Photographer's Corner - equipment

[Walt34]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuckanut What paper/print-media do you like to use? Why?

For larger prints (13x19 is as big as the Canon Pro-100 can go) I've been using the Canon Pro Platinum Luster (glossy) or the Canon Photo Paper Pro Luster (semi-gloss). For smaller prints like when DW wants a photo of a relative printed from a Facebook post I'll use some leftover HP photo glossy or semi-gloss paper from when I had a HP printer. I bought too much of that and I'll probably never run out of it.

I've used some other papers but frankly I can't see any difference. I read somewhere that very often inks and papers are formulated to work best together so I'm prone to buying paper from whoever made the printer. I don't print all that much so the cost of paper is a minor issue to me.

[RonBoyd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuckanut What paper/print-media do you like to use? Why?

I am one of those that are partial to Red River. The price and quality is unmatched. My biggest use is "Artic Polar Luster." I particularly like the double-sided version for creating books.

(FWIW, I have an Epson "Stylus Pro 3880" printer.)

[Walt34]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RonBoyd (FWIW, I have an Epson "Stylus Pro 3880" printer.)

I was tempted to buy one of those when the HP printer died but with the small amount of printing I do I just couldn't justify the expense. And at the time I found the Canon Pro-100 had a rebate program going on, buy the printer for $400 and a $300 rebate so I bit on that deal. Other than not being able to print 16x20 I really like the printer.

[Chuckanut]

I do find I have a strong preference for the higher quality matt papers.

[RonBoyd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuckanut I do find I have a strong preference for the higher quality matt papers.

Paper type is such a personal thing -- there are a gagillion articles on recommending this and that as the best. I am partial to using Matte paper for Black & White images. It is also good for those images that are processed as line drawings or sketches. However, for no particular reason, I find the semi-gloss (luster) papers to more accurately represents what a "photograph" should look like. That is, obviously, not true but I will fight to the death to defend that thought.

[Ronstar]

I saw something called a "Platypod" - a tabletop or ground base to be used instead of a tripod for very low level photos. Made my own DIY version and mounted a tripod head to it. I need to get some rubber feet for it. Probably could have made it smaller since this size more than offsets the camera and biggest lens weight.

[explanade]

Yeah some of the blogs really push it because they're getting paid for it.

They do have interesting applications and looks like they make them real small, easy to carry.

But I don't think there are too many interesting angles if you have to set it on the ground. I have a tilting LCD so I guess I could make it work but if I really want to do long exposure, I'll just carry the tripod.

[Chuckanut]

I can use some advice from the PhotoShop and LightRoom folks here.

I have a 2011 iMac that I have used with LightRoom and PhotoShop to process and print my work. This year I have noticed that it is definitely slowing down to the point where using it is becoming a bit of a chore. I had planned to upgrade to a new iMac, but I am having second thoughts after Apple's announcement earlier this week.

There was nothing mentioned about the iMac though I suspect it will be upgraded with new components from time to time. The new Mac Mini is getting rather expensive $700 for the base model. Add in the goodies I want, and I will be in the $2000 area in no time. Of course, I would also have to get a good monitor, so more money - ca-ching!.

I am considering switching to a Windows machine to avoid the high cost of the Apple gear. Your thoughts on how LR and PS work on a modern Windows computer would be welcome. OTOH, I have got seven good years with my iMac by just adding a SSD drive a few years ago. Still, it's a lot of money and I am concerned about Apple continuing to support the Mac in general and the iMac in particular in the future.

[explanade]

I upgraded last year to a 5K iMac.

Previous iMac was about 5 years old and was not a 5K screen.

I would think the screen is as much of an upgrade as the processor speed.

At least when it first came out, the 5K screen alone in the iMac represented a good value, a 5K resolution screen in a 27-inch display. I'm not sure what they go for now but in a $2000-2400 configuration, that screen could represent 1/2 to 2/3 if purchased separately.

One other factor to consider may be that newer processors and GPUs will handle decoding of HEVC (H.265) which older machines might have struggled with or not support at all.

I recently had to upgrade my OS on the iMac, in order to play back the 4K60p videos I shot with my iPhone. I import those into LightRoom.

I am also considering buying the new Nikon D7, which also records 4K video unlike my current DSLR.

