marc_rochkind

<p>Macs aren't a good choice for photo editing. See this post:</p> <p>http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00dfUC</p>

<p>My newest computer is a very small Intel NUC. But it's big enough to contain a 500GB SSD for the C drive, where all apps, the Lightroom catalog, and temporary files are, and a 1TB hard drive, for the photos themselves. A second, external USB3 1TB drive is permanently mounted to serve as backup (Windows File History). Everything is also backed up to the cloud with CrashPlan. (That little NUC has a Core i7 CPU with 16GB of RAM.)</p>

<p>You're lucky that you have a monitor that's a keeper and your computation in another box. So, you can replace the box. Mac Minis are a bad deal--way overpriced. See my blog articles:</p> <p>http://basepath.com/wp/?p=523</p> <p>and</p> <p>http://basepath.com/wp/?p=540</p> <p>You don't need the highest level of graphics for photography. Those processors are for gamers.</p>

<p>Thanks for the plug, Andrew!</p> <p>When things look really flakey, and defy all logic, think about the possibility of memory failure. Memory on most consumer computers lacks any error detection, and, when memory starts to fail, the results are truly bizarre.</p> <p>You can find memory checkers on the web. They take a LONG time to run, but they're worth a try.</p>

<p>Edward, when you say: "Actually, software compatibility is less an issue than that of hardware, for which Windows 10 is notably deficient", are you talking about Lightroom/Photoshop or something else? Compatibility with what? Devices? The Mac version? Cameras?</p>

<p>I've been using Macs for photo work for the last 10 years or so, which I do mostly with Lightroom, along with occasional use of Photoshop and Topaz plugins. Now it's time to replace my 6-year-old iMac, but none of the current Macs seems like a good choice. (I'm considering a computer only for photography, not games, writing, accounting, or any other use. And integration with my iPhone is of no interest to me.)</p> <p>There are four types of Macs: notebooks, all-in-ones, minis, and Mac Pros. Notebooks don't have a large enough screen, and Mac Pros are overkill for what I need. Mac Minis are twice as expensive as equivalent Windows computers. (Look not at base prices, but ones with an Intel Core i7 and 16GB of RAM.) That leaves iMacs, but the problem with them is that I'm tired of replacing the whole computer when only the processor needs upgrading. I suppose I could get a MacBook Pro with a separate monitor, but that's a very expensive way to go, and the combination takes up too much space on my desk.</p> <p>For photography, the choice of OS doesn't matter to me, because I spend nearly all my time in Lightroom and Photoshop, and they run identically on both platforms. (I'm a software developer, and use Windows, OS X, and Linux for that, so all of those OSes are familiar. I have about seven computers that I use for different purposes.)</p> <p>Any other photographers steering away from Macs because none seems suitable and appropriately priced?</p> <p><strong>Appendix: Intel NUC vs. Mac Mini</strong></p> <p>Here's why I say a Mac Mini costs twice as much as a Windows computer. The following costs me $657 at Amazon:</p> <ul> <li>Intel NUC5i7RYH with 5th Generation Core i7-5557U (WiFi included)</li> <li>16GB RAM (Crucial DDR3-1600 MT/s)</li> <li>1TB hard drive (HGST Travelstar 7K1000 2.5-Inch 1TB 7200 RPM SATA III 32MB Cache)</li> <li>Windows 10 Home</li> </ul> <p>A Mac Mini with an i7, 16GB, and a 1TB drive is $1400. Both the NUC and the Mac Mini have dual-core i7 processors (not quad-core).</p>

<p>I'm with Q.G.:</p> <blockquote> <p>There's only so much you can do using the name of a file, so the better solution is to keep that simple and unique (the name a camera assigns to it usually works well enough, but when more cameras are used it helps adding some additional midentiefier) and use a database of sorts to add metadata to the file.</p> </blockquote> <p>My files are in folder by year and date (use year, month, date if you want). Lightroom does all the indexing.</p>

<p>You didn't say so, but, this being photo.net, perhaps you're going to be editing photos?</p> <p>If so, you'll need a hardware device to get the monitor calibrated.</p>

<p>I'm with Steve and Fred and some others. $10 a month gives me Photoshop and Lightroom, and I can use my brain cells keeping track of other things. I never could afford Photoshop, and was spending $75 or so a year keeping LR updated, so $120 a year is fine by me.</p> <p>The ability to process raw files using the latest technology and techniques is extremely important to me.</p>

<p>Most of what you read will be about equipment and its operation.</p> <p>But the most important thing to learn is composition. When it's right, the photo is good, and when it's wrong (or boring) the photo is bad, and this is true regardless of focus, exposure, or any other physical properties.</p> <p>So, I second the choice of Light Gesture & Color. Or, Photographic Seeing, by Andreas Feininger, which you can get used from Amazon for about $1 plus shipping. He also has a book called PRINCIPLES OF COMPOSITION IN PHOTOGRAPHY which I'm not familiar with, but it's probably terrific.</p> <p>Another point: What distinguishes a pro or advanced amateur from a dabbler is post processing. Get a copy of Lightroom (save your money by not buying anything less complete) and learn to use it well.</p>

