Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Digitial Darkroom?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 5:27:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I'm thinking about a dedicated system for just working on my digital
images. What should I be considering. I'm currently using a PC and
Win2K Pro but several people have suggest I consider a MAC for this
use.

What do you all use PC's or MAC. Do any of you have dedicated system
just for working with your images?


*******************************************************

"Les livres font les époques et les nations,
commes les époques et les nations font les livres."

_Mélanges littéraires_
Jean-Jacques Ampère
(1800-1864)

More about : digitial darkroom

Anonymous
December 11, 2004 5:27:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I use a PC and Win XP pro, and the best thing I ever did was upgrade
recently to a 3.0 GHz ht P4. The secret seems to be the hyperthreading CPU ,
it makes the system much more responsive even when it's crunching some
serious numbers (applying a digital filter or converting RAW to jpg, for
example). Of course a true dual CPU system would do just as well, probably
even better, but for my money the HT technology is a big winner. Get plenty
of RAM ( I have 1 gig, and might get another gig) and a big hard drive and
you should be quite happy with the performance. Make sure you get a video
card which provide high quality images, some are more into speed ( for
games) than quality and this can be a problem. I am using a Radeon 9600 and
it works well, I was also very happy with my previous Matrox card. I was NOT
so happy with some NVIDIA cards I had they were fast but a little fuzzy, but
that's a while ago, they might have corrected this often cited issue with
their cards.
I built my own system but most any quality pc supplier should be able to get
you what you need.

I don't see any huge advantage of a dedicated system for image editing, I
have several PCs but I usually keep my primary system on my favorite desk to
work at and use that system for whatever I am doing, image editing, web,
video editing, whatever. I do strongly believe in frequent backups, and in
fact my most valuable stuff is preserved off site, just in case of disaster.
--

Mikey S.
http://www.mike721.com


"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:o q0mr011m3vucb16872qqk9o2dec1nd8g7@4ax.com...
> I'm thinking about a dedicated system for just working on my digital
> images. What should I be considering. I'm currently using a PC and
> Win2K Pro but several people have suggest I consider a MAC for this
> use.
>
> What do you all use PC's or MAC. Do any of you have dedicated system
> just for working with your images?
>
>
> *******************************************************
>
> "Les livres font les époques et les nations,
> commes les époques et les nations font les livres."
>
> _Mélanges littéraires_
> Jean-Jacques Ampère
> (1800-1864)
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 5:27:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The advantage of a dedicated system is that the software is
pre-installed. This is very popular in the video editing world, where
much of the software isn't really all that stable. And, many people
are coming to digital (non-linear) editing from the analog editing
world, so they are not computer gurus. Video editing also takes a
pretty powerful PC.

For still photo editing, that is something else. Almost any PC sold
today is powerful enough for still editing. However, installing
software these days is not as easy as it used to be, as many packages
react unfavorably with other software. Still, it is a question of how
comfortable you are installing and trouble shooting software. Several
of the major suppliers (especially Dell and HP) do have package deals
with editing and camera software already installed.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 5:27:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I made the switch to a "digital darkroom" about six years ago. There are
several things to consider.

