jean_marc_liotier

Beyond what is needed to store the displayed raster, all RAM on graphic accelerators is essentially there for the 3D calculations. As a gross approximation, you may consider that anything beyond 32 MB is overkill if you only do 2D work. That said, some of the 2D work is now done though 3D APIs and even basic desktop environments now feature shiny moving things that consume GPU cycles so YMMV.

 

The laptop you are looking uses system RAM as video RAM. You will therefore loose a few dozen MB of system RAM to the GPU. Performance is affected, but for 2D work it is about irrelevant.

 

Now it is up to you to decide if 1 GB minus a few dozen MB is sufficient for the type of work your mother does. My JPEG workflow is comfortable with that, but opening many images or many applications may require more RAM for optimal performance.

My policy is publish first and remove on request. So far I have had no problem with that - some people are sometimes uneasy at first about having their pictures published, but very rarely do they go as far as asking me to remove them. And even then things remain very courteous.

 

In practice I have noticed the opposite effect to the one you describe : my friends are generally happy to have nice pictures of themselves to pass around.

 

Painting people in a good light also helps acceptance greatly, especially females who are generally very touchy about looking bad publicly.

 

In addition I only use first name and not first name + family name. This makes the legends useful to other acquaintances while keeping the albums from being too useful to users of search engines.

I did not know <a href="http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/">Exiftool</a>. It looks good, especially if you want Perl. While we are at it let me also mention <a href="http://www.exiv2.org/">Exiv2</a> - it does both EXIF and IPTC.

<p><a href="http://www.sentex.net/~mwandel/jhead/">Jhead</a> is free and it does exactly what you want.</p>

 

<p>Exemple of how to read the date :</p>

 

<p><code>jhead My_Image.jpg| grep 'Date/Time' | awk -F " " '{print($3" "$4)}'</code></p>

 

<p>The output would be something like this :</p>

 

<p><code>2004:08:14 17:54:45</code></p>

 

<p>Of course by modifying the awk template or piping through a couple of sed you can obtain any format you want.</p>

 

<p>Jhead also allows you to modify the EXIF date tag. <a href="http://www.sentex.net/~mwandel/jhead/usage.html">The EXIF documentation</a> is excellent so I won't paraphrase it.</p>

 

<p>With just a few lines of Bash scripting I have been able to automate the painless modification of large numbers of files. For exemple here is <a href="http://www.ruwenzori.net/code/dir_date_serial_rename_all/">the script that I use to modify the file name according to the EXIF date</a>.</p>

 

<p>Another example : when post-processing a significant number of files I accidentally overwrote the EXIF tags with bogus information. I had backups of the original but I did not want to lose the modifications that had taken me much time. So I just wrote a small script to take care of restoring the correct EXIF tag from the original file to the modified one :</p>

 

<p><code>

FileWithEXIFdir="/home/me/directory_of_files_with_correct_EXIF_tags"<br>

EXIFlessFileDir="/home/me/directory_of_the_same_files_modified_and_with_incorrectly_overwritten_EXIF_tags"<br>

for EXIFlessFile in `ls -1 "$EXIFlessFileDir"`<br>

do<br>

EXIFlessFileBasename=`basename $EXIFlessFile`<br>

FileWithEXIF=$FileWithEXIFdir/$EXIFlessFileBasename<br>

jhead -te $FileWithEXIF $EXIFlessFileDir/$EXIFlessFile<br>

done<br>

</code></p>

 

<p>Jhead can handle all your EXIF reading and writing needs. It is simple to use and easy to integrate to your Bash scripts. Many systems such as <a href="http://gallery.menalto.com/">Gallery</a> rely on it. It is now the reference EXIF manipulation tool.</p>

Photosig does it. You can browse pictures by many criterias at <a href="http://www.photosig.com/go/photos">http://www.photosig.com/go/photos</a>.

Rotating on three batteries does it for me. I have found that two batteries is a bit short.

<p>

Ronaldo R, jul 26, 2006; 08:57 a.m. wrote :</br>

> 20. Shoot RAW, resave as TIF, keep both, do not post-process

</p>

<p>

Rendering a RAW file as a TIF image _is_ post-processing... Actually, even producing a JPEG file in the camera includes post-processing even if most people do not see it as such.

