Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Mushrooming Storage Needs

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
May 9, 2005 9:56:09 AM

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

Lately I have begun using a Monaco color management system (alot of work but
so far an improvement over monitor only profiling) which generates
individual paper/printer profiles, essentially a unique color space for each
profile you create. When you want to print to a particular printer/paper
combination significant adjustments are usually required from the baseline
AdobeRGB color space such that the image should be saved as an entirely new
file. Therefore in addition to the raw/nef file from my D70 I have a
PSD/multilayered image in AdobeRGB and, if I choose, another
PSD/multilayered image in an individually profiled printer/paper color space
(more if the image is to be printed on more than one printer/paper
combination). One might also have reason to create a jpeg or tif version of
the image. That can total 150mbs or more per image should one choose to
store all the different versions of the image. A single sided DVD will only
hold 20-30 such images.

Today's DVD is tomorrow's floppy diskette.

As sensor pixel counts go up, or if one is using high resolution film scans,
the mbs per image expand exponentially. I used to think that the coming
HD-DVDs and Blu-ray DVDs were overkill. In fact in just a few years
terrabyte level storage will seem the bare minimum because it is a lot
easier to keep track of a few big discs (or whatever storage morphs into)
than many small ones. And whether one has a few giant discs or many smaller
ones keeping track of what is on any particular disc, let alone where that
disc is stored, becomes ever more difficult.

Sifting through so many mbs of stored images is an object lesson in just how
slow today's data storage/retrieval and computer processing really are
compared to where they need to be. I still remember thinking how awesomely
fast my 386sx seemed compared to 286 pcs . . .

More about : mushrooming storage

Anonymous
May 9, 2005 9:56:10 AM

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

I was a fool recently to think I didn't need a DVD writer on my new 80GB
laptop. I recently archived all my 5 years of 3MP pics & a few months of
6MP RAW images on CD & it was a mess. The old HD in a USB enclosure will
soon be jam packed. Ack thphphpt!
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 9:56:10 AM

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

"birdman" <apquilts@pacbell.net> writes:
> Therefore in addition to the raw/nef file from my D70 I have a
> PSD/multilayered image in AdobeRGB and, if I choose, another
> PSD/multilayered image in an individually profiled printer/paper color space
> (more if the image is to be printed on more than one printer/paper
> combination). One might also have reason to create a jpeg or tif version of
> the image. That can total 150mbs or more per image should one choose to
> store all the different versions of the image.

Something is wrong with the software scheme here. You shouldn't have
to store all those intermediate versions in full glory. Think of what
actually happened to the NEF file on its way to the printer. It got
turned a PSD file, which is a purely mechanical process. Then it got
a bunch of human editing, very painstaking work but in data storage
terms can be represented as the coordinates of a maybe few hundred
mouse clicks and stuff. Then it got combined with the static color
profile of some printer or monitor, again completely automated.

Basically, with well-thought-out software, you would only need to
store the NEF file plus a few kilobytes of info needed to recreate
those final profiled PSD's. Plus you might want a JPEG (maybe 1 MB)
for convenient viewing of the end result.

It's true, though, that it's often easier to just throw more hardware
at the problem, which means more storage in this case. Yeah, you're
probably past the point where typical desktop storage and DVD drives
make sense, and you want to look at a RAID system and Ultrium or
comparable archive media. Maybe you want to hang out on
comp.arch.storage for a while.
Related resources
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 9:56:10 AM

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

In article <ZXCfe.14781$J12.8871@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
"birdman" <apquilts@pacbell.net> wrote:

> Lately I have begun using a Monaco color management system (alot of work but
> so far an improvement over monitor only profiling) which generates
> individual paper/printer profiles, essentially a unique color space for each
> profile you create. When you want to print to a particular printer/paper
> combination significant adjustments are usually required from the baseline
> AdobeRGB color space such that the image should be saved as an entirely new
> file. Therefore in addition to the raw/nef file from my D70 I have a
> PSD/multilayered image in AdobeRGB and, if I choose, another
> PSD/multilayered image in an individually profiled printer/paper color space
> (more if the image is to be printed on more than one printer/paper
> combination). One might also have reason to create a jpeg or tif version of
> the image. That can total 150mbs or more per image should one choose to
> store all the different versions of the image. A single sided DVD will only
> hold 20-30 such images.
>
> Today's DVD is tomorrow's floppy diskette.
>
> As sensor pixel counts go up, or if one is using high resolution film scans,
> the mbs per image expand exponentially. I used to think that the coming
> HD-DVDs and Blu-ray DVDs were overkill. In fact in just a few years
> terrabyte level storage will seem the bare minimum because it is a lot
> easier to keep track of a few big discs (or whatever storage morphs into)
> than many small ones. And whether one has a few giant discs or many smaller
> ones keeping track of what is on any particular disc, let alone where that
> disc is stored, becomes ever more difficult.
>
> Sifting through so many mbs of stored images is an object lesson in just how
> slow today's data storage/retrieval and computer processing really are
> compared to where they need to be. I still remember thinking how awesomely
> fast my 386sx seemed compared to 286 pcs . . .

You can back up to an external hard drive. 250+ GB doesn't cost much
anymore.

150Mb sounds excessive for a set of one photo. Why not save the final
results as JPEG? Once you've tailored an image for a specific hardware
device it's not much good for further editing anyway.
May 9, 2005 9:56:10 AM

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

birdman wrote:

> When you want to print to a particular
> printer/paper combination significant adjustments are usually required
> from the baseline AdobeRGB color space such that the image should be saved
> as an entirely new file.

Using profiles from cathy's profiles I haven't seen this. Now the canned
profiles that came with the printer were like you say.


> Therefore in addition to the raw/nef file from my
> D70 I have a PSD/multilayered image in AdobeRGB and, if I choose, another
> PSD/multilayered image in an individually profiled printer/paper color
> space (more if the image is to be printed on more than one printer/paper
> combination). One might also have reason to create a jpeg or tif version
> of the image.

I make one finished flattened tif and then use Qimage to deal with
conversions to printer profiles and upsampling for various outputs.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 9:56:10 AM

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

birdman wrote:

>
> Sifting through so many mbs of stored images is an object lesson in just how
> slow today's data storage/retrieval and computer processing really are
> compared to where they need to be. I still remember thinking how awesomely
> fast my 386sx seemed compared to 286 pcs . . .
>
>

The old saw about 'data automatically expands to fill all available
storage' is as true now as it was in the 1960s.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
May 9, 2005 9:56:11 AM

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

Paul Rubin wrote:


>
> Basically, with well-thought-out software, you would only need to
> store the NEF file plus a few kilobytes of info needed to recreate
> those final profiled PSD's.

Interesting statment, what software allows you to do this? Creating an
action in PS for each edit? I've found very few so straight forward through
the workflow, many are back and forth through the history folder typing
different edits till it's right. I still don't see any reason to store a
bunch of copies, a RAW and a final flattened TIF of the good ones is enough
along with the RAW's I'm not sure are good or not yet! :-)

--

Stacey
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 9:56:11 AM

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

Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> writes:
> You can back up to an external hard drive. 250+ GB doesn't cost much
> anymore.

Using HD's as long term archive media isn't that great an idea. And
assuming the OP is a pro photographer with (say) a million or so
images, 250GB doesn't begin to be enough. Even at just 10 MB per
image (the NEF by itself from a D2X is about that size) that's 10 TB.
This starts reaching towards needing enterprise-level storage
approaches which are different (and more expensive) than how things
are usually done with desktop computers.
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 9:56:11 AM

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

On 08 May 2005 23:14:18 -0700, Paul Rubin
<http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote:

> Something is wrong with the software scheme here. You shouldn't have
> to store all those intermediate versions in full glory. Think of what
> actually happened to the NEF file on its way to the printer. It got
> turned a PSD file, which is a purely mechanical process. Then it got
> a bunch of human editing, very painstaking work but in data storage
> terms can be represented as the coordinates of a maybe few hundred
> mouse clicks and stuff. Then it got combined with the static color
> profile of some printer or monitor, again completely automated.
>
> Basically, with well-thought-out software, you would only need to
> store the NEF file plus a few kilobytes of info needed to recreate
> those final profiled PSD's. Plus you might want a JPEG (maybe 1 MB)
> for convenient viewing of the end result.