1. Either a Mac or PC will handle photos well. Make the decision based on
other criteria.
2. Just about any processor is adequate for still image editing. Video is
another matter.
3. Lots of memory helps, but I am able to manage with 256 Megs of internal
memory. I wish I had more. My PC is about 4 years old. My next computer
will probably have 1 Gig. You will need lots of storage space for your
images: hard drives, CDRs, DVD+/-Rs, etc.
4. The quality of your monitor is important. In the recent past, CRTs as
opposed to LCDs were (and maybe still are) the preferred device on which to
view your images. Certainly preferred if cost is a factor.
5. It is a bit of a trick to get the monitor to agree with the print (or
with other monitors for that matter). If you are serious, purchase monitor
calibration hardware and software.
6. A big consideration when it comes to printing is print longevity. "Dye"
based ink jet printers have a wider color gamut (print color looks slightly
better) than do "pigment' based inkjet printers, but the prints tend to fade
fairly rapidly. But the pigment based printers, with good print longevity,
have come along way in recent years. After some practice, I was able to
produce very good looking prints using an Epson 2200, a pigment based
printer.
7. Part of the process of getting the print to match the monitor is using a
profile for your printer. A bit of a hassle, but worth it in my opinion.
8. Photoshop is the standard upon which all image editing comments are
based. It is very expensive, but Photoshop Elements is reasonably priced
and can do most if not all of the things you will want to do, at least
initially. Why not some other brand? Other software is probably way more
capable than we are as retouchers, but most comments in books and articles
refer to Photoshop. There is confusion enough, without having to translate
comments for one software package into another. I understand that PS
Elements is not particularly user friendly, but it does prepare you to use
the full Photoshop package, should you decide to do so.

While all of the above is a bit of a burden, I must say that having spent
quite some time in a wet color darkroom (as an amateur), I find the digital
darkroom much more productive, repeatable, and convenient. If you have a
similar background I believe you will find the basics of color, density, and
contrast control quite easy in the digital world (as compared to the wet
darkroom), but that there a host of new subjects to master.

Good luck.

"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:o q0mr011m3vucb16872qqk9o2dec1nd8g7@4ax.com...
> I'm thinking about a dedicated system for just working on my digital
> images. What should I be considering. I'm currently using a PC and
> Win2K Pro but several people have suggest I consider a MAC for this
> use.
>
> What do you all use PC's or MAC. Do any of you have dedicated system
> just for working with your images?
>
>
> *******************************************************
>
> "Les livres font les époques et les nations,
> commes les époques et les nations font les livres."
>
> _Mélanges littéraires_
> Jean-Jacques Ampère
> (1800-1864)
December 11, 2004 5:29:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

John A. Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:o q0mr011m3vucb16872qqk9o2dec1nd8g7@4ax.com:

> What do you all use PC's or MAC. Do any of you have dedicated system
> just for working with your images?
>
>

In Windows you can accomplish the benefits of a dedicated system by simply
installing a new instance of windows (in a new directory). Then just don't
install anything you don't need to in that new instance.

Windows gives you a boot menu when you power up, and you select which
instance to load.

You can bypass most of your system type of utilities, like antivirus and
firewall, provided you also don't set up the internet. You can avoid office
software that may install other resource consuming components.

Bob

--
Delete the inverse SPAM to reply
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 6:30:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

John A. Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> writes:

> I'm thinking about a dedicated system for just working on my digital
> images. What should I be considering. I'm currently using a PC and
> Win2K Pro but several people have suggest I consider a MAC for this
> use.

I've worked with a number of graphics professionals who show strong
preferences for the MAC, but they've never been able to demonstrate
*why*. Their MACs are more expensive, have shorter lifespans, don't
interoperate very well with the rest of the world, and have just as
much trouble as the PCs.

> What do you all use PC's or MAC. Do any of you have dedicated system
> just for working with your images?

So I'm using a PC.

The requirements of working on images are generally what establishes
the requirements for system upgrades for me. It's not dedicated as
such; I do everything else on it too, except running my web services.
But the imaging requirements set the memory needed, hard drive space
needed, processor speed needed, graphics subsystem needed.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
December 11, 2004 7:49:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

