amy_hoy

Jobs never claimed or insinuated that the G5s would ship with a "64-bit OS." The G5,

running a "32-bit" OS, still trounced the P4 in Photoshop tests (yes, the Photoshop

was somewhat optimized for the 64-bit processor... in a "32-bit" OS... figure that one

out?).

The kind of speed the G5 offers even "hobbled" by the OS means it can only stand to

improve with time! Apple has proven their commitment to improving performance/

speed with every new release of OS X, so G5 owners can look forward to feeling like

they have a brand new computer when the update after Panther comes out, just like

many felt they had a new computer upgrading from 10.1 to 10.2 (myself included).

Furthermore, the home user doesn't need to spend $2,000 on a G5. If they wanted

plenty of power, there are "new/old stock" G4 Power Macs still available starting at

$1299 for a single 1.25ghz. The deals on these machines will only get better, and

believe me, they are no slouches in the performance department. G4 iMacs are great,

even overkill for most people's needs... my father does a lot of hobbyist Photoshop

work on his (and he's a prepress director). I am personally fond of eMacs as a

fantastic budget choice.

The Apple Stores are doing well, the order numbers for G5s are phenomenal (for the

first time in Apple's history, the most expensive model is selling the most), the iTunes

Music Store is still doing great, and so on so forth. Apple is doing well.

Thanks guys!

After extensive research online, and reading your responses, I've basically come to

the conclusion that there's nothing out there that does things the way I want them

done. Which basically means that it's time for me to develop my own gallery script,

which I can do since I'm a web developer. It just takes away time from other things,

like taking photographs :)

When it comes to Gallery, I couldn't pin down exactly why I dislike it, but it just

doesn't feel right. It's put together very strangely for a PHP web app and it has quite a

few issues with its database design. And it's really, really tough to customize and

insanely delicate in many ways. Yeah, it has the most & most powerful features of

anything I've found, but it just feels wrong! Argh. I must sound nuts!

In case other people are in the same predicament, I'll release my work when I'm done

& write about it here. Maybe I'll save someone else some frustration :)

I'm wondering if anyone has found a better script to publish dynamic web galleries of

photos other than Gallery (http://gallery.menalto.com). I like Gallery OK, but I would

like to see what other options there are out there.

So... any opinions? :)

Consider the Portra series of films by Kodak. The NC versions (Neutral Color) of these

films are great for getting good but low contrast shots of high-contrast subjects

(meant to show detail in both bride's white dress & groom's black tux), but that's not

really what you want. You want the VC version... Vivid Color. They're not kidding on

the Vivid part. I like to use Portra 160VC and sometimes 400VC to shoot macro shots

of flowers and it definitely delivers where color is concerned while not looking

ridiculous. Now Kodak has come out with Portra 400UC, for Ultra Color, and I'm

taking some of that on a trip with me next week, but haven't shot it before. From my

prior experience with this line of Kodak films, though, and what I've read, I'm sure it

won't disappoint.

Give these films a look. They're colorful and low on grain for the speed. I love 'em.

You might want to consider the Tamron SP 90 Macro. When I was shopping for a mild

telephoto macro lens that went down to 1:1 unaided, it came out top dog. I've had it

for two years now and shot lots of macros and even regular shots with it, and I just

LOVE it. It's sharp as a tack, has wonderful bokeh, and is very affordable on the used

market (I paid about $260 for it). I have the AF model with the Nikon mount, not the

non-AF one with the interchangable mounts.

I thought I'd never buy a third-party lens, but the quality is so good that it's become

my favorite lens.

Thanks, Oskar. I think I may just stick with the channel mixer in Photoshop. I just

have to gain more experience with it, I guess! :) The filters seem too bulky on the

CoolPix, now that I've tried it out as you suggested (why I didn't think of that, I have

no idea).

Hi guys,

I just bought a CoolPix 4500 as a second camera (my main kit includes an F4s with

several lenses). I was wondering if it would be possible to adapt my main set of

52mm lenses to the CoolPix? I know I can find a step-down ring, but the question is

whether or not the fairly large filters will block something or possibly prevent proper

movement of the camera. I would prefer to find out before I shell out $30 for a good

step-down ring!

(And, as a side question, if you use a colored filter meant for B&W on a digital camera

and later desat the picture in Photoshop, does it have the same effect as it has on

B&W film?)

Thanks, everyone!

Amy

... Especially for the venerable Mamiya RB67. I was able to pick up 2 Pro S bodies, 2 90mm lenses, 1 180mm lens, 2 645 backs, 1 polaroid back for a little over $800. Now, that was a particularly good deal because the equipment is very "ugly" -- paint rubbed off, some dings, etc., but fully functional (1 needs new mirror damping foam), with perfect glass. I am a klutz and far more concerned about a camera/lens' working than looking pretty because I am just as likely to damage it as use it.

As for Pentax... while I love Pentax and really lust after the Pentax 67, it's not much of a studio camera, or event camera; if you buy one, you should probably be prepared to stick totally to nature and landscapes. It has a slow max flash sync speed, even with the leaf shutter lenses ($$$). These days, it is no cheaper than an RB67. I know nothing about Bronica or Fuji, but I have heard very little positive things about Kiev.

Amy