That's a short term solution and a step in the right direction.
But are you sure it won't be software dependent? What if you, or
someone that inherits your archives wants to recreate some of your
photos 20 years from now. Is there any chance that the ability to
process the "few hundred mouse clicks and stuff" might depend on
having a working version of both the photo editing software last
used 15 years prior, as well as the same version of the originally
used OS with all the old service packs, patches, and maybe even some
replacement system files provided by the photo app.? I'm not saying
your idea isn't sound. Just that the implementation should be done
with care. Is there any current "well thought out software" that
has the capability you suggest? The concept is familiar, some
backup software doing a limited amount of it, and even more of it is
found in the version control software used for programming projects
and other editing systems.
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 9:56:11 AM

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

Paul Rubin wrote:
> "birdman" <apquilts@pacbell.net> writes:
>
>> Therefore in addition to the raw/nef file from my D70 I have a
>>PSD/multilayered image in AdobeRGB and, if I choose, another
>>PSD/multilayered image in an individually profiled printer/paper color space
>>(more if the image is to be printed on more than one printer/paper
>>combination). One might also have reason to create a jpeg or tif version of
>>the image. That can total 150mbs or more per image should one choose to
>>store all the different versions of the image.
>
>
> Something is wrong with the software scheme here. You shouldn't have
> to store all those intermediate versions in full glory. Think of what
> actually happened to the NEF file on its way to the printer. It got
> turned a PSD file, which is a purely mechanical process. Then it got
> a bunch of human editing, very painstaking work but in data storage
> terms can be represented as the coordinates of a maybe few hundred
> mouse clicks and stuff. Then it got combined with the static color
> profile of some printer or monitor, again completely automated.
>
> Basically, with well-thought-out software, you would only need to
> store the NEF file plus a few kilobytes of info needed to recreate
> those final profiled PSD's. Plus you might want a JPEG (maybe 1 MB)
> for convenient viewing of the end result.
>
> It's true, though, that it's often easier to just throw more hardware
> at the problem, which means more storage in this case. Yeah, you're
> probably past the point where typical desktop storage and DVD drives
> make sense, and you want to look at a RAID system and Ultrium or
> comparable archive media. Maybe you want to hang out on
> comp.arch.storage for a while.

In these days of HD storage costing less than $.50 a gigabyte, adding
storage isn't a major expense.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 9:56:12 AM

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

Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> writes:
> > Basically, with well-thought-out software, you would only need to
> > store the NEF file plus a few kilobytes of info needed to recreate
> > those final profiled PSD's.
>
> Interesting statment, what software allows you to do this?

Nonexistent, hypothetical software designed to deal with this problem,
hence the word "would" in the above sentence.

> Creating an action in PS for each edit? I've found very few so
> straight forward through the workflow, many are back and forth
> through the history folder typing different edits till it's right.

PS would need to have some kind of logging feature added and a way to
re-import the NEF and re-apply the edits.
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 9:56:12 AM

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

ASAAR <caught@22.com> writes:
> That's a short term solution and a step in the right direction.
> But are you sure it won't be software dependent? What if you, or
> someone that inherits your archives wants to recreate some of your
> photos 20 years from now. Is there any chance that the ability to
> process the "few hundred mouse clicks and stuff" might depend on
> having a working version of both the photo editing software last
> used 15 years prior, as well as the same version of the originally
> used OS with all the old service packs, patches, and maybe even some
> replacement system files provided by the photo app.?

It should not depend on the OS or service packs. It would depend on
the image editor but there should be documented and preferably
standardized formats for representing the edits. (This is all
hypothetical).

> I'm not saying your idea isn't sound. Just that the implementation
> should be done with care. Is there any current "well thought out
> software" that has the capability you suggest?

