httpwww.photo.netbarry

I tried to go find some of the old Leica and rangefinder a the early Street and Documentary forums to find some of the great photo threads, probably back 2006-10? But couldn't find any. <sigh>

To the OP,  Yes obviously more and more proportionitly then any previous time. 

On 4/16/2024 at 12:21 PM, hjoseph7 said:

Amazing that this stuff is no longer selling. I hardly ever used it myself, but I'm glad I held on to my last pack.

I detested spotting and lacked the patience to acquire the skill.  I got religious about cleaning my negs when printing and using a loop to check for any dust.  Stitch in time saves nine!

On 1/17/2024 at 4:17 AM, ben_hutcherson said:

Just as an anecdote-

I don't run Adobe products on my one M1 system(first generation M1 pro) because I find it woefully inadequate for the task. When I bought it, everyone told me 8gb was fine, It's not, at least if you want to multitask while running Lightroom. I'm currently eying a 16" to replace it-undecided as to if I'll do refurb M1, M2, or go with a current M3, but in any case I'm eying the base Max config(which is 32gb RAM/1tb) and have eyed a few M1 Max 64gb models.

My Lightroom/Photoshop machines now are a 2019 5K iMac and a 2015 15" Retina MBP. I have a couple of eGPU enclosures with Radeon RX580 cards in them. One stays on my iMac, and it makes a noticeable difference in how Lightroom runs as long as, of course, I enable eGPU. With that said, It's not night and day-as an example running AI noise reduction on a 40mp X-T5 file or 45mp D850 file takes about a minute on the internal RX 570, and 30-45 seconds on the RX580. The big benefit to me to running it on the eGPU is to keep heat out of the main case.

The 2015 Retina doesn't officially support eGPUs, but it's easy enough to get one working. My 2015 does not have aa dGPU, and the Iris Pro is definitely showing its age with some of the GPU heavy stuff. AI Noise reduction takes 10-15 minutes for similar files as above, and that includes a couple of minutes just to render the preview(which is 10 seconds or so on my iMac. Adding in the eGPU gets me a preview in ~20 seconds, and 1-2 minutes to actually run it. That's slower than the iMac, but still workable especially as I don't do it on every file.

I picked up a "Trashcan"-Mac Pro 6,1-not too long ago, but haven't really played with it. It has decent specs for RAM and storage, and I have a 12 core CPU sitting here waiting for me to install. I'm expecting it may be pokey as it has the base D300 GPU, which was already a bit dated in 2013, but opted for that since the D500 and D700s, which I could have just as easily bought(I bought at a retail electronics retailer, and they had 14 of them in varying configs out, from absolute base to top of the line) have been known to have issues. Thermal management isn't the best in those computers-in a rare interview someone from Apple admitted as such shortly before the 7,1 was announced.

I know that's a bit of rambling, but it's all to say that the GPU seems to just work for me on my Macs regardless of what I throw at it. Even though I had issues with Lightroom on my M1 if I had say a browser in the background, it still was fine for GPU accelerated functions. Admittedly the last time I tried it was before the Ai NR update dropped. BTW, too, it's not a lack of use of the computer in general-I'm typing this post from it now and it's my main computer 80% of the time(the iMac the remainder at home, the 2015 Retina usually stays at work semi-permanently docked to an old Thunderbolt display). I just don't have any Adobe products activated on it.

I use an MBP 16" M1 Max.  I bought it with 32gb of ram and never had a hitch in Adobe LR or PS or FinalCut, but when I bought it, all the research I read recommended a minimum of 16GBs bare minimum for any sort of PS & Light Room.  I'm surprised you were told 8GB would work.  A refurbed MBP M1 or M2 Max with  32 should do quite well.  If I was a professional, I would probably even get 64GB, but I've done a couple of weddings working with hundreds of images and not had a hiccup so 32 GB seems to be a sweet spot for price/performance.  But you can never have too much ram, basically.

Really interesting Sanford.

Here's L.A. with a film Leica.

11 hours ago, Robin Smith said:

According to Adobe my graphics card is OK and I have sufficient RAM. I guess it is a matter of what counts as OK I can do photoediting, but it is slow and crashes are not infrequent. Since otherwise the machine is fine I conclude that it the CPU is no longer really up to the task. It is 11 years old.

Yeah I'd say so unless you're running older versions of PS and other programs.

I thinkI like the original due to the continuation of the staircase provides a nice graceful curve for the eye to follow and adds a little dynamism in the composition.

19 hours ago, inoneeye said:

Roy Lichtenstein? 

Yes, thanks! I couldn't find it on Google for some strange reason. 🙂

On 2/25/2024 at 4:34 PM, inoneeye said:

I also have found it interesting. It makes me think. Reminds me casually of Elmer Batters.
The best explanation I can conjure is what Sam has offered, that sometimes the work falls in the blurry edges. I don’t know how much of that is about the photographer or about me the viewer-or at best, both. 

I was just thinking it reminds me a little of Warhohl and who was painting frames inspired from the funny papers and/or  comics from roughly the same era.

Maybe she should join p.net? But for me, I don't care about the quotidian lives of the Royals.  Why would I?

On 3/2/2024 at 11:40 PM, arthur_mcculloch2 said:

Yes, spoke to him today - we meet the first sunday afternoon of the month (went hoping to do some more photos, but the battery died after the fist photo. Still, it was a good day. Lots of rollicking singing and I was re-acquainted with Carl Jenkins' the armed man).  He described the pipes as 'Scottish small pipes' and said that they were different from Northumberland pipes (in what respect I cannot say). Regards, Arthur.

Thanks, yes they differ in certain ways and. some consider them similar. Thank your friend Arthur if you see him again. It's a bit rare to see a set of Small Pipes out in the wild :),

Thanks Sam. I'm glad my post helped stimulate such a great response! I love the 

2 hours ago, samstevens said:

It's like comparing a Sam Shepard play to a Hallmark afterschool special on teen romance.

That's brilliant and rings true to me.  But there's also that middle ground of someone who thinks they are writing fabulous fiction but to the rest of us seem to think is actually teen romances.   This is actually where many of we photographers are here on Photo.net and I suppose other sites, somewhere in between.  

Some times the substance of the photo is more than the surface of the photo. Like the guy who does what I would consider soft-porn serial photos here on p.net, sort of a semi-soft porn collages that I find interesting. Have you seen those (royal you, any of you). I would like to see your comments on those.  Is there something in a way he or she presents them that makes them more than just cutie nudies?

Helmut Newton made sexuality and tittilation in itself a strong component in his photography depicting women as strong and often suggesting female sexual predation.  Reactions to his fashion advertising photos were very different depending  on the world view of the viewer, but generally were well received in Europe and particularly France and Germany but not so much by Mid-America.  Both Japanese photographers Daido Moriyama and especially Arakis have stated sexuality and the erotic were essential elements of photography.  Leads me to believe that attitudes toward nudity are culturally conditioned and not intrinsically true or false.  Eye of the beholder? Intent of the photographer? Understanding the viewpoints of both is useful, but I think understanding where the photographer is coming from is really important when deciding about these issues. Please don't construe this to mean it's OK to share Arakis' photos of his nude and tied-up wife with your grandkids. People should be of an age when they can decide these issues for themselves.  

Deciding whether a photo is exploitive or not can be a very complex proposition indeed.  See the photography of Robert Maplethorpe, Diane Arbus or any documentarian. In a way, every photographer is exploiting their subject in some way, but that isn't the sole criteria for deciding its value.