robert_hall2

<p>Thanks for those two responses. I suspected that jpeg conversion software was proprietary, and I suspected that the different algorithms produced the differences I was seeing. I find the issue interesting.<br> <br />I became interested in this when IrfanView converted the files so fast, barely over a one second per image, while Lightroom takes several seconds per image. I make corrections to the raw files in Lightroom for almost every image, so I suspect that slows the conversion process. <br> I would like to talk to a programmer, software engineer, who understands the process of converting large files to jpegs. If anyone knows such a specialist, I would enjoy having a chat with them. <br> <br />I forgot that some raw files have an embedded jpeg. I don't have utilities to get into those raw files, jpegs, or any files, and examine them, as I used to do with Apple II software. I gave up programming (mostly in BASIC) in 2003.</p>

<p>Until recently I converted my raw Canon CR2 files to Jpegs using Lightroom. Now I convert them first to Adobe's Digital Negative format (DNG), and then make jpegs from those files.<br> I use Lightroom CC, and have used previous versions for years. But I also have IrfanView and FastStone, both free imaging software packages. I have noticed that there are significant differences with the final jpegs made by these three software programs. Lightroom is always better, regardless if it were converting a CR2 file or a DNG file. Sometimes the differences are striking. <br> <br />Can anyone explain why? There must be different algorithms for converting raw files. Does anyone have an understanding of what algorithms exist, and why they produce different results? </p> <p> </p>

<p>A discussion of backup options is always a good thing. The basic rule is to have a minimum of three copies of every important digital file, but I feel better having four. I have two, 1T primary drives on my desktop, two internal 1T backup drives, and two 1T external drives (WD passports) for each backup drive. I back up to the internal drives frequently, and to the external drives at least weekly, and every time I have add photos to my image drive.<br> <br />The problems are theft, fire, and lightening. You can loose everything. That's when cloud storage would be invaluable. Mycloud does not solve this problem unless you store it in a secure, off-premises location. I have heard good things about Carbonite and Amazon Drive. I tried Carbonite when it first came out, but it had limitations (it backed up only the C: drive, and sometimes it "took over" my computer when I was working.) <br> I am inspired to re-try these cloud services. </p>

<p>For what it's worth: For years I missed my twin lens reflex cameras, a Rolleiflex and a baby Rolli. I was scanning negatives and color slides from my long ago youth, immersed in nostalgia. I missed those cameras; I toyed with going back to film. I could not afford a digital Hasselbald or Phase One. In exploring the option I came across this quote by a famous photographer. "If God had intended us to use twin lens reflex cameras, he would have made an eye in our bellies." (paraphrased. I do not recall where I read it that, I wish I could. ). That settled the issue for me. I want an eye-level camera. A single lens reflex is perfect. You can get 50 Mpix models at a "reasonable" price. Until Petabyte hard drives are available (1024 terabytes), I will be happy with current DSLRs. <br> I will get more controversial. Anyone who prefers film over digital had better have a really good reason. I know someone who is successful at 8x10 fine art. Scanning a single 8x10 image into digital format costs him $1000. Yes, a print from a perfect 4x5 negative looks better than digital, maybe, perhaps. But that's if you get a perfect negative. The chemicals are not environmentally friendly. I love digital and will never, ever, go back. Photoshop rocks and rules. These are just opinions from my 60 years of photography. Please don't send hate mail. </p>

<p>As others have stated, one main purpose of cloud storage is to protect against the loss of your desktop and backup hard drives. Unfortunately, it is all too common to suffer loss from theft, fire, floods (including rainstorms; is your computer near an open window?), house collapse, and earthquakes.<br> <br />The cloud offers an acceptable solution, especially for its ease of use. But there are issues. There is no guarantee that a company offering cloud service today will be around in the near or distant future. Most companies do not survive for long periods of time, many years. <br> Second. There is a possibility that if you upload images to some cloud services, they may consider them to be their own property. They could delete anything they want. <br> <br />Third, there is the possibility that someone at the cloud company can look at your images at will. There exists software that scans images for certain prohibited uses. Suppose you take photos of your naked children? Not only could they steal them and use them for their own purposes or gain, but they could delete one or two of your images. Would you notice? Does your upload software perform the same checks as your backup software? <br> Fourth, some companies state that they will delete anything they want any time they want, and example being Facebook.<br> <br />So these are considerations when choosing a cloud service. I suspect we are better off using more than one cloud service. <br> Under some circumstances, you might store your files in an adjacent building using ethernet or wireless. There is a security issue there, and it would not solve the problems of major fire or floods, but it would solve the theft problem. If the location is far away (a friend or relative), and if WiFi connections are fast enough, you could use a distant cloud you own yourself. You would need a second computer running all the time, or someone to tend to it.<br> Then there are bank vaults. Safety Deposit Boxes are not terribly expensive; a small drawer will hold a lot of pocket size hard drives. But there is a convenience issue. A home safe is also an option. Check out the fireproof rating; it could get hot inside the box with a fire. Safes can be large, very heavy, but also very secure. A well-placed safe can solve the theft problem. <br> I hope this is helpful. </p>