I don't know of anything like that for images, but programs like
Audacity do stuff along these lines for audio editing (think of
Audacity as being like Photoshop for sound recordings). High
resolution audio recordings use about 2 GB per hour (24 bit 96 khz
stereo), making it potentially even more storage hungry than
photography. And then there's video...
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 9:56:12 AM

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

Stacey wrote:
> Paul Rubin wrote:
>
>
>
>>Basically, with well-thought-out software, you would only need to
>>store the NEF file plus a few kilobytes of info needed to recreate
>>those final profiled PSD's.
>
>
> Interesting statment, what software allows you to do this? Creating an
> action in PS for each edit? I've found very few so straight forward through
> the workflow, many are back and forth through the history folder typing
> different edits till it's right. I still don't see any reason to store a
> bunch of copies, a RAW and a final flattened TIF of the good ones is enough
> along with the RAW's I'm not sure are good or not yet! :-)
>
I am really rather surprised PS CS doesn't already do this. I believe
the PSD format actually has this information stored in the file, so it
should be easy to do. It is something to look for as files grow.

--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 9:56:13 AM

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

On 08 May 2005 23:56:16 -0700, Paul Rubin
<http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote:

>> Is there any chance that the ability to
>> process the "few hundred mouse clicks and stuff" might depend on
>> having a working version of both the photo editing software last
>> used 15 years prior, as well as the same version of the originally
>> used OS with all the old service packs, patches, and maybe even some
>> replacement system files provided by the photo app.?
>
> It should not depend on the OS or service packs. It would depend on
> the image editor but there should be documented and preferably
> standardized formats for representing the edits. (This is all
> hypothetical).

You may be right, but my wariness is tempered by past experience a
number of years ago with operating system crashes during printing.
They happened to be due to buggy video drivers (not written by
Microsoft, but by the video board makers) and the fact that
Microsoft used them to assist in generating printer output.
Temporary workarounds would be to change the video screen
resolution, number of colors used, etc. I hope the video and
printing systems are now isolated, but I haven't kept up with that.
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 9:56:13 AM

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

Paul Rubin wrote:
> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>>>Basically, with well-thought-out software, you would only need to
>>>store the NEF file plus a few kilobytes of info needed to recreate
>>>those final profiled PSD's.
>>
>>Interesting statment, what software allows you to do this?
>
>
> Nonexistent, hypothetical software designed to deal with this problem,
> hence the word "would" in the above sentence.
>
>
>>Creating an action in PS for each edit? I've found very few so
>>straight forward through the workflow, many are back and forth
>>through the history folder typing different edits till it's right.
>
>
> PS would need to have some kind of logging feature added and a way to
> re-import the NEF and re-apply the edits.

Actually, it already does. The 'undo' information could be stored...


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 11:26:09 AM

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

Paul Furman wrote:

> I was a fool recently to think I didn't need a DVD writer on my new 80GB
> laptop. I recently archived all my 5 years of 3MP pics & a few months of
> 6MP RAW images on CD & it was a mess. The old HD in a USB enclosure will
> soon be jam packed. Ack thphphpt!

I advise anyone buying a computer these days to get a DVD burner instead
of CD burner; the 4.7GB blanks are now running about the same price as
700MB CDs, and a DVD+/-RW/RAM/DL drive (basically covering every current
consumer optical standard) can be had for as little as $75 (standard
ATAPI internal - laptop models will cost a bit more :) 

Network drives are now becoming more popular, and more common. Instead
of a USB or Firewire interface (or in addition to them), they're
external drives with an ethernet port that you just plug into your
switch or broadband router, and access from any machine on the network,
or even wirelessly if you're rigged for WiFi. They're getting close to
other types of external HDDs in price, and like those devices, they're
based on standard IDE drives, so they're easy to upgrade as drive space
becomes cheaper.


