[Ben_Edict]

How on earth did we manage to fill walls, magazines, newspapers, albums etc with simple rolls of film? The level of complexity brought to photography by the computer is mind boggling. How much of this extra super dupery is actually useful rather than merely smart, what does it actually add to the craft of of photography at the end of the day?

Don't be mistaken, we also had light tables, loupes, densitometers, large archival storage, archival sleeves, cleaning agents, cotton gloves, standard lighting etc. And for newspapers you often used BW film and needed a darkroom to print rushes and then to print the final image for reproduction. And if you have ever been at a fashion shoot in film days, you would have seen the couriers heading for the next plane (litteraly, as in some well-known shooting locations like the Canary Isles, there wasn't a suitable lab at hand) to a pro lab just to make some rush development of film snippets, before the real films were delivered and the developped accordingly to those trials.

It changed with computers, but it is not necessarily much more complex or affords more resources.

One positive factor is storage space: My current RAID 6 tower can store probably around 300,000 RAWs, but only needs the space of app. 2,500 framed slides!

Ben

[gazonk]

One positive factor is storage space: My current RAID 6 tower can store probably around 300,000 RAWs, but only needs the space of app. 2,500 framed slides!

It's even better than that. I can probably squeeze 6 2.5" disk enclosures into the same space as I use to store 120 slides. With the largest 2.5" disks currently available, that amounts to 6TB - or roughly half a million K10D PEF files :-)

The saddest thing about digital is that people lose their pictures because they don't back them up, even though keeping them secure and safe from fire or theft is easier than it ever was, since you can have identical copies of your "negatives" stored in a different place.

[thibs]

Yep, bought a nas running raid1 with additional backup essentially for that reason.

[RobA_Oz]

Back on thread, I don't have an iPad either, but I wouldn't mind betting it becomes a standard bit of kit for digital SLR users sooner than a lot of people would like to believe.

In Australia, the biggest telco is Telstra. They used to be the Post Master General's office years ago. One of Telstra's senior executives made herself famous for 15 minutes by saying that Telstra would not be selling the iPhone because Apple had never made a phone before.

There is a (dwindling) band of people who waste a lot of energy hating Apple, but the fact remains that Apple is now bigger than Microsoft, and that's happened entirely because they sell things that a lot of people like and use. So, get over it and think about what's likely to happen rather than what you'd like to happen.

What's likely to happen is that someone will write an application for the iPad that allows you to use it to preview shots live, and control all the camera functions remotely. It'll be most useful firstly in a studio situation, but as screens get better in full sunlight, that will progress more and more into outdoor situations, too. Memory will get larger and less costly with every iPad iteration (and you should expect lots of those in short order - just consider how the iPhone has progressed).

Most importantly for photographers is that you'll be able to work in this way to the extent that you want, and you'll be able to edit easily on the spot. I reckon it is currently changing the way designers are thinking about camera features and functions right now, so the two are more likely to become integratable systems over the next five years or so. Regrettably, Canon and Nikon are more likely to get into this first, but you never know.

The man said Adobe and Aperture won't be available for the iPad, ever? Tell him he's dreaming.

[falconeye]

How on earth did we manage to fill walls, magazines, newspapers, albums etc with simple rolls of film? The level of complexity brought to photography by the computer is mind boggling.

It's a meme now that computers make compexity explode.

Because 99% of times, it is true. Think about simple paper work in the office and what it evolved into.

But there are exceptions:

E.g., doing company accounting is much easier now. Did you know that the term "calculator" used to mean an employee?

Another noteworthy exception is the replacement of the darkroom by computers. So, it is funny that you came up with exactly this example. Shows how selfsustaining the meme has become

[justinr]

Some quick points in answer to the answers so to speak.


With film it is doubtful that a fraction of the number of expousers now taken would have been made in the first place. Digital is so less forgiving than film we need to bracket like hell to ensure something useable is captured. When I was doing weddings in MF I was expected to take around 150 shots half of which had to be good enough for prints with minimal cropping, correcting etc. What's the average taken nowdays? Storage of millions of negatives was just not necessary.

I also often get feeling that to many the computing and techie side of it is the real attraction of playing with cameras, they are an extension of the PC/Mac. I've no problem with this but I don't see that as being 'photography' in the sense that the ultimate aim of the craft is to express a view, or to record in such a manner as to express ones interrpretation of a scene, but that's probably just snobbery on my part.

I am aslo aware that complexity is not new. I have a tome plainly titled 'Applied Photography' dating from the 50's which sets out to instruct scientists on how to use cameras in their work. Bedtime reading for the kiddies it most certainly is not although the physics still remains valid.