But I went for Fusion drive, 3 TB, on my iMac. Yet I store my library on an external USB 3.0 drive. Takes a bit to load sometimes but it works fine.

It would work a lot better if I had an external SSD or just moved the library, which is approaching 1 TB, onto the internal Fusion drive.

[Chuckanut]

Quote:

Originally Posted by explanade It would work a lot better if I had an external SSD or just moved the library, which is approaching 1 TB, onto the internal Fusion drive.

What do you think of the Fusion Drive. It's a great deal cheaper than an SSD drive of the same capacity, but is the speed improvement over a standard spinning disk drive significant?

[explanade]

Yes it's suppose to move your most frequently used files to the SSD portion.

I don't do big file transfers between it and other drives any more but seems fine.

I also have a MacBook Pro with a 512 GB SSD and both are equally responsive.

I haven't explored getting external SSDs or Thunderbolt 3 drives, because they still carry a lot of premium. But I may try a USB 3.1 drive, which is more expensive than USB 3.0 drives but not as expensive as Thunderbolt 3 drives.

However, unless you have SSDs in those drives, the port probably won't matter as much.

I would maybe consider getting a 512 GB SSD if I were buying now and look to get much more storage in an external drive.

And I'm also pretty sure I could get a 1 TB external SSD for less than what Apple charges to put inside the iMac.

I did buy a 512 GB SSD for like $110 but I haven't had a chance to play with it yet. It would probably be like an emergency boot drive, because it's not big enough for my photos or my videos.

[Walt34]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuckanut I am considering switching to a Windows machine to avoid the high cost of the Apple gear. Your thoughts on how LR and PS work on a modern Windows computer would be welcome.

I've been running both on this Windows machine and up until recently have had no issues at all. The most recent updates to LR and Photoshop are now very slow to load and I've noticed that the sliders in LR are often reluctant to move. I have to sort of "tap" where I want the sliders to go instead of sliding them with the tablet pen.

I'm sure the reason is that this machine is getting pretty long in the tooth (8 years old?) and I've been thinking about getting a new computer lately. It's also only got 8GB RAM which was plenty at the time but now is probably marginal for LR and Photoshop.

[Jerry1]

I don’t do the photo/video in our house, but I’ve been looking at the system below for DW. I’ve bought a couple of systems from these guys and have been very happy with the build and the support. I just called them the other day with a question about my current (6 year old) system and they pulled up my build sheet and gave me the advice I needed in no time.

https://silentpc.com/elite-pcs/photo-video-editing-pc

[Reach]

Quote:

Originally Posted by explanade And I'm also pretty sure I could get a 1 TB external SSD for less than what Apple charges to put inside the iMac.

I had been using a MacBookpro laptop with Lightroom library and files on an external 1TB disk drive since around 2012. It got extremely sluggish for loading and processing this year. Very frustrating.

I went on eBay and found a good quality 2TB SSD for just over $300 and a $12 Inateck USB 3.0 Hard Drive enclosure. Now, Lightroom run externally on the new drive is speedy for loading and photo processing once again!

[RonBoyd]

I purchased my (LR/Photoshop processing) Windows computer in March of 2012. It has been running 24/7 since then. Note that it has 16MB RAM, a 1 GB SSD "C" drive and a 2GB "G" drive (used for most programs and data files). BTW, Adobe recommend that both of these programs must be installed on the "C" drive... I can confirm that is good advice. One other thing that may be important: the actual image files are on an external drive ("H") and not on either of the two internal drives.

Anyway, I have not noticed any slowdown in the use of Lightroom or Photoshop. FWIW, my LR catalog has over 100,000 images.

System-1.JPG

System-2.JPG

[Ronstar]

Can't help you on anything Windows. But it does seem like my 2013 iMac is slowing down. I just installed Mojave os and the speed seems like it took a little hit since the install. So maybe aging Macs don't like the new os's.

[Chuckanut]

I actually boot my 2011 iMac from an SSD attached to a Thunderbolt 2 port. Data (such as my photos) are stored on the internal disk drive in the iMac.



The external SSD has given new life to the iMac, but I suspect I may have to still replace the entire setup in a year or so.

[Chuckanut]

I am thinking of getting a new digital camera that has the ability to use GPS to tag my photos with the location they were taken.

From what I have seen most of the bigger more expensive DSLRs have this ablity, but it seems to be rare in the area of compact cameras that one can shoe in a coat pocket (for a size example).

