PS7 not clearing swap file and question about USB Thumb Drive

JK
Posted By
JP Kabala
Nov 1, 2003
Views
462
Replies
23
Status
Closed
Was doing some regular maintenance on my notebook
and have discovered that, for some reason, PS7
is suddenly not cleaning up after itself on exit… found a few 100+MB temp files– easy enough to get rid of, but….

Any idea why this has suddenly started? And what I could do to prevent this? Workstation is not a problem– scratch disk is on a separate drive that gets cleaned every Friday automatically, but when I am in Road Warrior mode, I
travel with a laptop and digital camera, and do first cut editing in the hotel at night. (Better than watching local TV)

Also, has anyone experimented with using a USB pen or thumb drive for your laptop scratch disk? You can get them in 2GB sizes these days, and theoretically there’s no good reason why it wouldn’t work, is there?

MacBook Pro 16” Mockups 🔥

– in 4 materials (clay versions included)

– 12 scenes

– 48 MacBook Pro 16″ mockups

– 6000 x 4500 px

EG
Eric Gill
Nov 1, 2003
"JP Kabala" wrote in news:kjGob.43007$AU.2528 @nwrddc01.gnilink.net:

<snip>

Also, has anyone experimented with using a USB pen or thumb drive for your laptop scratch disk? You can get them in 2GB sizes these days, and theoretically there’s no good reason why it wouldn’t work, is there?

Not that it wouldn’t work, no. The question is – why?
JK
JP Kabala
Nov 1, 2003
"Eric Gill" wrote in message
"JP Kabala" wrote in news:kjGob.43007$AU.2528 @nwrddc01.gnilink.net:

<snip>

Also, has anyone experimented with using a USB pen or thumb drive for your laptop scratch disk? You can get them in 2GB sizes these days, and theoretically there’s no good reason why it wouldn’t work, is there?

Not that it wouldn’t work, no. The question is – why?

So I could get the scratch disk off my notebook hard drive while traveling without having to carry a lot of extra equipment.
MR
Mike Russell
Nov 1, 2003
JP Kabala wrote:
Was doing some regular maintenance on my notebook
and have discovered that, for some reason, PS7
is suddenly not cleaning up after itself on exit… found a few 100+MB temp files– easy enough to get rid of, but….

Photoshop as always occasionally left large scratch files lying around. I have chalked this up to the fact that I often quit Photoshop ungraciously during development, but perhaps it’s a chronic problem.

Any idea why this has suddenly started? And what I could do to prevent this? Workstation is not a problem– scratch disk is on a separate drive that gets cleaned every Friday automatically, but when I am in Road Warrior mode, I
travel with a laptop and digital camera, and do first cut editing in the hotel at night. (Better than watching local TV)

Consider setting up a separate partition as your scratch drive. The performance will be a notch less than a separate physical drive, but at least you can de-fragment it easily after deleting all the files. (Surely they have cable 🙂

Also, has anyone experimented with using a USB pen or thumb drive for your laptop scratch disk? You can get them in 2GB sizes these days, and theoretically there’s no good reason why it wouldn’t work, is there?

It would work in principle, but the performance is inadequate – faster than floppy but much slower than the slowest hard drives. A better use for these devices is for backup and archiving of important files that you want with you at all times. For example, all the images for a shoot can be backed up and on your keychain.


Mike Russell
http://www.curvemeister.com
http://www.zocalo.net/~mgr
http://geigy.2y.net
XT
xalinai_Two
Nov 1, 2003
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 04:06:40 GMT, "JP Kabala" wrote:

Also, has anyone experimented with using a USB pen or thumb drive for your laptop scratch disk? You can get them in 2GB sizes these days, and theoretically there’s no good reason why it wouldn’t work, is there?

Using a USB1.1 drive would be like the heavy iron ball on a sprinter’s leg.

Using a USB2.0 drive will allow for higher throughput – but I still doubt that it is faster than your internal harddisk (even on a laptop computer). And having a memory expansion hanging on the back of the computer while working on it reminds me to that Sinclair computer where every user had a strip of duct tape to prevent the memory expansion unit from losing contact….

If the you don’t have the space for more swapfiles, maybe a disk upgrade for the laptop (Hitachi 7200rpm, 10 ms, 60GB, less than 320 Euro) would be the better choice. And add an external USB2.0 Box for the old disk.

Michael
JK
JP Kabala
Nov 1, 2003
Thanks…. when I’m going to be out for more than a week, I pack an external hard drive
for storage—I can get VERY carried away with the camera, and it doesn’t take up much more
space than a paperback book– I was just wondering if I could pick up some speed by moving the
scratch files—but it looks like the answer is no.

Those 25 pictures I posted from the Selby Gardens? I took 300, and kept probably 250 of them.
And that was just a 2.5 hour stop! (and I still need to go back to get the red bromeliads and better
pics of the Orchid Buddha. I think I’ve got a good solution to the low-light conditions plus no
tripod restrictions– and this time I won’t try to change discs in the Orchid lab, and I’ll keep
the lenses in a warm pocket next to my body so they don’t fog up from the humidity–which is
nearly 100% ) I came back from Miami with 10 CD’s of photos –would have been 3 or 4
times that number if it hadn’t rained the first 3 days I was there.