Computing has brought a gread deal to photography but we are in danger of forgetting that it is the cart and not the horse and must remember as to which should be put first. Computing has indeed changed the world and there is no turning back. 25 years ago I was shown how to use Visicalc on a montone monitor and WP was only just emerging as a viable use for computers. Now Excel and Word are just as much part of my life as eating and drinking and I certainly would not wish to do without.

[awo425]

Really, so Pentax should go out of its way to compensate for a half-arsed "design" decision by a turtleneck-wearing, megalomaniacal hippie to exclude a simple, standard feature that's been around for, shit, well, years, in products from fridges to phones to GPS to bleedin' battery chargers.

So everyone's just meant to jump every time Jobs has another acid flashback, and shits out another novelty toy.

Never mind the fact that Pentax is Japanese, and the Japanese have about as much love for Apple as they do for porn that doesn't involve tentacles.

How 'bout Apple sticks an SD slot and USB socket in there? Nah, never happen. That's not revolutionary, apparently.



Oh, this'll be good.

LOL, you've made my day, and you are sooo right too.

[justinr]

Back on thread, I don't have an iPad either, but I wouldn't mind betting it becomes a standard bit of kit for digital SLR users sooner than a lot of people would like to believe.

In Australia, the biggest telco is Telstra. They used to be the Post Master General's office years ago. One of Telstra's senior executives made herself famous for 15 minutes by saying that Telstra would not be selling the iPhone because Apple had never made a phone before.

There is a (dwindling) band of people who waste a lot of energy hating Apple, but the fact remains that Apple is now bigger than Microsoft, and that's happened entirely because they sell things that a lot of people like and use. So, get over it and think about what's likely to happen rather than what you'd like to happen.

What's likely to happen is that someone will write an application for the iPad that allows you to use it to preview shots live, and control all the camera functions remotely. It'll be most useful firstly in a studio situation, but as screens get better in full sunlight, that will progress more and more into outdoor situations, too. Memory will get larger and less costly with every iPad iteration (and you should expect lots of those in short order - just consider how the iPhone has progressed).

Most importantly for photographers is that you'll be able to work in this way to the extent that you want, and you'll be able to edit easily on the spot. I reckon it is currently changing the way designers are thinking about camera features and functions right now, so the two are more likely to become integratable systems over the next five years or so. Regrettably, Canon and Nikon are more likely to get into this first, but you never know.

The man said Adobe and Aperture won't be available for the iPad, ever? Tell him he's dreaming.

Hmmm... Not convinced to be honest. I don't hate Apple, only the MacBook that I lumbered myself with having been told by all and sundry that they are the future. Simply cannot get on with it being used to the PC way of doing things so that's understandable I guess, but I still won't buy any more Mac products in the foreseeable future.

I never, ever edit shots for a day or so afterwards unless I absolutely have to. Why? Because my judgement of them is clouded by the immediacy of the shoot itself and I often find that returning to them after a while allows a far better appraisal of the haul. I certainly check the results in the LCD and take more if not happy but shooting is for the moment and editing is for afterwards in my book so why should I heft another piece of kit around if it will be of no benefit?

[boriscleto]

There is a (dwindling) band of people who waste a lot of energy hating Apple, but the fact remains that Apple is now bigger than Microsoft, and that's happened entirely because they sell things that a lot of people like and use. So, get over it and think about what's likely to happen rather than what you'd like to happen.

The only thing Apple is bigger than M$ in is market capitalization. M$ is still a huge inflexible behemoth, Apple is much smaller and more flexible. The bearded hippie days ended at Apple a long time ago, when Mike Markkula decided the company needed to grow up before the IPO, but got some of it back when Jobs chased Markkula off the board. M$ still has 2.5x more employees, and 2.2x more income. Apple does have 2x the revenue/employee, and 5x the earnings/share.

[falconeye]

Apple does have 2x the revenue/employee, and 5x the earnings/share.

If you think about it, the real surprise is that none of those companies (M$, Google, Apple) really exploit their human resources and develop anything really decent.

Apple with the least of resources still makes best use of resources. But it's still little. Think of #employees they have and that a couple dozen developers with a bright idea can change the game. At it's time, Xerox Lab and Mac was much more revolutionary (for the GUI, with a few people) than Apple was now with the iPhone.

And if I got it right, it was Jobs himself indeed who suggested his people fetched a glass-plate finger touchscreen and experimented a bit with it. Which made them come up with gravity scrolling and spring layout which made Jobs smile and launch the 4 year project.

The real bottleneck is the disconnect of ideas/talent and capital. Esp. within corporations.