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0518-5, 05/08/2005
Tested on: 5/9/2005 12:26:04 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 12:20:48 PM

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

Matt Ion wrote:

> Paul Furman wrote:
>
>> I was a fool recently to think I didn't need a DVD writer on my new
>> 80GB laptop. I recently archived all my 5 years of 3MP pics & a few
>> months of 6MP RAW images on CD & it was a mess. The old HD in a USB
>> enclosure will soon be jam packed. Ack thphphpt!
>
>
> I advise anyone buying a computer these days to get a DVD burner instead
> of CD burner; the 4.7GB blanks are now running about the same price as
> 700MB CDs, and a DVD+/-RW/RAM/DL drive (basically covering every current
> consumer optical standard) can be had for as little as $75 (standard
> ATAPI internal - laptop models will cost a bit more :) 


The Dell laptop item for my model is $250!! I figure an external will be
faster better specs anyways. I doubt I could get a third party internal
drive to fit the Dell?
<http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/ProductDetail.aspx?T...;
DELL 8X/4X/8X DVD+RW and 24X/16X/24X CD-RW
Cache / Buffer Size: 2 MB
Data Transfer Rate: Burst Rate: Up to 33.3 MBps (Ultra DMA/33 Mode 2)
Interface Type: EIDE/ATAPI
Mean Time Before Failure: 60,000 hours
Read Speed: CD: 24X; DVD: 8X
Rewrite Speed: CD-RW: 16X; DVD±RW: 5X
Write Speed: CD-R: 24X; DVD±R: 8X

Anyone understand those specs and what I should look for in an external
burner? I've got a CD burner in the laptop.

PS 80GB is the biggest HD available for this laptop.

>
> Network drives are now becoming more popular, and more common. Instead
> of a USB or Firewire interface (or in addition to them), they're
> external drives with an ethernet port that you just plug into your
> switch or broadband router, and access from any machine on the network,
> or even wirelessly if you're rigged for WiFi. They're getting close to
> other types of external HDDs in price, and like those devices, they're
> based on standard IDE drives, so they're easy to upgrade as drive space
> becomes cheaper.
>
>
> ---
> avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
> Virus Database (VPS): 0518-5, 05/08/2005
> Tested on: 5/9/2005 12:26:04 AM
> avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
> http://www.avast.com
>
>
>

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 1:43:31 PM

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

birdman <apquilts@pacbell.net> wrote:

> Lately I have begun using a Monaco color management system (alot of
> work but so far an improvement over monitor only profiling) which
> generates individual paper/printer profiles, essentially a unique
> color space for each profile you create. When you want to print to a
> particular printer/paper combination significant adjustments are
> usually required from the baseline AdobeRGB color space such that
> the image should be saved as an entirely new file.

This is a very strange and rather bad workflow. Images should never
be saved in a printer colour space. It's a waste of disk space and a
waste of time. Also, most colour adjustments an be made on layers so
you don't need to save the whole file.

> That can total 150mbs or more per image should one choose to store
> all the different versions of the image. A single sided DVD will
> only hold 20-30 such images.

Right, but you can buy a stand-alone terabyte file server for not very
much, and that's about 7000 such images.

Andrew.
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 3:14:46 PM

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

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:Vf2dnQKYxIRD4uLfRVn-sA@speakeasy.net...
> Matt Ion wrote:
>
> > Paul Furman wrote:
> >
> >> I was a fool recently to think I didn't need a DVD writer on my new
> >> 80GB laptop. I recently archived all my 5 years of 3MP pics & a few
> >> months of 6MP RAW images on CD & it was a mess. The old HD in a USB
> >> enclosure will soon be jam packed. Ack thphphpt!
> >
> >
> > I advise anyone buying a computer these days to get a DVD burner instead
> > of CD burner; the 4.7GB blanks are now running about the same price as
> > 700MB CDs, and a DVD+/-RW/RAM/DL drive (basically covering every current
> > consumer optical standard) can be had for as little as $75 (standard
> > ATAPI internal - laptop models will cost a bit more :) 
>
>
> The Dell laptop item for my model is $250!! I figure an external will be
> faster better specs anyways. I doubt I could get a third party internal
> drive to fit the Dell?
>
<http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/ProductDetail.aspx?T...
=313-2608&spagenum=&category_id=5692&brandid=&k=&c=us&l=en&cs=19&mnf=&prst=&
prEnd=&mnfsku=&orderby=&searchtype=&pageb4search=&page=productlisting.aspx&i
nstock=&refurbished=>
> DELL 8X/4X/8X DVD+RW and 24X/16X/24X CD-RW
> Cache / Buffer Size: 2 MB
> Data Transfer Rate: Burst Rate: Up to 33.3 MBps (Ultra DMA/33 Mode 2)
> Interface Type: EIDE/ATAPI
> Mean Time Before Failure: 60,000 hours
> Read Speed: CD: 24X; DVD: 8X
> Rewrite Speed: CD-RW: 16X; DVD±RW: 5X
> Write Speed: CD-R: 24X; DVD±R: 8X
>
> Anyone understand those specs and what I should look for in an external
> burner? I've got a CD burner in the laptop.