<p>Thanks, Marcus. Nice detailed reply! I came to the same conclusion as you but for a different reason. (Recall, the issue is uploading many files to my computer is slow.) I do not have USB 3.0 on my computer, just USB 2. I have a spare slot so I could get a USB 3 card, but then I would have to get a USB card reader. A little research revealed I might have to spend several hours installing the USB 3 card because of driver issues. I doubt I would spend that much time uploading my images at the current slow rate. I will probably upgrade my computer in a year or two when Windows 10 is introduced and stable (I gave up being an early adopter years ago.) <br> <br />I appreciate your response! thanks, again.</p>

<p>In a reply from Sandisk that arrived after 1 PM today when I replied above, it appears Sandisk does not even make a non-UDMA card. So even my "ultra" cards which I have been using for years, are UDMA compatible. Hmmmm.</p>

<p>Thanks to Tom, Marcus and Bob Atkins! Much appreciated. </p>

<p>Has anyone used a UDMA compact flash card with a Canon 5D? <br> The tech rep at Canon recommended a NON- UDMA compact flash card. (ex: Sandisk Ultra cards are Non-UDMA but the Extreme & Extreme Pro are UDMA cards.) <br> The issue is not the camera; it writes fast enough for me. The issue is uploading the images to my computer; the Ultra card I currently use is quite slow. <br> Thanks. </p>

<p>I am not at all sure about the color profile part, but metadata is a different story. I am referring to IPTC data.<br> I don't have a PDF writer so I copied an image that I knew had metadata onto a WORD 2010 file. I then saved that image onto my desktop. This second copy had metadata in it which Bridge found immediately.<br> <br />Then I saved that document as a PDF file. I copied the image from the PDF file into another word file, then saved that as a third copy. The image saved from the PDF file did NOT have IPTC metadata attached. <br> <br />What I can say from this is that if you copy an image with IPTC metadata into a PDF file, there is a high probability that the metadata will be removed. I suspect the entire header of the JPEG file is removed by Adobe. That seems kind of strange. Why would they do that?<br> <br />I did not answer your question directly, but I added a nuance. Good question.</p>

<p>Ouch. I meant to direct that last response to Nathan Craver. Sorry Nathan. Thanks for your response.</p>

<p>Benoit: <br> Well, I printed almost 100 large images over several days. Two days later I tried to print one page, 8 1/2 x 11, and the head was clogged. It required several head cleaning cycles. I then printed one page every day for 5 days. On the 6th day the head was clogged. Some clogs cannot be cleared with normal head cleaning, and even exceptional efforts. I am not sure I mentioned Ed Entlcih by name, but Sarah Fox mentioned her efforts with a link to her website. Previously I soaked the head in Windex+alcohol solution for 3 days. It helped. But there are ways to run cleaning solution through the head, again requiring an $200+ expense for the equipment; it is reusable. Again, some clogs may require replacing the print head. </p>

<p>Mac Hordam was absolutely correct: the evidence on clogging or not clogging is all anecdotal. My point is that there are so many people who have had clogging issues, that everyone should be forewarned before they decide to get a large format printer. Especially one that requires eight $100 ink cartridges. </p> <p>Perhaps Mac was fortunate to have bought a 3880 printer that did not clog. Several people have mentioned that particular printer as being clog-free. But others have had problems. <br> <br />There are no valid statistics on clogging. But it is a fact that lots of people have had clogs, even with Cannon printers (with which I have no experience except reading forums, and one friend with one, and his clogs.)</p> <p>Also... My daughter has larger prints made by Adorama. They come back AOK, and are inexpensive. I will use my Epson Pro 4000 for another set of inks until I find a suitable alternative. </p>

