General Photography Chat - Page 72

Ramsayfarian · #**1421** Posted **Apr 6, 2012, 1:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by diskojoe

I would only want one to run final cut pro. I do not know if they have a window alternative that is equivalent to that. Really its my wife that is into making video. I currently use a busted gateway from 2005 still. I gots me 1 gig of ram! Its pretty sad. If I process any serious stuff with photoshop or photomatix it will literally take it a minute or two to process the files. But I want to upgrade my motor soon. Ive had my eye on a Sony a580. Seems like a decent motor and you can do video with it. I would have like to go mirrorless but the a55 and a77 would not work with my favorite Sigma lens because it is so old.

I should have mentioned that one's final decision should be based upon need. If there's an app that you need and can't live without, by all means get a Mac. I'm finding though that as Apple has grown in popularity, they seem to be dumbing down their software to make it more palatable for the masses.

The typical user pretty much needs something that lets them access facebook. Not counting my day job, I only use my iMac now for photo stuff and use a tablet for the majority of my surfing.

Tony · #**1422** Posted **Apr 6, 2012, 6:49 PM**

when editing photos and video, I use my 3 year old PC. Not that old, but not brand spanking new either. It does the job quite adequately for me. Only now have I started to consider bumping up the RAM from the 4 GIGs that already in there, and that's a result of larger images sizes from a newer camera and HD video camera. But even this upgrade isn't critical at this time.

The software I just started using recently is Oloneo which is super easy and great to use. Best of all, only cost $50. I also use Corel Photopaint & Draw, and for video editing, I've had satisfactory (but not super content) results with another low-cost editing program called Movie Edit Pro (by Magix).

All this stuff runs problem free on my computer. I find absolutely no reason to get a Mac.

diskojoe · #**1423** Posted **Apr 6, 2012, 7:34 PM**

I would only waste money on a mac if I was using it for professional applications where it cannot be substituted with PC. I am a PC guy and would not waste the extra money if I didnt need to.

diskojoe · #**1424** Posted **Apr 6, 2012, 7:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony

when editing photos and video, I use my 3 year old PC. Not that old, but not brand spanking new either. It does the job quite adequately for me. Only now have I started to consider bumping up the RAM from the 4 GIGs that already in there, and that's a result of larger images sizes from a newer camera and HD video camera. But even this upgrade isn't critical at this time.

The software I just started using recently is Oloneo which is super easy and great to use. Best of all, only cost $50. I also use Corel Photopaint & Draw, and for video editing, I've had satisfactory (but not super content) results with another low-cost editing program called Movie Edit Pro (by Magix).

All this stuff runs problem free on my computer. I find absolutely no reason to get a Mac.

I used the beta version of Oloneo. It was pretty decent but I never purchased it because I already had photoshop CS4 and did not think the Oloneo gave me better results and could not do quite as much as photoshop. It was rather easy to use though. But currently I do not have video capacities. So we'll cross that bridge when I come to it. But I seriously need to upgrade my DSLR. The ccd sensor in my sony alpha 200 is just not getting the job done for professional work I am starting to get. I shot second at a wedding on 3/30 and really felt the limitations of my current set up. The reception was in this hall with all black ceilings and low yellow lighting. Basically a photographers nightmare. I need a motor that can shoot at around 3200 ISO, at least, and give me usable images. Currently I can only go to about 400-800 ISO and get usable images.

Okayyou · #**1425** Posted **Apr 6, 2012, 9:07 PM**

Are you guys working on laptops or desktops? I do all my editing on a desktop; couldn't imagine using a laptop for workflow.

Ayreonaut · #**1426** Posted **Apr 6, 2012, 9:08 PM**

I haven't had a desktop since high school, and doubt I ever will again.

Aleks · #**1427** Posted **Apr 6, 2012, 10:03 PM**

I agree it looks expensive to maintain an iMac. B&H sells them for about 100-150 bucks cheaper and offer 2-year protection at half the cost (for now). I've never actually used any software beyond Adobe as far as photo editing (well, Photomatix too) so I'm not sure how anything else runs. Photoshop 64-bit runs just fine. Lightroom however lags a bit. Not by much, but enough. It also cause my computer to make that "I'm working a bit hard here, gonna spin my fan really fast and make a buncha noise."

