markskelly

<p>Ahhh. That's interesting. Maybe that explains why they don't even put the drive size on the case. It's just an empty shell for whatever drives they're putting in them. I'm adding the OWC route to the mix. My only concern is that if I do that and a drive does fail, it might be perceived is being my fault. I've gotta be on my toes with stuff like that, considering the environment I'm working in. But I'll check into it anyway. If anything, I might just do that with my own stuff. Thanks.</p>

<p>Thank you very much guys.</p>

<p>John,<br>

I had no idea about the multiple drive thing. I'll remember that for sure. And having a toaster unit at the ready sounds like good advice. I'm checking into Western Digital as well.</p>

<p>Marc,</p>

<p>I totally agree that a 5% failure rate is bad to the point of downright scary. I would never use this approach with my personal or freelance files. But under the circumstances I've got at work, what with us turning the drives off and on all the time and yanking large chunks of data around, I'm thoroughly surprised that more haven't failed on us.</p>

<p>I've made it abundantly clear to the powers that be that we're sitting on a ticking time bomb (your 2 drive failure scenario or possibly something even worse). So yeah, I'm washing my hands of the results of this approach. I've done due diligence. The ironic thing is that we've ultimately spent much more money on these drives than we'd have spent on a fast, rock solid server/back-up system. But, ya work with what ya got sometimes...</p>

<p>My company archives our photos on a dual redundant daisy chain of LaCie d2 Quadra 2Tb drives. We've found these drives to be highly reliable work horses. We occasionally hammer on them really hard as we do lots of really big shoots and are pretty much archiving continuously. Out of the almost 40 drives we've been through over the past 3 years, only 2 have gone corrupt. Not a bad record, all things considered.</p>

<p>Well, it seems that LaCie is phasing out the FireWire based drives in favor for USB 3.0, and unfortunately we don't have a workstation that has that port type. Can anybody recommend a good brand of hard drive that has the serious build quality and reliability of the LaCies? We just tried some iomega eGo 2Tb's, but they even feel flimsy on the outside and we're not sure what their track record is in terms of internal reliability.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance,</p>

<p>Mark</p>

<p>P.S. And if you're thinking that we should be using a server system with a tape drive back-up for that amount of data archiving, I could not agree more. But unfortunately corporate politics have prevented the obvious solution from coming to fruition.</p>

Just chiming in with a shout-out for Marc Rochkind's camera card download software, called ImageIngester. My company

purchased a copy and whoo-ee is that what the doctor ordered. I won't go into sordid detail, but suffice to say that if you've

got a hectic shoot and have to download, back-up, re-name, file in folders and tag metadata to large numbers of images -

on the fly - you can't possibly do better than ImageIngester. It's reasonably priced, simple to understand, and quite

powerful. It does all that stuff mostly automatically. I even have extra time to start an edit at the shoot itself (it'll even open

Bridge automatically after a download). So, thanks much Marc for putting ImageIngester out there. :-)

Sorry this is a bit late. Thank you all very much for the info. For now, we're sticking with Bridge, but I'll be looking into the

other programs suggested. :-)

Hello all. I'm going to be a camera tech at a pro shoot of a concert next month. Part of our system will involve me taking full digital cards

from our photographer and running them to our digitek who will be in an editing room with a laptop Mac. On other shoots, the crew used

Capture One Pro as the file transfer/initial edit system.

Unfortunately, we have people involved further downstream who have problems opening CR2 files. They don't update their copies of Bridge,

and we can't make them (corporate logic).

I'm a Nikon guy when I shoot, so the Canon system, as well as Capture One, is completely new to me. As I understand it, CR2 files are

the native Canon RAW format, just as NEF files are Nikon's. My question is basically this; is there any benefit to using Capture One as

opposed to Adobe Bridge? (I've never bothered with any of Nikon's add-on programs) Is it any faster, or does it offer any benefit? And

finally, is there any way to transform CR2's to another RAW format? (I'm betting no on this one)

The name of the game here is just that we slam through the RAW files with speed, get them in a proper folder structure with whatever

metadata they've got, and then upload them via an FTP link as we go. We're not color correcting or anything at this point.

 

Thanks in advance Canon folk,

 

Mark

Canon FD 20-35mm f/3.5L, Canon FD 50mm f/1.8, maybe also Canon 35-105mm f/3.5

-4.5

Developing the habit of quickly glancing at the sockets on the card before insertion into

the camera is a good idea also...

One good strategy for people photographs in public is to simply ask for

permission. Something like, "Excuse me, I'm a photographer and I'm taking some pictures

in this park and I noticed you sitting there... would you mind...etc." I've done this a

number of times and it is surprising how nonchalant people respond. Announcing to

someone that you're taking pictures of them isn't necessarily perceived as an invitation to

pose, and I've found that I'm usually the one taking it much more seriously than them.