<p>Thanks for the positive comments on a very negative subject. IF you print every day, at least a few prints, you will probably be OK. But can you print every day? Do you go away on weekends or on vacations? Rick M was correct: it is better to outsource most printing. My point is: before you buy a large, professional printer, know what you are getting into. Be forewarned about the clogging problem. Don't decide on anecdotal evidence (that guy in the forum had no problem so....., my friend says...., I read reviews that said.....,) Decide on how much you are really going to use a large-format printer. </p>

<p>I posted again, today, January 20, 2015. It's an update. BE SMART. Lots of people have had no problems. BUT that is anecdotal evidence. Valid statistics are NOT available. Reading forums for hours, my conclusion is that most people do have problems. These printers are designed to be used every day, several times a day. Yes, it does get worst in dry climates, such as northern USA in the winter. </p>

<p>This is Post #2 on the same topic. I want to warn anyone considering purchase of a large format printer to be aware of the nozzle clogging problems. Mine is an Epson Pro 4000, but these comments refer to new printers, not just my older model. Check printing forums, google the issue, and you will see what you are in for.<br> <br />Epson and Canon wide-format printers, especially the "pro" models, have print head clogging problems. And these are serious problems. Epson Pro- printers, with which I am most painfully familiar, have a serious issue. The consequences of a print head clogging are extremely annoying, time-consuming, and expensive. <br> The worst case is when the print head needs to be replaced. The printers are large and heavy; it is not easy to just pick them up and bring them into a service place. You better be close to one. Print head replacement costs several hundred dollars. <br> <br />Cleaning a moderately clogged print head may require a couple hours and a lot of ink. Plan on it. <br> Cleaning a badly clogged print head may require several days of work, and lots of automatic head cleaning. You need to do the research to find out how to do it. Magenta clogs frequently because of its formulation. After spending three days doing a major cleaning, the magenta clogged again even though I have been printing every day. (My room is dry in the winter; I suspect that is the issue.) <br> From reading the various forums, I think Canon printers are no better. When you read the forums you will find several people who have had no problems, and just love their printers. Don't be misled. That is anecdotal evidence, an expected response. But many, many more, probably the majority, do have problems. Valid statistics are unavailable, for obvious reasons. <br> If I cannot give away my Epson Pro 4000, it goes to the dump. Over $4000 is going to the dump, plus several nearly full 220ml ink cartridges, 200 pages of new paper, and a half a 100 foot roll of 16" paper. <br> <br />This is not an over-emotional rant. It states the facts. </p>

<p>If you don't have PhotoShop you don't have Bridge. Bridge has superb metadata entry, very easy. There is much more to metadata than keywords. I cannot insert an image of the Bridge metadata fields. </p>

<p>A word of warning to those considering buying a large format printer: Use it daily, or don't buy it.<br> I bought an Epson Pro 4000 several years ago; I wish I had not done so. I do not do enough large format printing, and even small format printing. I no longer call myself "professional," but at the time I had a small business. It never paid for itself.*<br> Here's the problem: If you do not use the large format printer daily, and I mean every day, the print head will probably clog. <br> Cleaning it is not easy. Replacing the print head (a normal solution) costs hundreds of dollars, assuming you are near a reputable repair facility. You bring your printer to them: large format printers weigh 75 pounds or more, and are, well, large.<br> It does not seem to matter if you get an Epson or a Canon. All suffer print head clogs. But, you say, forums list dozens of people who never have a problem. Don't convince yourself you won't get a clogged print head. Instead, decide if you print EVERY day. If you do, a large format printer might be a good choice. If you do not print EVERY day, you will most likely get into trouble. <br> Cleaning a clog is expensive because the cleaning cycles use ink and paper. A 220ml cartridge costs $100 and you have 8 of them. Expect to spend a minimum of $3.00 per head cleaning cycle. Yesterday I ran the cycle 12 times, and the Magenta is still clogged. Power Cleaning cycles use 200 ml of ink costing about $80, with no guarantee the clog will clear. There are hundreds of sites describing the problem, many attempting to provide solutions. <br> <br />The conclusion is clear: if you print EVERY day, a large format printer might be a good option. <br> If you do not print EVERY day, you will most likely have problems, frustrating problems, expensive problems. </p> <p>*In addition to replacing a print head a few years ago, the main circuit board failed. Repairs alone have cost me over $1600; that was spent on a $2000 printer.</p>