I recently purchased an LG firewire/USB2 DVD burner from Sam's for under
$130. It writes -R, +R, -RW, +RW, Dual Layer and CDs. R speed is 16x, RW
speed is 8x, and dial layer speed is 4X.

Ron

> PS 80GB is the biggest HD available for this laptop.
>
> >
> > Network drives are now becoming more popular, and more common. Instead
> > of a USB or Firewire interface (or in addition to them), they're
> > external drives with an ethernet port that you just plug into your
> > switch or broadband router, and access from any machine on the network,
> > or even wirelessly if you're rigged for WiFi. They're getting close to
> > other types of external HDDs in price, and like those devices, they're
> > based on standard IDE drives, so they're easy to upgrade as drive space
> > becomes cheaper.
> >
> >
> > ---
> > avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
> > Virus Database (VPS): 0518-5, 05/08/2005
> > Tested on: 5/9/2005 12:26:04 AM
> > avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
> > http://www.avast.com
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Paul Furman
> http://www.edgehill.net/1
> san francisco native plants
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 3:20:14 PM

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

No worry.
1) HD DVDs are coming the end of this year - easily 30+ GB of
storage on an optical disc.
2) HDs are dirt cheap. Buy up a few 500GB HDs and mirror them for
backups of the master images. Easy to maintain all of your work live
w/o having to backup often to optical discs. Some of the latest (eg.
Ximeta, Buffalo, Maxtor, etc.) even allow remote TCP/IP access over the
internet, so you can easily backup and restore from these drives
anywhere your primary PC is (eg. when travelling or at client's office).
The time savings of having a HD backup rather than optical is
significant.
3) www.phaseone.com www.betterlight.com
er. join the crowd for high-megapixel cameras. The little
consumer level dSLRS at 16MP or less are a 'joke' in terms of creating
monster image files vs. what's already been out for years and years and
in use by pros everywhere. How about a 10,000 x 10,000 pixel 100MP
digital image file instead? Try storing that! (more like one small HD
per image!)
Best to examine the workflows of these users first, understand
how they've optimized their storage and workflows, then figure out
what's good for you on the low end.
May 9, 2005 3:53:35 PM

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

"birdman" <apquilts@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:ZXCfe.14781$J12.8871@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> Lately I have begun using a Monaco color management system (alot of work
> but so far an improvement over monitor only profiling) which generates
> individual paper/printer profiles, essentially a unique color space for
> each profile you create. When you want to print to a particular
> printer/paper combination significant adjustments are usually required
> from the baseline AdobeRGB color space such that the image should be saved
> as an entirely new file. Therefore in addition to the raw/nef file from my
> D70 I have a PSD/multilayered image in AdobeRGB and, if I choose, another
> PSD/multilayered image in an individually profiled printer/paper color
> space (more if the image is to be printed on more than one printer/paper
> combination). One might also have reason to create a jpeg or tif version
> of the image. That can total 150mbs or more per image should one choose to
> store all the different versions of the image. A single sided DVD will
> only hold 20-30 such images.
>
> Today's DVD is tomorrow's floppy diskette.
>
> As sensor pixel counts go up, or if one is using high resolution film
> scans, the mbs per image expand exponentially. I used to think that the
> coming HD-DVDs and Blu-ray DVDs were overkill. In fact in just a few years
> terrabyte level storage will seem the bare minimum because it is a lot
> easier to keep track of a few big discs (or whatever storage morphs into)
> than many small ones. And whether one has a few giant discs or many
> smaller ones keeping track of what is on any particular disc, let alone
> where that disc is stored, becomes ever more difficult.
>
> Sifting through so many mbs of stored images is an object lesson in just
> how slow today's data storage/retrieval and computer processing really are
> compared to where they need to be. I still remember thinking how awesomely
> fast my 386sx seemed compared to 286 pcs . . .
Hi there.