If you are going to use Photoshop - and there is little reason to have a
dedicated system unless you are using Photoshop, There is no difference in
the working between PC and Mac for that program. If you are going to be
sharing files with a workgroup however, then you should consider (all of
you) switching to Mac. Other than that the only thing you get with a Mac is
a free ipod.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:o q0mr011m3vucb16872qqk9o2dec1nd8g7@4ax.com...
> I'm thinking about a dedicated system for just working on my digital
> images. What should I be considering. I'm currently using a PC and
> Win2K Pro but several people have suggest I consider a MAC for this
> use.
>
> What do you all use PC's or MAC. Do any of you have dedicated system
> just for working with your images?
>
>
> *******************************************************
>
> "Les livres font les époques et les nations,
> commes les époques et les nations font les livres."
>
> _Mélanges littéraires_
> Jean-Jacques Ampère
> (1800-1864)
December 11, 2004 8:39:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:o q0mr011m3vucb16872qqk9o2dec1nd8g7@4ax.com...
> I'm thinking about a dedicated system for just working on my digital
> images. What should I be considering. I'm currently using a PC and
> Win2K Pro but several people have suggest I consider a MAC for this
> use.
>
> What do you all use PC's or MAC. Do any of you have dedicated system
> just for working with your images?
>
>
> *******************************************************
>
> "Les livres font les époques et les nations,
> commes les époques et les nations font les livres."
>
> _Mélanges littéraires_
> Jean-Jacques Ampère
> (1800-1864)

All you need is Photoshop. Use Adobe Gamma to adjust monitor gamma and use
camera/printer color profile. There is no difference on which platform you
use. I have a Windows XP desktop and Powerbook. I use the XP desktop for all
the works. I don't see a need to use PB. When converting the finished
picture to the printer profile that my local Costco use, the color comes out
vivid and great.
Anonymous
December 11, 2004 9:25:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <oq0mr011m3vucb16872qqk9o2dec1nd8g7@4ax.com>, John A.
Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:

> I'm thinking about a dedicated system for just working on my digital
> images. What should I be considering. I'm currently using a PC and
> Win2K Pro but several people have suggest I consider a MAC for this
> use.
>
> What do you all use PC's or MAC. Do any of you have dedicated system
> just for working with your images?

Hehe, as if religious wars on film/digital weren't enough? :) 

Yes, I have two machines, because I work from home, and I really like a
quiet machine. The new iMac G5 fits that profile, it is a wonderful
machine.

I also have a double processor G5 tower model, because I do a lot of
photo editing for my web site (DOMAI.com warning nudity), and the extra
speed comes in handy. I would say that is only necessary for
professional use. I used a laptop a few years ago which was far slower
than my iMac, so...

--
- Eolake
--
email@maccreator.com
http://MacCreator.com
Anonymous
December 12, 2004 12:39:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

John A. Stovall wrote:

> I'm thinking about a dedicated system for just working on my digital
> images. What should I be considering. I'm currently using a PC and
> Win2K Pro but several people have suggest I consider a MAC for this
> use.
>
> What do you all use PC's or MAC. Do any of you have dedicated system
> just for working with your images?
>
I work on a Mac (MAC is a separate non-Macintosh computer term), but I
do everything on it. It's dedicated only in the sense that I talked
myself into getting a new G-5 dual processor @ 1.8 GHz. so that filters
and actions in PS would render quicker than my G-4, and it was 3 years
already since my last upgrade. It'll natively support two monitors, and
I am planning on adding a dedicated image monitor, keeping my LCD for
text and non PS or video stuff.

A beautiful machine. Self service (no tech support needed); easily
networked; but enough, no wish to start a big platform slog.

--
John McWilliams
Anonymous
December 12, 2004 9:58:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:o q0mr011m3vucb16872qqk9o2dec1nd8g7@4ax.com...
> What should I be considering. I'm currently using a PC and
> Win2K Pro but several people have suggest I consider a MAC for this
> use.


There is no advantage to using a mac. They will do the job equally as well
but have no advantage.
--
For Welsh Military Flying visit .......
www.groups.yahoo.com/group/V-A-S/
Anonymous
December 12, 2004 12:43:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <_ZRud.15$t1.2@newsfe5-win.ntli.net>, RustY©
<No.Mail@All.Thanks> wrote:

> There is no advantage to using a mac. They will do the job equally as well
> but have no advantage.