It gets laggier when using Photomatix, Photoshop and Lightroom (I know, overkill) at once. I haven't done any video editing but I'm sure it won't be too long before I get an assignment needing it.

I also use my computer for Sketchup (moderate to light complex models) and rendering, HD movies, other Adobe stuffs (InDesign and Illustrator), etc... other than portability a laptop doesn't offer as much advantage imo. I like large screens to work on all these programs. My school has tons of computers if I need one and carry a 16 gig USB for large files.

Oh and about backpacks, I currently throw everything in my old Dakine. I got it for like 60 bucks, has tons of storage and has lasted me for 3-4 years. I'm amazed at how much it's lasted since i never took care of it. One of the reasons I want another Dakine. The sucky thing is having to carry my art supplies and notebooks. If I also need my camera and lenses it gets too awkward and cluttered.

bulliver · #**1428** Posted **Apr 7, 2012, 5:39 AM**

I do not like editing on a laptop at all. Change the angle of the screen just the slightest bit and the colours and brightness changes completely.

Besides, I run a dual-head desktop. It's hard to go back to a single screen when you can have your raw editor on one screen and editing/organizing program in another.

flar · #**1429** Posted **Apr 7, 2012, 1:42 PM**

Look at my latest photo thread for what happens when you edit on a laptop: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=198614

The colours are off and the shots look soft. Because I had wasn't sure how bright the screen was, I didn't adjust contrast or exposure at all (I usually use curves on some of the photos to add more punch). It's difficult to calibrate laptop screens because they have fewer controls.

No more laptop editing for me, I'll wait till I have my regular setup back up and running. I didn't notice anything until I viewed the photos on my work computer.

Tony · #**1430** Posted **Apr 7, 2012, 2:48 PM**

I should add though that I don't work with RAW files at this time. I'm sure that will be more taxing on my system.

Ramsayfarian · #**1431** Posted **Apr 7, 2012, 2:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aleks

I agree it looks expensive to maintain an iMac. B&H sells them for about 100-150 bucks cheaper and offer 2-year protection at half the cost (for now). I've never actually used any software beyond Adobe as far as photo editing (well, Photomatix too) so I'm not sure how anything else runs. Photoshop 64-bit runs just fine. Lightroom however lags a bit. Not by much, but enough. It also cause my computer to make that "I'm working a bit hard here, gonna spin my fan really fast and make a buncha noise."

It gets laggier when using Photomatix, Photoshop and Lightroom (I know, overkill) at once. I haven't done any video editing but I'm sure it won't be too long before I get an assignment needing it.

I also use my computer for Sketchup (moderate to light complex models) and rendering, HD movies, other Adobe stuffs (InDesign and Illustrator), etc... other than portability a laptop doesn't offer as much advantage imo. I like large screens to work on all these programs. My school has tons of computers if I need one and carry a 16 gig USB for large files.

Oh and about backpacks, I currently throw everything in my old Dakine. I got it for like 60 bucks, has tons of storage and has lasted me for 3-4 years. I'm amazed at how much it's lasted since i never took care of it. One of the reasons I want another Dakine. The sucky thing is having to carry my art supplies and notebooks. If I also need my camera and lenses it gets too awkward and cluttered.

How much RAM does your PC have? If it's 4 GB or less, you might want to look into bumping it up.

Tony · #**1432** Posted **Apr 9, 2012, 1:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramsayfarian

How much RAM does your PC have? If it's 4 GB or less, you might want to look into bumping it up.

Keep in mind though, you need a 64Bit OS in order to take advantage of 4GB or anything higher.

diskojoe · #**1433** Posted **Apr 9, 2012, 1:13 PM**

I use my laptop currently. I want to get a new desktop because my laptop is pretty Handicapped right now. It wont work unless its plugged in and its only 32-bit and old. I think I got it in 05 or 06. Its been a while. Not the greatest way to go. I would like to have a dual monitor set up to do editing on instead. Would be super handy. Plus you cant calibrate a laptop for shit.