This all seems a bit complicated and needless duplication to me. As someone
said earlier, why not just store the original NEF and one Tiff of the
completed Image.

Why save an additional version which is only of use for printing in one
specific printer onto one specific paper. What happens if your printer
dies, or that type of paper gets withdrawn, or is "Updated" by the
manufacturer.

With your system you seem to be saving multiple copies of your Printer
Profile / Working Space every time you save a Printed Image, and that does
seem rather pointless.

Why would anyone really want to save every step taken in PS between an
original NEF and a finished Tiff. I can understand why someone would want
to do it, now and again, when doing something very different from their
usual, but not for every Print.

I have got thousands of colour negatives in my files, but I have not kept
any details about Enlarger Height, Colour Head Settings, Exposure Times, or
Shading and Burning details. Even if I had, and I had not switched to
Digital, they would be of extremely limited use, simply because consumables
like Paper and Chemicals are now different from what they were, assuming I
could still manage to buy them.
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 3:53:36 PM

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

Roy wrote:
>
> Why would anyone really want to save every step taken in PS between an
> original NEF and a finished Tiff.

It's a great practice while working to pull up iterations & make sure
you haven't gone too far but I wouldn't bother archiving all that. I
just save a jpeg at very high quality & the RAW original.

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 4:14:30 PM

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

Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> writes:
> The Dell laptop item for my model is $250!! I figure an external will
> be faster better specs anyways. I doubt I could get a third party
> internal drive to fit the Dell?

http://tinyurl.com/9cbvh shows a bunch of them. You'll probably have
to remove the bezel from your Dell cd burner and put it on the new burner.

You could also try ebay--search for "dell laptop dvd burner" or something.

> Anyone understand those specs and what I should look for in an
> external burner? I've got a CD burner in the laptop.

If your laptop supports USB 2.0 hi-speed, just get a generic USB2 burner.

> PS 80GB is the biggest HD available for this laptop.

You should be able to put in a 100GB drive if you really want to.
And there's always external drives.
May 9, 2005 4:30:10 PM

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

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:p 2Ffe.17225$cZ6.2760@fe02.lga...
> birdman wrote:
>
>>
>> Sifting through so many mbs of stored images is an object lesson in just
>> how slow today's data storage/retrieval and computer processing really
>> are compared to where they need to be. I still remember thinking how
>> awesomely fast my 386sx seemed compared to 286 pcs . . .
>
> The old saw about 'data automatically expands to fill all available
> storage' is as true now as it was in the 1960s.
>
>
> --
> Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net


I thought that one was actually about "Work expanding to fill the available
Time"

I much prefer "Work is the curse of the Drinking Classes"

Roy G
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 4:30:11 PM

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

Roy wrote:
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:p 2Ffe.17225$cZ6.2760@fe02.lga...
>
>>birdman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Sifting through so many mbs of stored images is an object lesson in just
>>>how slow today's data storage/retrieval and computer processing really
>>>are compared to where they need to be. I still remember thinking how
>>>awesomely fast my 386sx seemed compared to 286 pcs . . .
>>
>>The old saw about 'data automatically expands to fill all available
>>storage' is as true now as it was in the 1960s.
>>
>>
>>--
>>Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
>
>
>
> I thought that one was actually about "Work expanding to fill the available
> Time"
>
> I much prefer "Work is the curse of the Drinking Classes"
>
> Roy G
>
>
Well, IT has its own set of sayings.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
May 9, 2005 4:58:35 PM

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

ASAAR wrote:

>
> That's a short term solution and a step in the right direction.
> But are you sure it won't be software dependent? What if you, or
> someone that inherits your archives wants to recreate some of your
> photos 20 years from now. Is there any chance that the ability to
> process the "few hundred mouse clicks and stuff" might depend on
> having a working version of both the photo editing software last
> used 15 years prior, as well as the same version of the originally
> used OS with all the old service packs, patches, and maybe even some
> replacement system files provided by the photo app.?