</p>

<p>I have found my 300D to operate just fine in very hot weather, but I suspect the extreme heat to severely reduce battery life. A couple of weeks ago I posted on my blog about <a href="http://serendipity.ruwenzori.net/index.php/2006/07/04/short-battery-life-in-intense-heat">short battery life in intense heat</a> and I am still wondering about that one. Here is an extract from the post :</p>

<i>

<p>"Under the blazing sun during the start of <a href="http://www.24rollers.com/">the Le Mans 24 hours</a><a href="http://www.24rollers.com/"> skating race</a> I shot only two hundred frames before running my three freshly recharged batteries flat. I first thought that they were nearing the end of their useful lives, but during the night I managed to shoot four hundred frames on a single battery I just recharged. The intense heat from direct sunlight may have something to do with how fast power is depleted.</p>

 

<p>This comes as a surprise to me : I am used to rotating batteries in an inner pocket near my body to keep them warm in extreme cold weather but this is the first time I encounter performance degradation in extreme heat. And I have no idea how to attack this problem.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.devicelink.com/mem/archive/06/04/003.html">Robin Tichy mentions that “Li-ion batteries outperform their counterparts in high-temperature conditions ranging up to 40ﾰﾖ45ﾰC. SLA and NiMH batteries do not perform well in higher-heat situations”</a>. The <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=327022&is=REG">BP511 batteries </a>I use in my <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos300d/">Canon Eos 300D</a> use <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li-ion">Li-ion</a> - maybe I should consider myself lucky I did not use <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel_metal_hydride_battery">NiMH batteries</a>".

</p>

</i>

<p>

While I'm a it here is my <a href="http://gallery.ruwenzori.net/main.php/v/sports/24_heures_du_Mans_rollers_2006/">gallery of pictures from Le Mans roller 24 Hours 2006</a>. Probably not interesting to photographers unless you are curious about the event.

</p><div></div>

<p>

> those out from local lab ( they use a Fuji frontier )</br>

> looks be with far less quanlity compared to original slides.

</p>

<p>

"Quanlity" : quantity and quality fused and compacted in a single convenient concept...

</p>

I have not had much experience with those specific problems but as a regular business guy my advice would be to leave the original customer out of this and approach the new one with a friendly offer to regularize their situation in regards to the use of your copyrighted products. Offer them you normal faire price with a gentle tone and they will surely understand it is their best interest to take this opportunity to come back within the realm of legality. Just make sure that you do not antagonize them and spoil your image in that industry : definitely treat them as you would treat a new customer. Even when there is friction in business it is important to keep it friendly - good business is about preserving a fruitful commercial relationship even when there are disagreements.

The firmware is the original 300D release, but the firmware updates have only adressed problems with remote capture and PTP transfers so I don't think the update would fix my problem.

 

I'll definitely have to check the flash with another body and the body with another flash to check for a communication problem between flash and body or the malfunction on one of them.

 

But as you suggest the most likely cause is user error... Which may explain why I have a hard time reproducing the problem. I'll be extra careful next time...

 

It is quite frustrating to be unable to nail the exact cause... If I ever find out I'll post it here.

 

Anyway thanks to J Benton for the suggestions !

All the frame I have shown here were captured in Av at f/2.8

 

There is no second curtain flash option on the 300D.

 

The artefact only showing in frames captured with flash does not exclude a shutter problem : maybe in frames captured with no flash the problem only shows as slight exposure error.

 

I should test that flash on another body. The problem is that I can't reliably reproduce the problem...

I have used computer for as long as I have owned cameras - that is since I was a kid. The whole time I have been cursing film technology and drooling over the early über-expensive digital cameras. When the 300D appeared I took the plunge and felt liberated : at last the camera had become just another input device for the computer. The workstation and the camera are equally important parts of my workflow. Processing large numbers of images can be tedious and I prefer being out camera in hand, but I find post-processing enjoyable nethertheless.

 

Shooting and processing take about the same amount of time.

 

I sometimes have a processing backlog but I try to avoid that.

 

On average post-processing takes about 2'30" per picture - around two minutes for most pictures (cropping, white balance and possibly curves) and a few more for exceptional ones or difficult ones that need saving for some reason.

I checked if with normal flash the body lets the user shoot a frame above max flash sync : it does not - speed cannot be set above 1/200. So the two remaining solutions would be a worn shutter or the flash pretending to be in high speed mode and actually being in normal mode. The most annoying part of the problem is that I have a hard time reproducing it. Yersterday evening, I between this problem a a spate of "error 99" I missed a good third of my shots. Today I cannot reproduce either problem...