The advantage is that you have a reliable operating system not prone to
viruses and spyware/adware that doesn't look like it was designed by
Walt Disney.
Anonymous
December 12, 2004 10:41:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 14:27:57 GMT, John A. Stovall
<johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:

>I'm thinking about a dedicated system for just working on my digital
>images. What should I be considering. I'm currently using a PC and
>Win2K Pro but several people have suggest I consider a MAC for this
>use.
>
>What do you all use PC's or MAC. Do any of you have dedicated system
>just for working with your images?

I'm working on a PC with Windows XP Pro with SP2. The trick is to get
enough memory - I use a 2.4 GHz P4, but putting 2 GB of RAM on it was what
made it fly. Mine's not a dedicated box, but with enough RAM it's just not
an issue. Simply avoid Microsoft communications software (i.e. Outlook and
IE) and you'll keep your spyware/adware/worm problems down to a manageable
level.

Like RAM, you'll need lots of hard disk - as much as you can afford,
because it's cheap. I don't have writeable DVD for storage yet, but that
will be my next addition.

No matter whether you go LCD or CRT, calibrate and profile your monitor.
With a package like Optical from Colorvision it's simple, and really takes
the worry out of being close (to the colour you expected, I mean...)

Think about a dual monitor setup. There are a couple of ways you can do
this, I use a Matrox dual-head card. It's really handy in Photoshop to be
able to have your image on one screen and all your tool menus on the other.
With LCDs two monitors don't take much real estate - I use a Samsung 19" as
my primary and a Samsung 17 as my secondary. Works like a charm and takes
up less space than the Viewsonic 19" CRT I used before.

Don't scrimp on your printer. The Canon i9900 and the venerable Epson 2200
are both good bets. Both come with good profiles, at least for their own
brands of paper.

Get a colour-corrected light like the Ott-Lite for examining your prints.

IMO it's worth biting the bullet and buying a full legal load of Photoshop
CS. It's the standard, and there are tons of very cool (and even a few
very useful) plug-ins for it.

So all in all, your choice of a processing platform is the least of your
worries :-/

Paul Chefurka
Anonymous
December 13, 2004 4:39:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 12/12/04 5:43 pm, in article 121220040943300183%rag@nospam.techline.com,
"Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:

> In article <_ZRud.15$t1.2@newsfe5-win.ntli.net>, RustY©
> <No.Mail@All.Thanks> wrote:
>
>> There is no advantage to using a mac. They will do the job equally as well
>> but have no advantage.
>
> The advantage is that you have a reliable operating system not prone to
> viruses and spyware/adware that doesn't look like it was designed by
> Walt Disney.

Agreed. It just works.
Anonymous
December 13, 2004 12:29:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
>John A. Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>> I'm thinking about a dedicated system for just working on my digital
>> images. What should I be considering. I'm currently using a PC and
>> Win2K Pro but several people have suggest I consider a MAC for this
>> use.
>
>I've worked with a number of graphics professionals who show strong
>preferences for the MAC, but they've never been able to demonstrate
>*why*. Their MACs are more expensive, have shorter lifespans, don't
>interoperate very well with the rest of the world, and have just as
>much trouble as the PCs.

That is nonsense, of course. They're better designed, have lifespans
just as long, interoperate better than Windows machines, and are less
prone to problems than Windows machines.

>> What do you all use PC's or MAC. Do any of you have dedicated system
>> just for working with your images?
>
>So I'm using a PC.

No kidding?