Good point and another reason I'd never just save RAW files either. You have
no way of knowing if you'll be able to convert those in the future (even if
you keep the software, will there be a machine and OS to run it on?) while
I can't imagine that the standard flattened uncompressed Tiff format would
ever be a problem and is lossless.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 5:02:25 PM

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

Thanks!

Paul Rubin wrote:
> Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> writes:
>
>>The Dell laptop item for my model is $250!! I figure an external will
>>be faster better specs anyways. I doubt I could get a third party
>>internal drive to fit the Dell?
>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/9cbvh shows a bunch of them. You'll probably have
> to remove the bezel from your Dell cd burner and put it on the new burner.
>
> You could also try ebay--search for "dell laptop dvd burner" or something.
>
>
>>Anyone understand those specs and what I should look for in an
>>external burner? I've got a CD burner in the laptop.
>
>
> If your laptop supports USB 2.0 hi-speed, just get a generic USB2 burner.
>
>
>>PS 80GB is the biggest HD available for this laptop.
>
>
> You should be able to put in a 100GB drive if you really want to.
> And there's always external drives.

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 6:03:02 PM

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

Stacey wrote:
> ASAAR wrote:
>
>
>> That's a short term solution and a step in the right direction.
>>But are you sure it won't be software dependent? What if you, or
>>someone that inherits your archives wants to recreate some of your
>>photos 20 years from now. Is there any chance that the ability to
>>process the "few hundred mouse clicks and stuff" might depend on
>>having a working version of both the photo editing software last
>>used 15 years prior, as well as the same version of the originally
>>used OS with all the old service packs, patches, and maybe even some
>>replacement system files provided by the photo app.?
>
>
>
> Good point and another reason I'd never just save RAW files either. You have
> no way of knowing if you'll be able to convert those in the future (even if
> you keep the software, will there be a machine and OS to run it on?) while
> I can't imagine that the standard flattened uncompressed Tiff format would
> ever be a problem and is lossless.

I feel quite confident that you will be able to hand a computer of 10
years down the road ANY kind of image file, and expect it to figure it
out, and display it. If not, I will be very surprised, and disappointed.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 9:33:50 PM

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

On Mon, 09 May 2005 12:30:10 GMT, in rec.photo.digital , "Roy"
<royphoty@iona-guesthouse.co.uk> in
<mJIfe.3257$wk4.2225@newsfe3-win.ntli.net> wrote:

>"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
>news:p 2Ffe.17225$cZ6.2760@fe02.lga...
>> birdman wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Sifting through so many mbs of stored images is an object lesson in just
>>> how slow today's data storage/retrieval and computer processing really
>>> are compared to where they need to be. I still remember thinking how
>>> awesomely fast my 386sx seemed compared to 286 pcs . . .
>>
>> The old saw about 'data automatically expands to fill all available
>> storage' is as true now as it was in the 1960s.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
>
>
>I thought that one was actually about "Work expanding to fill the available
>Time"

One of Parkinson's Laws.

>I much prefer "Work is the curse of the Drinking Classes"
>
>Roy G
>

--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 4:40:12 AM

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

David Chien wrote:

> No worry.
> 1) HD DVDs are coming the end of this year - easily 30+ GB of storage
> on an optical disc.

Impractical unless the format war is settled over HD vs. BlueRay. Until
one clear standard is selected, or someone comes up with a way to put
support for both into one drive, manufacturers and consumers will both
shy away, and the price will remain prohibitive until mass-market status
is reached.

> The time savings of having a HD backup rather than optical is
> significant.

True, but the portability, and more important, storability of optical is
significantly better than HDD. Backing up to DVD and then storing those
away in a safe place is a lot more convenient.


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0519-0, 05/09/2005
Tested on: 5/9/2005 5:40:06 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
!