With public candids, any percieved threat, I'd hesitate to guess, isn't necessarily the act of

photographing itself, it's more the perception that you've involved your subject in

something without their permission. I can't blame someone for being concerned about

their being involved in something they don't understand, and had no choice in. For

photogs, we understand, but there will always be people who won't. In the act of asking,

we can allow them to make a choice, voice any concerns. Who knows, they might even

learn something about what we do. Granted, this technique doesn't fit all styles of street/

doc photography, but if it does fit in with what you're doing, I highly recommend it.

Looks fantastic. I just ordered the latest issue. Thanks for the tip, and good luck for the

organization! It seems you've got a good thing going on there.

Greg,

 

I used to be a retoucher for a major US cable tv company, and I think that I can

shed a bit of light on some of your questions, at least according to my

experience. I would be the guy in the ad dept who would be dealing with the

unit photography for a movie or series.

 

As to medium format: if you're doing a studio shoot, obviously medium format

would best, for quality reasons. Very often art directors are taking elements

from multiple photos and compositing them into their design. Sometimes

these elements are rather small in the frame. If you start with 35mm, or DSLR

and pull a face from a group shot and make that your 'hero' image for a poster,

quality will suffer extraordinarily. This is not to say this doesn't happen

anyway, and is actually one of the major reasons for the existence of my job.

ie, I take crappy source art and spend weeks making it look good. From the

photographer's perspective, you'll have to see whether anyone on the shoot

side considers this, or even cares. It has been my experience that no'one

does.

 

As to whether you should shoot on set or in front of a seamless: I'd do both.

Again, it really depends on the final usage, which I doubt anyone will be

capable of knowing, as so much is up in the air in most ad departments. You

might impress some people further up the food chain by providing plenty of

options. My suggestion would be to shoot a hell of a lot. My company would

get perhaps a half dozen stuffed Photo CD's from a movie shoot. Edit the

obvious lost shots out, and give them everything else. Everything. You'll never

know what they might deem important. Also, be sure to get plenty of head shot

style photos of the actors 'in character'. If you can control the light and

background, all the better for compositing, but some taken on set may have a

more authentic feel. Consider a DVD cover, or a poster. They usually have

those type photos composited in some kind of treatment. Another bit of advice

would be to shoot a lot of the set itself or the area their shooting. If the shoot is

in a swamp, give them a ton of swamp shots. Anything you can think of.

 

As to concept: My experience, which involved big movie studios, is that the

photographer doesn't come up with the concept. The ad people do. Your

experience may differ, especially if it's a smaller company. But, ultimately, if

there is a designer involved, concept is their job. But you might be able to

collaborate.

 

As to budget: This I have no direct knowledge of. I do know that most of the

unit photography my company did involved photographers working solo. I'd

advise, though, that you should certainly be compensated for your film and

processing on a roll-by roll basis, not a flat fee. You'll be shooting a lot, and

they want that.

 

Good luck, hope this helps,

 

Mark

 

P.S. Do a search on this site for 'unit photography' and you'll get some threads

by actual unit photogs themseves for more practical 'on set' advice.

Greg,

 

I used to be a retoucher for a major US cable tv company, and I think that I can

shed a bit of light on some of your questions, at least according to my

experience. I would be the guy in the ad dept who would be dealing with the

unit photography for a movie or series.

 

As to medium format: if you're doing a studio shoot, obviously medium format

would best, for quality reasons. Very often art directors are taking elements

from multiple photos and compositing them into their design. Sometimes

these elements are rather small in the frame. If you start with 35mm, or DSLR

and pull a face from a group shot and make that your 'hero' image for a poster,

quality will suffer extraordinarily. This is not to say this doesn't happen

anyway, and is actually one of the major reasons for the existence of my job.

ie, I take crappy source art and spend weeks making it look good. From the

photographer's perspective, you'll have to see whether anyone on the shoot

side considers this, or even cares. It has been my experience that no'one

does.

 

As to whether you should shoot on set or in front of a seamless: I'd do both.

Again, it really depends on the final usage, which I doubt anyone will be

capable of knowing, as so much is up in the air in most ad departments. You

might impress some people further up the food chain by providing plenty of

options. My suggestion would be to shoot a hell of a lot. My company would

get perhaps a half dozen stuffed Photo CD's from a movie shoot. Edit the

obvious lost shots out, and give them everything else. Everything. You'll never

know what they might deem important. Also, be sure to get plenty of head shot

style photos of the actors 'in character'. If you can control the light and

background, all the better for compositing, but some taken on set may have a

more authentic feel. Consider a DVD cover, or a poster. They usually have

those type photos composited in some kind of treatment. Another bit of advice

would be to shoot a lot of the set itself or the area their shooting. If the shoot is

in a swamp, give them a ton of swamp shots. Anything you can think of.