<p>

> Perhaps the flash is not actually firing in high-speed sync</br>

> mode despite your settings. A normal flash when the camera</br>

> is set higher than the normal sync speed would create this effect.</br></p>

<p>

Could I mistakenly have used the flash in normal sync mode above the highest possible sync speed (1/125 on the 300D) ? I have to check if that mistake is possible or if the body refuses to take the picture.

</p>

I must add that this phenomenon does not occur on each frame. I occurs randomly and only about half the time. I don't think I have seen it it normal flash sync mode - but I am not sure.

<p>Sorry for the bad link... Here is the right link to the <a

href="http://gallery.ruwenzori.net/main.php/v/misc/FlashShutterProblem/?g2_fromNavId=x838f2e68"> three samples frames showing this shutter or flash problem</a>.</p>

<p>I have noticed that when using my 300D with my 580EX in high-speed sync mode

I get a grossly over-exposed band on the left in portrait orientation or on the

top in landscape orientation. <a

hef="http://gallery.ruwenzori.net/main.php/v/misc/FlashShutterProblem/?g2_fromNavId=x838f2e68">Here

are three samples frames showing this shutter or flash problem</a>. The body is

a 300D with about 50000 frames shot during its lifetime. Considering how the two

curtains operate in high speed sync I suspect the problem may be caused by bad

shutter timing caused by a worn out shutter. Has anyone else seen that before ?

Any idea what it might be ?</p><div></div>

I just wrote a small <a

href="http://serendipity.ruwenzori.net/index.php/2006/06/22/high-dynamic-range-photography">article

summarizing my initial exploration of high dynamic range photography</a> in

general and the Linux HDR toolset in particular. I dug up a few interesting

links and I thought I might share.

Instead of designing something from scratch and reinvent the wheel while you stumble upon known traps and suffer the lack of functionnality, use a tool that delivers all the best practices while letting you use, modify of even design from scratch the exact skin you want. <a href="http://gallery.menalto.com/">Gallery 2</a> does exactly that it is a very mature project that retains excellent development momentum. The development team is friendly and active, and the forums are very helpful : if you have a question about development or customization there is always someone there to answer. Functionnality is the best by far compared to anything else, everything is modular, configurable, secure and well maintained. You can have a look a <a href="http://gallery.menalto.com/gallery/screenshots/screenshotsG2/themes/">the default themes</a> and at <a href="http://codex.gallery2.org/index.php/Gallery2:User_Contributions#Themes">user-contributed themes</a>. Myself I customized one of the default themes for <a href="http://gallery.ruwenzori.net/">my own gallery</a> so I can testify that it is not too difficult for people with some basic programming experience. And of course it is software Libre.

Actually, as a complete ignorant of the traditional business model of wedding photographers I would say that this rather why in the digital age the market will certainly forget the whole concept of "reprint". Make sure that the gig pays enough by itself, provide the images at screen resolution as proofs and sell unlimited non-commercial printing rights of the full-resolution versions on an individual image basis. That way you don't have to handle the low value added job of printing and you don't have to worry too much about chasing copyright infringers that you don't really want to antagonize anyway because they are your past customers who probably know your future customers. This sort of rampant cheating is a clear hint that the business model should probably evolve toward more upfront fees instead of relying on reprint fees that feel completely alien to people who live in a digital world. In fact I don't know many people who still use prints these days, except of course the ones in my parent's generation who are not connected yet...

 

I am probably going to be flamed for expressing this point of view...

Try feeding "ls-1000 manual" to some search engine and among the first results is.... <a href="http://architecture.arizona.edu/tech/manuals/ls1000.pdf">The LS-1000 manual</a> !

La Defense, France. January 2004. 300D EF75-300/4-5.6 @220mm f/5 1/20s ISO1600.

Flash or no flash ? Multiple flashes ? Access to the sidelines or shooting from the seats ? Budget ? Camera ? Give more details !

 

And take a look at the archives : this topic has already been widely covered... I have not shot indoor sports yet, but with what I have read here I now feel I now have more than enough information to go ahead...

You are right. Thank you for reinforcing the notion that the long hard path is most often much more rewarding. I have quite a few musician friends and it is striking how similar the market is. I guess the most important lesson for those who take the penny stock path is to make sure the contract allows a fast and clean exit once they learn better ways...