I would also like a descent sized sensor, the 1 inch sensor in my Sony RX100 would be great. My experience with it is that I can make good 16x20 enlargements with that sensor

Any suggestions or tips?

[Freedom56]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuckanut I am thinking of getting a new digital camera that has the ability to use GPS to tag my photos with the location they were taken. From what I have seen most of the bigger more expensive DSLRs have this ablity, but it seems to be rare in the area of compact cameras that one can shoe in a coat pocket (for a size example). I would also like a descent sized sensor, the 1 inch sensor in my Sony RX100 would be great. My experience with it is that I can make good 16x20 enlargements with that sensor Any suggestions or tips?

Use your phone if you want a compact camera with geotagging.

[explanade]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuckanut I am thinking of getting a new digital camera that has the ability to use GPS to tag my photos with the location they were taken. From what I have seen most of the bigger more expensive DSLRs have this ablity, but it seems to be rare in the area of compact cameras that one can shoe in a coat pocket (for a size example). I would also like a descent sized sensor, the 1 inch sensor in my Sony RX100 would be great. My experience with it is that I can make good 16x20 enlargements with that sensor Any suggestions or tips?

I've been geotagging for years.

I haven't used a camera with GPS built in. For a time they were popular but the manufacturers have pulled back on using them.

There are two general approaches:

1. You take pictures and then you have a separate device, either a GPS logger or an app on your phone, which will record your movements. Both a logger or the app will produce a GPS log, in .gpx format.

Then you import your photos and the log into some application and the application will sync your photos to the log, using the time stamp of the photos you take and it will more or less assign the GPS coordinates to your photo, into the EXIF file itself. There are specific fields for GPS information.

Adobe Lightroom will do this syncing and there are other applications which will just do the syncing but not develop your RAW files.

2. The other approach is to somehow write the GPS coordinates while you take photos, and as it saves the photo file (JPG or RAW, it writes the GPS data into the metadata of the photo file).

I've always used this approach, which results in the most accurate data whereas syncing is kind of approximating where you were at a given time. You have to sync the clock of the camera to the GPS logger or the phone.

But this approach involves having some external device for sending GPS data to the phone. I've used what are called bluetooth GPS receivers and those will tune into GPS satellites and receive data and send it by bluetooth to the camera.

There are cameras with bluetooth built in but it won't work with those. Instead you have to find a bluetooth dongle that plugs into a data port of the typical DSLR or mirrorless.

I had GPS receivers from mostly Chinese companies, which are no longer selling them (or at least as much as they used to) and also had a bluetooth dongle which I used to plug into my Nikon DSLRs.

Sometimes it's difficult for these GPS receiver to acquire satellites from a cold start. Especially in the canyons of NYC for instance.


Currently I use the Unleashed from Foolography, a Berlin company.

https://www.foolography.com/shop/product/unleashed/

This comes with an app, basically to control your camera via the phone. But it will also take the GPS data the phone acquires and send to the camera each time you click the shutter.

This dongle and app does a lot more than GPS. For instance, you can use it as a shutter trigger if you're doing long-exposure photos from a tripod, so instead of a cable shutter release, you have a wireless one.

The one that Nikon makes for their mirrorless cameras like the Z7 is like $200-300 and all it does is shutter release.

The Unleashed is suppose to control your camera for time-lapses though I haven't used it for this purpose.

Main advantage of this over the old GPS receivers I used to use it that it's a better quality dongle and iPhone will acquire GPS much more easily, as it also uses the cell towers as well as GPS to get a more accurate and quicker lock on your location.


Now I also like to take photos sometimes on long flights and for that, the old dedicated GPS receiver probably works better, if you can get satellite lock on a long flight.

I sometimes take my phone out of airplane mode and while it doesn't connect to cell networks, it will sometimes update the location and I can use that to give GPS data to the pics I take on flights.


But as mentioned, it's a lot easier to get GPS data if you just use your phone. OF course the picture quality from a phone is not going to be as good as from a larger dedicated camera like a DLSR or a full-frame mirrorless.

These days though, some people may find that photos from a high end phone is "good enough" for their purposes.

I'm lugging around this heavy and big Nikon Z7 but I'm also taking pics with my iPhone 12 Pro Max, which can now save RAW files.