 

As to concept: My experience, which involved big movie studios, is that the

photographer doesn't come up with the concept. The ad people do. Your

experience may differ, especially if it's a smaller company. But, ultimately, if

there is a designer involved, concept is their job. But you might be able to

collaborate.

 

As to budget: This I have no direct knowledge of. I do know that most of the

unit photography my company did involved photographers working solo. I'd

advise, though, that you should certainly be compensated for your film and

processing on a roll-by roll basis, not a flat fee. You'll be shooting a lot, and

they want that.

 

Good luck, hope this helps,

 

Mark

 

P.S. Do a search on this site for 'unit photography' and you'll get some threads

by actual unit photogs themseves for more practical 'on set' advice.

Thanks much Matt. Lots to see/hear there.

Thanks for the replies. It seems fixed now. Gotta love this place. Fast, fast, fast.

 

Regards, Mark

Sorry, I'm sure I hit html, but the address didn't hotlink.

When I go here:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?include=all&user_id=523638

 

I get my thumbnails in an odd arrangement with "set caption" alongside the photos

instead of their titles. Is it just me?

I'm running both safari 1.3 and IE 5.2 on a mac. It does this on both.

 

Thanks,

Mark

I have an old Nixvue 20GB standalone. It's about 2 years old. I've never lost a picture from

it, but it has crashed while it was going through the rather time consuming process of

uploading to my computer. Simply put, it overheats easily.

Yeah, it's a huge risk to put all the eggs into one basket, and I'm thinking along the same

lines as you, Ted. Anyway possible to get 2 sets of DVD's of all the files, as quickly as

possible, is my goal. I didn't know they sold standalone burners. But, I'd be suspicious of

first generation technology. My Nixvue unit is one of these, thus a rather rushed design,

heat problems, and a clunky interface. While I've been lucky so far, I always worry about it.

Someone mentioned a laptop. This is the route I'm considering. While laptops are certainly

bulky, they're built for the road, offer superior image viewing as well as editing, and some

can burn DVD's. The problem, of course, is that they're so much more expensive.

Sorry. When I said 'rate recent uploads' page, I meant the critique forum itself,

more specifically, the main page showing thumbnails of recent requests.

Just a thought here. If the only way to have a photo available for future ratings

is to post it to the critique forum, and many people seem to like having their

photos rated, would this not have the possible effect of swamping the critique

forum? I'm imagining the possibility that the 'rate recent uploads' pages might

turn over at such a speed as to bury requests before they have been given

any time for the community at large to see them.

Thanks, Marc. Your words are not lost here.

I think that an updated site statistics list would be a great idea. If the last time it

was done was 2002, I'm sure it's vastly different now.

If Pnina doesn't take you up on that offer, please feel free to take a swing at a

few of mine. Actually, I'd really appreciate someone to take a look at my

portfolio as a whole and give me their opinion as to strengths/weaknesses,

room for improvement, etc. You have my invitation.

Yep. I asked the same. I was told to go to the Leica forum ;-)

Ray, sRGB was, in fact, created with video in mind. By video, I mean all forms

of video, including the monitor you are looking at. While it's creation was

spurned by the idea of a single unified color space for the www, it's inner

workings are a compromise based on the average color gamuts, gamma and

luminance values of most major video I/O devices worldwide. These include

video cameras and television monitors, as well as those nasty old PC

monitors. The overwhelming nature of this compromise is precisely the cause

of it's limitations, and thus controversial nature. It's my theory that the creators

of this space were attempting to be forward thinking in the sense that they

wanted a space that would allow most anything video (from Adobe 98 to

NTSC and beyond) to be ported onto the web and viewed most anywhere

with the least amount of serious incompatibility. So this is the burden that we

all, in one way or another, share. Everybody is onboard in one slightly

maligned fashion or another. I personally am far more transfixed by the

potential for someone in Bangladesh to be able to see my images in a

reasonable fashion than I am with a few clipped colors. But that's just me. It's

true that if you are a quality minded person who understands the possibilities

of progress, this sort of lowest commen denominator strategy, coupled with

Microsoft's strong arm-approach to it's implementations (which have a way of

becoming the default standard), can be quite frustrating. I haven't any

suggestion as to what to do for web viewing, other than to hope that the

person on the viewing side has his ducks in a row. One could, I suppose,

create a website with downloadable images in the colorspace of your choice

with instructions for proper viewing. Regards- Mark

Ray, I wouldn't worry too much about the differences between sRGB and

Adobe 98. sRGB was created with video in mind and shouldn't truncate any

colors noticably for onscreen viewing. Granted, its not a good space to do any

editing in, but I haven't seen any problems with it as a final output space.

There is probably far more information loss in the automatic compression on

the server side. Also, realize that if a viewer's monitor is calibrated and their

browser or system is icc aware, they are already seeing what you intended

them to see. Cheers - Mark