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
Anonymous
December 13, 2004 12:29:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cpjned$l0f$1@bolt.sonic.net...
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>John A. Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> writes:
>>
>>> I'm thinking about a dedicated system for just working on my digital
>>> images. What should I be considering. I'm currently using a PC and
>>> Win2K Pro but several people have suggest I consider a MAC for this
>>> use.
>>
>>I've worked with a number of graphics professionals who show strong
>>preferences for the MAC, but they've never been able to demonstrate
>>*why*. Their MACs are more expensive, have shorter lifespans, don't
>>interoperate very well with the rest of the world, and have just as
>>much trouble as the PCs.
>
> That is nonsense, of course. They're better designed, have lifespans
> just as long, interoperate better than Windows machines, and are less
> prone to problems than Windows machines.
>
>>> What do you all use PC's or MAC. Do any of you have dedicated system
>>> just for working with your images?
>>
>>So I'm using a PC.
>
> No kidding?
>
> --
> Ray Fischer
> rfischer@sonic.net


Ain't life wonderful!! :)  If it weren't for Mac/PC, Windows/Linux,
Film/Digital, there wouldn't be that much around on the forum to provide
these spirited disagreements. Everybody doesn't like something and as I
said in a previous post, if everybody 'did' like the same thing, it sure
would be a dull world.

Don Dunlap
Anonymous
December 13, 2004 1:51:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 09:29:50 GMT, rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray
Fischer) wrote:

>David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>John A. Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> writes:
>>
>>> I'm thinking about a dedicated system for just working on my digital
>>> images. What should I be considering. I'm currently using a PC and
>>> Win2K Pro but several people have suggest I consider a MAC for this
>>> use.
>>
>>I've worked with a number of graphics professionals who show strong
>>preferences for the MAC, but they've never been able to demonstrate
>>*why*. Their MACs are more expensive, have shorter lifespans, don't
>>interoperate very well with the rest of the world, and have just as
>>much trouble as the PCs.
>
>That is nonsense, of course. They're better designed, have lifespans
>just as long, interoperate better than Windows machines, and are less
>prone to problems than Windows machines.

ever been involved in large mixed node support ? Mac's are the eternal
PITA ..
Anonymous
December 13, 2004 2:25:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>John A. Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> writes:
>>
>>> I'm thinking about a dedicated system for just working on my digital
>>> images. What should I be considering. I'm currently using a PC and
>>> Win2K Pro but several people have suggest I consider a MAC for this
>>> use.
>>
>>I've worked with a number of graphics professionals who show strong
>>preferences for the MAC, but they've never been able to demonstrate
>>*why*. Their MACs are more expensive, have shorter lifespans, don't
>>interoperate very well with the rest of the world, and have just as
>>much trouble as the PCs.
>
> That is nonsense, of course. They're better designed, have lifespans
> just as long, interoperate better than Windows machines, and are less
> prone to problems than Windows machines.

I've watched them be rotated through faster. I've helped the
sysadmins fight the problems. I've helped the graphics artists deal
with the interoperability issues. All those things are actual
experiences out of my life at a mixed Mac/Windows company.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
December 13, 2004 3:26:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 14:27:57 GMT, John A. Stovall
<johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:

>I'm thinking about a dedicated system for just working on my digital
>images. What should I be considering. I'm currently using a PC and
>Win2K Pro but several people have suggest I consider a MAC for this
>use.
>
>What do you all use PC's or MAC. Do any of you have dedicated system
>just for working with your images?

Just to keep things neat, if you own a Canon, choose Mac, Nikon choose
a PC. I have only anecdotal evidence to support this, but my suspicion
is there is a higher ratio of Canon vs Nikon ownership for Mac users
compared to PC users.

By the same analysis, PC users also have deeper voices, are less
likely to cross-dress and don't wear skin-tight black ploar-neck
sweaters with black pants and matching black IPOD that smells of
pansies.

All that aside, if you are not prepared to expend the effort required
to defend your PC from Virus, Worm and Service Pack attacks then go
for the Mac. Black sweaters can be purchased online from Benetton:

www.benetton.com/

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
December 13, 2004 5:18:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

> I've watched [Macs] be rotated through faster [than PCs]. I've
> helped the
> sysadmins fight the problems. I've helped the graphics artists deal
> with the interoperability issues. All those things are actual
> experiences out of my life at a mixed Mac/Windows company.