<p>You would have to wait a long time after purchasing a book for its value to rise significantly, such a rise is unpredictable, and the value of any one book is small, so you'd need a lot of books to make any real money. Therefore, you need a large initial investment with very risky returns that won't materialize for many years, and all that time your investment is illiquid.</p> <p>This pretty much defines a horrible investment choice.</p>

<p>Spent just a minute or so on your site, but I like what I saw, and the site itself is very clean. I appreciate that the photo display is large. Best of luck!</p>

<p>I think Adobe's efforts here have mostly to do with branding and getting a foot in the door. It's hard to imagine how for "serious hobbyists & Pros" it would be productive. When productivity is a concern, I would think that carrying a lightweight laptop would make a lot more sense. Which is what "serious hobbyists & Pros" actually do.</p>

<p>Great documentary, if it's the one I think it is. Not just any bar, but one across the street from the Port Authority Bus Terminal. In other words, not across the street from the Waldorf Astoria.</p> <p>--Marc</p>

<p>I can help a little with your #1. First, the smaller the image files, the faster they will load. JPEG quality can be much lower than you might guess. See this:</p> <p>http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/jpeg-quality</p> <p>Second, the color qualities of the displays on which your photos will be viewed will be highly variable, so the best you can do is use an sRGB color space and get it right on your own color-managed display. If you Google "display calibration" or "color managed workflow" I'm sure you'll get many useful results.</p> <p>Third, I'm assuming you have a strong reason for building your own site. There are many commercial services that do a lot for you already, including providing a store where you can sell prints. I use SmugMug, but there are several other excellent choices.</p>

<p>Thanks for the book, Steve.</p> <p>However, the way it's laid out, I can't read it on my laptop. I'll have to read it on my desktop, with its larger screen. Very inconvenient.</p>

<p>Sounds like excellent advice. On the other hand, as a computer programmer, I can highly recommend that as a profession. ;-)</p>

<p>Taking of these photographs is certainly protected.</p> <p>However, this should not be confused with limitations on what the photographer can do with them. For example, one certainly can't sell a photograph of a recognizable person absent a model release without incurring legal liability. And, in the case of a well-known actor, it's likely that some action would be taken. Often, street photographers do sell photos of recognizable people without obtaining a model release, but they get away with it because the subject is unaware that the photograph is being sold, and may even be unaware that it was taken.</p>

<p>I'm going to get a copy (only $1.99), but would prefer a Kindle version. Is that in the works? (I've put together a dozen or so ebooks, and you'll sell many more copies on Amazon than on iTunes.)</p>

<p>Damon: I think the issue is about whose creative act it is, not who pushes the shutter. The human would have to argue that he or she set up the photo, and that the trained animal was following orders. But, if taking the photo is under the control of the animal, then it can't be the creative act of a human. And, an animal can't own a copyright. A photographer's assistant or a mechanism (e.e., timer) set up by a human is under his or her control, so that photographer is the creator.</p>

<p>And be aware that if the animal takes the shot, it can't be copyrighted in the US. (Don't know about elsewhere.) PETA has filed a lawsuit to challenge this (the photo in question was taken by an ape), but they won't be successful. In fact, I doubt that they even have standing to sue.</p>

<p>I agree with Jos.</p> <p>To say it another way, Aperture and Lightroom are parameterized editors, and their parameterizations are not interchangeable, so you lose the parameters, but not the results, when you export. TIFF is a good format to use because it's lossless.</p> <p>If you are happy with what you've done in Aperture, the TIFF will capture it. If not, you'll have to re-edit the raw (or original JPEG) in Lightroom. You might get away with editing the TIFF, but only if the edits are very minor.</p>

<p>Well, the idiot theory might be the right one, but this guy is the Magazine's photo critic. Perhaps he knows how to look at photos but not how to make them? After all, art critics need not be artists, theater critics need not be playwrights, etc. The article was actually pretty good, once you got past that awkward paragraph at the beginning that I quoted.</p>

<p>Well, of course everyone should be free to do what he or she wants. What I'm trying to understand is what he is talking about when he says that digital didn't work for him in Switzerland. Perhaps other Pnet photographers also go back and forth between film and digital depending on what part of the world they're in and what kind of shooting they're doing? If so, they might provide insights.</p>

<p>There were about 800,000 Nikon F cameras made, so, unless you're in love with this one, you might try just buying a better sample. I have one that works just fine, even without a CLA. I bought it for not much on eBay. With a CLA, it would probably be perfect. You could probably buy several for what a rebuild would cost.</p>