At 01:30 PM 12/19/98 -0800, John P. wrote:
[snip]
>Preparing a
>"digital darkroom" is, in many ways, much more expensive and difficult than
>an emulsion based darkroom. A high quality photo printer is only the
>beginning. Serious software is required if you are going to take this to
>heart. While expensive, the money is only the beginning. The learning
>curve is long and steep. Be prepared to commit a lot of time to whichever
>package you choose.
Indeed. PhotoShop seems to be the minimum for serious users (although check
out the new Satori PhotoXL at www.i-us.com!). If you're more of a dilettante,
PhotoPaint (or any one of its clones) isn't a bad start, though. PS still
seems to have the best algorithms for image manipulation, though.
[snip]
>Storage is a substantial matter. Full frame scans can easily exceed 20 mega
>bytes in size, stacked and manipulated images much larger. You can fill a
>large HD in a NewYork minute at that clip. Some form of removable mass
>storage media is required. Tomoko seems very pleased with her MO drive and
>I'm sure they work well. CD-R or CD-RW has a growing market share, and the
>Zip drive continues to thrive.
I use CD-ROM and CD-RW in tandem. CD-ROMs are dirt cheap, CD-RWs more
expensive, but together offer virtually unlimited storage.
>Finally, the raw horsepower needed to handle large, high quality images
>files is impressive. I put my 350MhZ, 64MB Wintel box on its knees when I
>start working more than 3-4 images at a time.
Yikes! The box I'm getting for that type of work is a 450 MHz Pentium II with
384 Mbyte of RAM. I just used one at a client's, and it's SWEET. My po' l'il
200 MHz Pentium with 128M barely handles two images at a time if they're of any
size at all.
Yeah, it's more expensive -- but it's also more flexible (and you don't have to
deal with potentially toxic chemicals...)
Garth
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|