Aleks · #**1434** Posted **Apr 9, 2012, 10:59 PM**

Yeah, one of the many reasons that I think Desktop > Laptop in terms of photography. You should definitely upgrade when you have the chance! I've been saving up for months now and although an iMac will cost ~2000 bucks I still want it!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramsayfarian

How much RAM does your PC have? If it's 4 GB or less, you might want to look into bumping it up.

it's exactly 4gb, which I've though about bumping up to six but I'm still a bit confused on how to do so. Unlike the HD and Graphics card, RAM seems a bit more difficult in terms of requirements and stuffs. I've read that it's best to install in pairs, that my PSU might work too hard (which would mean needing another new component), and the such...

As Tony mentioned, 64-bit is supposed to make the best of your machine right? I have Win 7 Ultimate 64-bit and I still see lag at times. This happens especially when watching 1080p movies. Maybe that has to do with my graphics card though

bulliver · #**1435** Posted **Apr 9, 2012, 11:24 PM**

Quote:

I've read that it's best to install in pairs

Some, but not all motherboards require matched pairs. Read the MoBo manual if you still have it.

glowrock · #**1436** Posted **Apr 10, 2012, 12:42 AM**

So, after all of this discussion over photo editing and which software/computer/desktop/laptop everyone's using to perform their editing, does anyone think there's such a thing as too much of a good thing? I mean, don't get me wrong, I think there's a very appropriate place for editing (minor contrast/brightness adjustments, a little sharpening or blurring depending on the effect you're looking for, etc...), but sometimes I think it's a little bit saddening that producing great photos is becoming more a study in editing than in the actual photo-taking itself.

Maybe I'm just strange, but all I do to my photos is generally what I said above, just some minor contrast/brightness changes, maybe a little sharpening, and perhaps some "D-Lighting", which I guess is Nikon's easy exposure adjustment button, so to speak.

Aaron (Glowrock)

flar · #**1437** Posted **Apr 10, 2012, 1:08 AM**

Ideally, you want to get as close as possible to what you want straight out of the camera. But, depending on the style of photography, processing has always played a big role. Look at Ansel Adams, for example. He spent a great deal of effort on darkroom techniques, dodging and burning and masks and all that. Even in film days, photographers thought ahead to what they would do with the photo in processing. Black and white film, in particular, always involved a lot of creative processing. It's just easier with digital, which leads some people to go overboard.

Ayreonaut · #**1438** Posted **Apr 10, 2012, 3:55 AM**

I like to switch it up a bit, so that even if my thread is full of similar subjects, it still appears to be diverse.

For instance, when I was walking around Aker Brygge in Oslo, the sky was quite nice and everything was great for photography.

Aker Brygge by Ayrcan, on Flickr

But I wanted to switch it up, so I did some heavier processing for this one:

Edge by Ayrcan, on Flickr

Obviously not going for realism there, but I still like it.

And I have this one on a large canvas on my wall. It's one of my favourites, but it was taken during the afternoon with a deep blue sky.

Turning Torso by Ayrcan, on Flickr

Ramsayfarian · #**1439** Posted **Apr 10, 2012, 4:23 AM**

When it comes to PP; each their own I say. I shoot RAW, so I'm usually tweaking my shots a bit. My goto sliders in LR4 are clarity, vibrance and sharpness. Depending if it needs it or not, I'll adjust exposure and WB.

I've even been known to use HDR on occasion and I hate 98% of the HDR out there. As flar mentioned, post processing is nothing new to photography. It just is easier to do in digital.

Tony · #**1440** Posted **Apr 10, 2012, 11:02 AM**

The vast majority of my photos are almost exactly as they came out of the camera with very little adjustments (shooting Manual). However, I don't always have the luxury of time or have the ability to pick a good weather day to take photos when I'm travelling so I have to make due with what I get (harsh shadows, overcast skies). This usually results in some subtle HDR effects but keeping the image as realistic as possible.

Maybe one in every hundred or so photos I have in my "selected" folder gets a full HDR treatment just for fun.

IMG_5850-HDR by SSP Tony, on Flickr