So, the real thing where Apple is bigger than M$ is in allocating own financial resources to new ideas. They simply take higher risks. At least now that Jobs is on board and nobody would stop him. I'm sure a lot of people surrounding him at Apple are sweating more often than they like

In 2004, Siemens Munich could have taken the risk and started the equivalent of an iPhone project. They didn't do and now their phone business is dead. I know some of the involved people and can only say that it wasn't due to a lack of vision but to refusing to take significant risks.

[justinr]

If you think about it, the real surprise is that none of those companies (M$, Google, Apple) really exploit their human resources and develop anything really decent.

Apple with the least of resources still makes best use of resources. But it's still little. Think of #employees they have and that a couple dozen developers with a bright idea can change the game. At it's time, Xerox Lab and Mac was much more revolutionary (for the GUI, with a few people) than Apple was now with the iPhone.

And if I got it right, it was Jobs himself indeed who suggested his people fetched a glass-plate finger touchscreen and experimented a bit with it. Which made them come up with gravity scrolling and spring layout which made Jobs smile and launch the 4 year project.

The real bottleneck is the disconnect of ideas/talent and capital. Esp. within corporations.


So, the real thing where Apple is bigger than M$ is in allocating own financial resources to new ideas. They simply take higher risks. At least now that Jobs is on board and nobody would stop him. I'm sure a lot of people surrounding him at Apple are sweating more often than they like

In 2004, Siemens Munich could have taken the risk and started the equivalent of an iPhone project. They didn't do and now their phone business is dead. I know some of the involved people and can only say that it wasn't due to a lack of vision but to refusing to take significant risks.

I would agree to a great extent but would point out that large companies like Siemens will asses risk from a different viewpoint than people like Apple. If you are a large corporation with leading products in several well established markets then your shareholders are looking for safety not excitement. With younger IT companies this does not always apply to the same extent, if at all, so Siemens probably took the proper decision for them at the time. Yes they might have made a great deal more money but they are hardly struggling for not going down that route, their phone business may be dead but is that really such a great loss in the overall picture of things?

[Mindflux]

And for the millionth time - why do you have to purchase something that should've come standard?

Standard? When did Apple market the iPad as a "photographers companion"?

The Answer: They Didn't. SD Slot isn't standard because they gave it ample internal memory. (depending on your needs)

Why don't cameras have SD, CF, XD, MemStick slots all standard? "OH MY GOD THE EXPANSION/PROFIT POSSIBILITIES ARE ENDLESS!"

As far as your concerns with a USB connection on the iPad, the juice required to charge the iPad isn't available on every USB port. Using the dock connector with a power plug ensures everyone can charge it. Could they have done the same with USB? I guess so. But the dock connector works just fine for the MILLIONS of iPod/iPad/iPhone's out there. Why change it? Because it's not "USB"? Meh.

[falconeye]

I would agree to a great extent but would point out that large companies like Siemens will asses risk from a different viewpoint than people like Apple.

I see what you want to say.

But by market cap., Apple is now a lot "bigger" than "large" company Siemens.

The culture of shareholder value really brings the corporations down. Jobs was chased off board by Apple's shareholders. It's only now that they had to resurrect him that he can do his thing without thinking in terms of shareholder value. He thinks in terms of great user experience and this is what made him excel. Isn't it ironic that the company who may soon have the largest market cap. doesn't care about market cap. at all?

I really only want to invest into corporations (become a shareholder) where the board declares to ignore shareholder value. Is there and certificate for this?

Sounds paradox? No, it isn't. In order to optimize long-term shareholder value, you have to ignore short-term shareholder value. So, the most successful companies either aren't public (the famous German hidden champions who own large parts of their resp. world markets), have a family as shareholder, or have a policy to ignore their shareholders. Best then to not have more than 50% listed though


One way to improve the world financial system would be a rule that if you buy stock, you cannot sell earlier than after five years. Or pay a high tax. To buy stock for resale after 1 hour is not investment.


As for Siemens, you're right, they're earning their money elsewhere (medical, power plants, trains ...). But this doesn't mean they cannot succeed in areas closer to the end user. In fact, they really should to stay competitive as a whole.

[jogiba]

The iPad has 802.11n so the 8GB Eye-Fi Pro X2 SDHC card in a K-7 should work.
[YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vri4RJjdYE[/YT]
Pentax K-7 Eye-Fi Pro X2:
Pentax Compatibility Table | Support

[Mindflux]

The iPad has 802.11n so the 8GB Eye-Fi Pro X2 SDHC card in a K-7 should work.

Should work for what?

I don't know that the iPad can communicate Ad Hoc, and even if so Eye Fi would have to make an App to "receive" pictures on the iPad via Ad Hoc. Might as well just use the iPad camera connection kit at that point.