My experience as IT support in a small publishing company pretty much
matches David's. I see no substantial difference between Mac and PC
utility beyond the personal preference of each end-user. So far XP
and OS X seem to be equally stable in our production environment. And
one can't deny that PC hardware is cheaper! That said, I personally
like the OS X GUI a little better than any of the Windows incarnations
(though I like Win better than OS 9...).
Anonymous
December 13, 2004 9:29:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <5fpqr0t6k3jtf0pcqqmargpqdgkm85f5u6@4ax.com>,
imbsysop <imbsysop@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 09:29:50 GMT, rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray
>Fischer) wrote:

>>That is nonsense, of course. They're better designed, have lifespans
>>just as long, interoperate better than Windows machines, and are less
>>prone to problems than Windows machines.
>
>ever been involved in large mixed node support ? Mac's are the eternal
>PITA ..

That's not my experience at all. Being UNIX machines, they're much
friendlier in hetrogenous environments IME. They handle nfs natively, have
an X server supplied as standard, have a decent ssh supplied as standard,
can talk to lpr printers, etc. etc.

If you have a Windows-only monoculture, it may be different, but for
heavyweight computing stuff, Windows simply isn't up to it. I work in the
EDA industry, and the industry as a whole had a brief flirtation with
Windows a few years ago, for the low cost, fast hardware, before quickly
largely dumping it in favour of Linux on the same hardware, because it
quickly became apparent that Windows just wasn't up to the big simulation
jobs that Linux and Solaris could handle with ease - at best it was vastly
slower than Linux on the same hardware, but typically it just failed to
work. Their implementations of standard tools, such as make, were really
quite dreadful, too.

And, of course, the was the whole thing of trying to do builds using SMB to
the fileserver - if you thought nfs was ropey, doing the same job via SMB
is enough to make a grown man cry.

Compared to this, doing the occasional stuff from home on my iBook was a
breeze - even though there were specific build configs for only Linux,
Solaris, HPUX and Windows, OS X is close enough to Linux in user space that
it pretty much all just worked. I could also get remote GUI sessions going
by using X over an ssh tunnel through the firewall, which is trivial to do
on a Mac, but a world of pain to get working on Windows.
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 9:12:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 14:27:57 GMT, in rec.photo.digital John A. Stovall
<johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:

>I'm thinking about a dedicated system for just working on my digital
>images. What should I be considering. I'm currently using a PC and
>Win2K Pro but several people have suggest I consider a MAC for this
>use.
>
>What do you all use PC's or MAC. Do any of you have dedicated system
>just for working with your images?

Just my home or Work PCs.

If you are the one going to use it, what are you comfortable with using and
administering? Do you know Macs, is there going to a learning curve to do
both? If you use a PC are you going to buy all new software for it, or use
what you have on your current system? Is there some burning reason to move
to a Mac?

I'm presenting the pragmatic approach. If there isn't a real need I would
tend to lean to what you know and can be a bit cheaper. If however there is
any skill building thoughts to consider for future employment, that is
something different.

________________________________________________________
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
http://EdwardGRuf.com
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 10:26:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
>rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) writes:
>> David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:

>>>I've worked with a number of graphics professionals who show strong
>>>preferences for the MAC, but they've never been able to demonstrate
>>>*why*. Their MACs are more expensive, have shorter lifespans, don't
>>>interoperate very well with the rest of the world, and have just as
>>>much trouble as the PCs.
>>
>> That is nonsense, of course. They're better designed, have lifespans
>> just as long, interoperate better than Windows machines, and are less
>> prone to problems than Windows machines.
>
>I've watched them be rotated through faster.

Why?

> I've helped the
>sysadmins fight the problems.

What problems?

> I've helped the graphics artists deal
>with the interoperability issues.

What "interoperability issues"?

> All those things are actual
>experiences out of my life at a mixed Mac/Windows company.

I use Macs and Windows at a mixed Mac/Windows company. The Macs
are easier.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
!