a waste of time and money. We always bought as much RAM as needed when first buying the machine. Same with the internal HD's. External drive towers were used for most files, as well as backup tape drives and DVD's.
Most businesses in the same business as we were, do about the same thing, though every company has some unique needs.
As Ecking says, few companies are going to rush out and buy new Intel machines. Even when CS2 is available, and the Intel PM's, most companies will buy, at most, one for evaluation purposes. After perhaps three months, or when the new buying cycle comes about, if ALL of the supporting software, from ALL other third party companies is available, and shown to be PRODUCTION READY, then companies will start buying in numbers.
Word.
Here's what I used to do at my company.....But for the production areas, it was different....As Ecking says, few companies are going to rush out and buy new Intel machines. Even when CS2 is available, and the Intel PM's, most companies will buy, at most, one for evaluation purposes. After perhaps three months, or when the new buying cycle comes about, if ALL of the supporting software, from ALL other third party companies is available, and shown to be PRODUCTION READY, then companies will start buying in numbers.
Remember that this would mean that Apple and Adobe revenue would continue to derive from PowerMac G5s, Final Cut Studio etc, and CS2 Suite respectively.
It would suggest that any sales and profit growth via Conroe/Woodcrest and CS3 for the pro market would be off by a year. Meaning, it's status quo on the pro scene, so drivers for growth of profits and Apple stock price would be Leopard, and strong consumer side offerings (Macbook, new(?) iPods)...
Originally posted by sunilraman
Originally posted by melgross
Here's what I used to do at my company.....But for the production areas, it was different....As Ecking says, few companies are going to rush out and buy new Intel machines. Even when CS2 is available, and the Intel PM's, most companies will buy, at most, one for evaluation purposes. After perhaps three months, or when the new buying cycle comes about, if ALL of the supporting software, from ALL other third party companies is available, and shown to be PRODUCTION READY, then companies will start buying in numbers.
Remember that this would mean that Apple and Adobe revenue would continue to derive from PowerMac G5s, Final Cut Studio etc, and CS2 Suite respectively.
It would suggest that any sales and profit growth via Conroe/Woodcrest and CS3 for the pro market would be off by a year. Meaning, it's status quo on the pro scene, so drivers for growth of profits and Apple stock price would be Leopard, and strong consumer side offerings (Macbook, new(?) iPods)...
Aha! And this is precisely what the analysts have been saying. It's the December quarter when Apple will BEGIN to see the fruits of the switch.
They expect 2007 to be a very good year, as Frank used to say.
What this review has taught me RAW conversion is pretty subjective. Because RAW conversion itself is just a software interpretation without any concrete standards for how it needs to render the final image.
The reviewer just looks at the image and says "I like that one and I don't like that one." That type of analysis has no relationship to the actual picture the camera took.
In some situations Aperture 1.0 could have been showing the literal picture the camera took with its noise, digital artifacts, and all. While Aperture 1.1 and Adobe Lightroom are masking and smoothing noise and digital artifacts.
Originally posted by TenoBell
Just read the Aperture 1.1 review on Ars.
What this review has taught me RAW conversion is pretty subjective. Because RAW conversion itself is just a software interpretation without any concrete standards for how it needs to render the final image.
The reviewer just looks at the image and says "I like that one and I don't like that one." That type of analysis has no relationship to the actual picture the camera took.
In some situations Aperture 1.0 could have been showing the literal picture the camera took with its noise, digital artifacts, and all. While Aperture 1.1 and Adobe Lightroom are masking and smoothing noise and digital artifacts.
BEIGE is ghey. So is Ars. Just leave BEIGE and Ars be.
Originally posted by TenoBell
Just read the Aperture 1.1 review on Ars.
What this review has taught me RAW conversion is pretty subjective. Because RAW conversion itself is just a software interpretation without any concrete standards for how it needs to render the final image.
The reviewer just looks at the image and says "I like that one and I don't like that one." That type of analysis has no relationship to the actual picture the camera took.