"Xalinai" wrote in message
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 04:06:40 GMT, "JP Kabala" wrote:
Also, has anyone experimented with using a USB pen or thumb drive for your laptop scratch disk? You can get them in 2GB sizes these days, and theoretically there’s no good reason why it wouldn’t work, is there?

Using a USB1.1 drive would be like the heavy iron ball on a sprinter’s leg.

Using a USB2.0 drive will allow for higher throughput – but I still doubt that it is faster than your internal harddisk (even on a laptop computer). And having a memory expansion hanging on the back of the computer while working on it reminds me to that Sinclair computer where every user had a strip of duct tape to prevent the memory expansion unit from losing contact….

If the you don’t have the space for more swapfiles, maybe a disk upgrade for the laptop (Hitachi 7200rpm, 10 ms, 60GB, less than 320 Euro) would be the better choice. And add an external USB2.0 Box for the old disk.

Michael
JK
JP Kabala
Nov 1, 2003
"Mike Russell" wrote in message
It would work in principle, but the performance is inadequate – faster
than
floppy but much slower than the slowest hard drives. A better use for
these
devices is for backup and archiving of important files that you want with you at all times. For example, all the images for a shoot can be backed
up
and on your keychain.

OK, bad idea…..I was just a brainstorm. I was in Office Depot or Staples the other day and they had them displayed as "stocking stuffers" and I was trying to envision how I might best use one. But I don’t need the backup thingie… I’m the only person on the planet who likes the Sony Mavica CD– but I find it is ideal for the way I work. I like the heft of it, it has great lenses and the ability to add others. Not only do I have a permanent copy of the files complete with EXIF burned to a one-write CD (it will do rewritables, but why?) – when I buy them in bulk, they cost about a quarter and hold 50-100 (depending on resolution) images each. Because the files on the original CD are time and date stamped and read only, my lawyer buddies even trust them almost they way they would trust a film negative. For 5 bucks I can carry around a weeks worth of originals in the space of a compact.



Mike Russell
http://www.curvemeister.com
http://www.zocalo.net/~mgr
http://geigy.2y.net

JW
J Warren
Nov 1, 2003
In article ,
says…
"JP Kabala" wrote in news:kjGob.43007$AU.2528 @nwrddc01.gnilink.net:

<snip>

Also, has anyone experimented with using a USB pen or thumb drive for your laptop scratch disk? You can get them in 2GB sizes these days, and theoretically there’s no good reason why it wouldn’t work, is there?

Not that it wouldn’t work, no. The question is – why?
Flash memory has a finite lifetime before it quits working – the number of write cycles is limited (at least with current technology). I think that in addition to its relatively poor performance, you’d wind up wearing out your thumb drive fairly quickly.
H
Hecate
Nov 2, 2003
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 09:54:30 GMT, "JP Kabala" wrote:

Thanks…. when I’m going to be out for more than a week, I pack an external hard drive
for storage—I can get VERY carried away with the camera, and it doesn’t take up much more
space than a paperback book– I was just wondering if I could pick up some speed by moving the
scratch files—but it looks like the answer is no.

Those 25 pictures I posted from the Selby Gardens? I took 300, and kept probably 250 of them.
And that was just a 2.5 hour stop! (and I still need to go back to get the red bromeliads and better
pics of the Orchid Buddha. I think I’ve got a good solution to the low-light conditions plus no
tripod restrictions– and this time I won’t try to change discs in the Orchid lab, and I’ll keep
the lenses in a warm pocket next to my body so they don’t fog up from the humidity–which is
nearly 100% ) I came back from Miami with 10 CD’s of photos –would have been 3 or 4
times that number if it hadn’t rained the first 3 days I was there.
And, of course, that’s the problem with digital photography. People become much less able to delete pictures as they go along. Just a philosophical point, but I wonder how many you would have kept if you’d been burning film and had to select them on a lightbox first, and then scan them in.? How many would actually be worth your while keeping? And then how many would be worth archiving in electronic form even if you kept the negs and transparencies? And, finally, if you’re going to shoot and keep at that rate, how are you going to find a particular picture without using a database, and how much time are you going to spend tediously entering each individual frame into that database until you have them all done?

Is digital photography making us less critical? And taking up more time in dealing with the results instead of that time being spent usefully taking more good quality images?

Just a few thoughts 🙂



Hecate

veni, vidi, relinqui
F
Flycaster
Nov 2, 2003
"Hecate" wrote in message
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 09:54:30 GMT, "JP Kabala" wrote:
Thanks…. when I’m going to be out for more than a week, I pack an
external
hard drive
for storage—I can get VERY carried away with the camera, and it doesn’t take up much more
space than a paperback book– I was just wondering if I could pick up
some
speed by moving the
scratch files—but it looks like the answer is no.

