yes, tried that too, I called apple and she walked me through a few things, but then said I needed my Leopard Cd to go any further?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Any of the real photographers left?
- Thread starter iBallz
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
yes, tried that too, I called apple and she walked me through a few things, but then said I needed my Leopard Cd to go any further?
So don't knock it until you've tried it. There are a lot of advantages to digital, for example taking 1,000 pictures in one day without spending a dime on film...
Yes, but when you are using film and have a limited number of shots, you tend to be more calculated in the shots you take.
They probably want you to run disk utility. I used to keep a USB thumb drive around with a bootable install, but it was a pain to maintain- I know it doesn't help you now, but if you're going to be out of the country from time to time, then it could be a useful option. I don't know if any of the Linux live CDs have
HFS+ on them, but if so, that could be an option to see if it's the drive and/or if the drive is readable.
Point taken, however there is a lot of action in ten twenty minute heats of four competitors. Sometimes they run double heats in the water.
Florida surfers are aggro- never let a chance to smack the lip get by. Never know just how vertical they'll get until you mash that shutter... might pop an ollie or an air. Granted more than half of them aren't much special... that's when the film issue really pleases me. Just delete, no worries!Get it right in the camera and ya may not need post editing for other than resizing. Of course having the right camera/lens combo helps.
Case in point -
( Note: this was several years ago when the Olympus Camera I speak of below was just introduced )
A friend of mine who is an antique dealer was using a Sony disk camera to take photos for online gallery/catalog. That camera took terrible images and they were doing a ton of post edit to get colors right.
I went to them with an Olympus E-20 camera, not a DSLR but at the time a much better camera than anything Sony was using, and two photo flood lamps. For a laugh I photographed the toughest piece they had in the store. Loaded the image on his computer and he was amazed,all he had to do was resize. He said " but you're a photographer, you know what you're doing "
So I handed him the camera, told him ..... try it yourself, I'll be back later.
They were photographing jewelry and other small items. The Sony camera was a waste, images always needed brightness/contrast adjustment. If you tried to use flash or photofloods on a close-up ( macro ) shot the images were washed out.
In the end once they 'got it right in the camera', they cut post edit time down to nothing.
I have differing views on this. I'm a huge proponent of Photoshop. Not for fixing broken pictures, but mainly for enhancing existing quality photos and creating art. A lot of my photos can't be "got right" in-camera... some of the effects, styles, colours, etc. of the final piece, even the "feel" of the photo, requires me to use Photoshop.
Saying that, while running my photoblog or even doing prints, I'm hardly doing mass orders. I can spend a couple hours on a single photo one evening, and post it. The couple of times I've done photoshoots, or needed to take a lot of photos and edit them all for someone I've realised the value of saving processing time. While I can spend an hour on one photo, multiply that by 100 photos and that's a lot of time; I either don't sleep, or do sloppy work.
So, ultimately I'm learning that if I can get the photo done in-camera and still achieve the feel I want, I'm saving a ton of time.
I'm sure the "real" photographers are out taking photos instead of coming online and complaining about photoshop
Well said.
On every photography forum I go to there always discussion about to use or not to use photoshop to enhance the image.
A smart photographer or a smart artist will use whatever tool available to him to get a job done.
I'm almost 50. Learned to develop/print in mono when I was a kid. Spent some time when I was a young adult as a pro photographer (architectural and stage work mostly). Learned to process colour/cibachrome around that time. Wound up working as a salesman selling pro equipment to photographers and pro labs.
These days I still take hundreds of photos - mostly for my own enjoyment though, using a Nikon DSLR (first Nikon camera I ever owned - used to be Canon for 35mm and either Pentax or 'blad for med format). I make part of my living as a sysadmin - the rest as a graphic designer. I use Photoshop to do all of the tricks I previously did in the darkroom and I honestly don't see the difference (other than not needing a darkroom and not choking myself with the stink of processing chemicals). The only use of Photoshop that I take issue with is the amateur 'filter frenzy' crowd, but then they weren't much cop as photographers in the old days either..... Plus ca change, plus ca meme chose...
These days I still take hundreds of photos - mostly for my own enjoyment though, using a Nikon DSLR (first Nikon camera I ever owned - used to be Canon for 35mm and either Pentax or 'blad for med format). I make part of my living as a sysadmin - the rest as a graphic designer. I use Photoshop to do all of the tricks I previously did in the darkroom and I honestly don't see the difference (other than not needing a darkroom and not choking myself with the stink of processing chemicals). The only use of Photoshop that I take issue with is the amateur 'filter frenzy' crowd, but then they weren't much cop as photographers in the old days either..... Plus ca change, plus ca meme chose...
This reminds me of a seminar given by a well known photographer.
This exchange occured during a Q&A period..... Subject: Lighting
Questioner: So, do you use electronic, or available lighting?
Photographer: ( reaching into his bag pulls out an electronic flash ) replies " I only use available light, if it's available ( points to flash ) I will use it! "
I've been reading this thread with interest, and I just realised that I have something to say (again
I have little problem with Photoshop. I use it on every image I produce (to a certain extent). When I see someone post a photo and say "straight from camera" I think why??? Modern digital cameras take nice photos, but they're usually fairly flat and bland. Photos scanned from film (also "straight from camera") have much nicer colours, contrast, texture etc., so why not try to make your digital photos more "film-like"? Essentially I'm saying that every photo can use some levels/curves adjustments, whether you go further or not.
Yes. I agree. To back this up. Let's let's dig out our old photo books that describe the "zone system". If there is any genre of photography that is more traditional than zone system black and white I's like to know. Pure "wet chemistry" from camera to print.
OK so what did Mr. Adams tell us to do? Pullout the spot meter and measure the contrast in the scene. Determine if it will "fit" on a print made on #2 paper. If not write down how many stops of compression or expansion are required with notations like "+2" or "-1". Next we put our meter on a part of the subject and think about what gray level we'd like to use on our print to render that part of the subject. Use this to set the exposure. trip the shutter.
What Adams did in his book "The Negative" is explain in lengthy detail exactly how to adjust those three arrows in the "levels" dialog box. He sets the white, black and gray points before he trips the shutter. And if he develops each negative according to his "+2", or "0" notes the print will come out perfect on #2 paper. He said he called it "Zone System" because "Applied Sensitometry" would frighten to many people away. His book is 40 years old now. Read it and you will see that what he did, was no more then adjusting the Levels Curve
Very traditional, old school photographers have been manipulating their photos for 100+ years. I can't think of any well known photographer who didn't
Even when I was shooting color slides (which pretty much have to be done "right" in the camera.) I'd still manipulate the image because I'd choose the film type. I'd pick Velvia or an Agfa film based on the subject.
The trouble with digital is that we have very, very little control of the image in the camera. Digital technology currently just is not so good and has only a very narrow dynamic range. So we are forced to take a exposure that best captures the image and do the manipulations in post production. we don't have a choice. Anything off from "dead on" with a DSLR and you get either blown highlights or excess noise. Digital lacks the long "toe" and "shoulder" of film.
There is, it's called contact printing. It started before there were enlargers and it still works today. I'm not sure you can get more traditional than that though.