In some situations Aperture 1.0 could have been showing the literal picture the camera took with its noise, digital artifacts, and all. While Aperture 1.1 and Adobe Lightroom are masking and smoothing noise and digital artifacts.
To a certain extent, that's correct. But, after a while of doing this work, either your own, or for others, you do get the experiance required to "know" what is correct.
One of the reasons why I would rather hire photographers, and teach them to use PS, rather than the other way around, is that I can always teach someone to use a program well, but I can't teach them to have a good "eye".
Aha! And this is precisely what the analysts have been saying. It's the December quarter when Apple will BEGIN to see the fruits of the switch. They expect 2007 to be a very good year, as Frank used to say.
Who the F*** is Frank?
Just read the Aperture 1.1 review on Ars. What this review has taught me RAW conversion is pretty subjective. Because RAW conversion itself is just a software interpretation without any concrete standards for how it needs to render the final image...In some situations Aperture 1.0 could have been showing the literal picture the camera took with its noise, digital artifacts, and all. While Aperture 1.1 and Adobe Lightroom are masking and smoothing noise and digital artifacts.
That is interesting.
Originally posted by sunilraman
Originally posted by melgross
Aha! And this is precisely what the analysts have been saying. It's the December quarter when Apple will BEGIN to see the fruits of the switch. They expect 2007 to be a very good year, as Frank used to say.
Who the F*** is Frank?
Frank Sinatra? The Song? The line?
Hey, I know where you live, but, that's no excuse!
DUF DUF DUF DUF DUF DUF DUF w00t !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Originally posted by sunilraman
Heh. Not a big Sinatra fan myself. Too old skool. You're showing your age, Mel. You should be listening to stuff on this website: www.di.fm
DUF DUF DUF DUF DUF DUF DUF w00t !!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm not a big Sinatra fan myself. I have one of his albums. But, a famous song is still a famous song.
And, I think I look good for my age!
To a certain extent, that's correct. But, after a while of doing this work, either your own, or for others, you do get the experiance required to "know" what is correct.
That's extremely subjective and leaves wide margin for personal taste. This also leaves any real useful evaluation of RAW converters based strictly on opinion.
Admitedly its a foreign concept to me because motion film color software does not work this way at all.
That's extremely subjective and leaves wide margin for personal taste...
Well, that can play to the photographer's strengths. If the RAW files as interpreted by the software have enough resolution and minimal noise and a wide enough latitude of colors and textures, and the software is able to provide good tweaking and organising of the imagery without resorting to having to always open photoshop, then the software is useful to the photographer and their workflow.
That's my understanding of it. Whatever RAW file as seen by the software is almost never the final print(s) that the photographer will deliver. In the analog darkrooms there were always tons of "tweaks" you could do in the developing process. I suppose Aperture seeks to do the same, be a complete "digital darkroom" to organise and tweak the imagery -- but with the choosing of photos and adjusting of the photos -- that's all done "by eye" as melgross mentions:
AFAIK no pro photographer will just take that RAW file and go, okay, it's "done". The idea of RAW is that it has the maximum digital information possible that will "survive" the tweaking process, and that RAW retains the most color information possible... A pro photographer makes a living by developing (heh... pun unintended) a style and workflow that produces distinct results that clients desire. The photographer will work out a balance of how much of that style is realised "in camera" (during the shooting process) and how much the style is realised in post production. Again, if the software fits into their workflow and process of adjusting/finalising the image to their taste, then the software will be useful to them.
It IS interesting that you mention that the software shows an image that "has no relationship to the actual picture the camera took" and that different software seems to be processing RAW differently -- that's why photography is an art. Even if we are talking taking photos of cells, MRI etc, in *science*, the process of observation itself affects the results.
It IS also interesting that gone are the days of choosing film stock and choosing ISO and all that -- with digital it's all down to the way a particular digital SLR's CCD/CMOS handles various shots and light conditions -- that's your "film stock and ISO settings" there. Which I still find weird because digital shots have such a "harshness" to it and sometimes old skool film stock still can produce some beautiful results you can't replicate in digital.