Those 25 pictures I posted from the Selby Gardens? I took 300, and kept probably 250 of them.
And that was just a 2.5 hour stop! (and I still need to go back to get
the
red bromeliads and better
pics of the Orchid Buddha. I think I’ve got a good solution to the
low-light
conditions plus no
tripod restrictions– and this time I won’t try to change discs in the Orchid lab, and I’ll keep
the lenses in a warm pocket next to my body so they don’t fog up from the humidity–which is
nearly 100% ) I came back from Miami with 10 CD’s of photos –would have been 3 or 4
times that number if it hadn’t rained the first 3 days I was there.
And, of course, that’s the problem with digital photography. People become much less able to delete pictures as they go along. Just a philosophical point, but I wonder how many you would have kept if you’d been burning film and had to select them on a lightbox first, and then scan them in.? How many would actually be worth your while keeping? And then how many would be worth archiving in electronic form even if you kept the negs and transparencies? And, finally, if you’re going to shoot and keep at that rate, how are you going to find a particular picture without using a database, and how much time are you going to spend tediously entering each individual frame into that database until you have them all done?

Is digital photography making us less critical? And taking up more time in dealing with the results instead of that time being spent usefully taking more good quality images?

Just a few thoughts 🙂

Good ones too. About 1 out of 4 stays on my HD after the first look – and this is *after* deleting about 50% of the shots as I take them. Hmmm…that’s fairly close to the 3 or so keepers per roll I’d get when shooting tranny film. Funny thing…

—–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–
MR
Mike Russell
Nov 2, 2003
Hecate wrote:
[re ease of taking large numbers of digtal pix]

And, of course, that’s the problem with digital photography. People become much less able to delete pictures as they go along. Just a philosophical point, but I wonder how many you would have kept if you’d been burning film and had to select them on a lightbox first, and then scan them in.? How many would actually be worth your while keeping? And then how many would be worth archiving in electronic form even if you kept the negs and transparencies? And, finally, if you’re going to shoot and keep at that rate, how are you going to find a particular picture without using a database, and how much time are you going to spend tediously entering each individual frame into that database until you have them all done?

Is digital photography making us less critical? And taking up more time in dealing with the results instead of that time being spent usefully taking more good quality images?

Just a few thoughts 🙂

This reminds me of the complaint that video cameras were getting so small that they no longer needed to sit on your shoulder, and therefore the images were shakier. My response: just duct tape a 2×4 and a brick to the camera.

Likewise, if it’s true that there is a downside to taking too many digital images, just burn a dollar bill for each image you take, and you’ll find yourself going back to your old film habits.

More pictures is more better – pros have known that using more film gets more good shots for many years, and now amateurs can take advantage of the same benefit.


Mike Russell
http://www.curvemeister.com
http://www.zocalo.net/~mgr
http://geigy.2y.net
N
nospam
Nov 2, 2003
In article , Hecate wrote:

And, of course, that’s the problem with digital photography. People become much less able to delete pictures as they go along. […]
Is digital photography making us less critical? And taking up more time in dealing with the results instead of that time being spent usefully taking more good quality images?

If you are collecting data, then here’s mine: I tend to pare my negatives with brutal criticism – to the trash with most of them! When I print, I keep up to three versions of the print I like the most – if I can get three: one each for different viewing light. In my early printing days, I kept too many prints and negatives and later went back and pared them again, and again until I have only a few prints and negatives.

Similarly, in my digital scanning of negatives, which is neccessarily early in the technology, I keep far too many over-photoshopped renditions, just as I kept too many prints in the early days. I am still not comfortable with PS renditions and am now working on a flow to standardize, to settle down as I did with printing. In other words, doing less manipulation, straighter scans with the goal to make digital negatives which are as true to the original film as possible.

When it comes to striclty digital images, then we are speaking of my day job and I am fortunate that half that work is done for an editor who still loves medium and large-format work. The other half is just plain crap. But most of "professional" photography on assignment is crap.
N
nospam
Nov 2, 2003
In article <GX_ob.681$>, "Mike Russell"
wrote:

This reminds me of the complaint that video cameras were getting so small that they no longer needed to sit on your shoulder, and therefore the images were shakier. My response: just duct tape a 2×4 and a brick to the camera.

!!! I love it !!! I use a Canon SL1 and it’s just such a toy! A brick!. That’s the ticket.

Likewise, if it’s true that there is a downside to taking too many digital images, just burn a dollar bill for each image you take, and you’ll find yourself going back to your old film habits.

Uh, I don’t get it. Are you suggesting (correctly, IMHO) that a lot of real money is wasted in digital photography and that it amounts to $1 a wasted image?
MR
Mike Russell
Nov 2, 2003
Mike Wrote:
[re artifically making digicams more like film cams so we’ll take more care with our images]

Likewise, if it’s true that there is a downside to taking too many digital images, just burn a dollar bill for each image you take, and you’ll find yourself going back to your old film habits.
jjs wrote:
Uh, I don’t get it. Are you suggesting (correctly, IMHO) that a lot of real money is wasted in digital photography and that it amounts to $1 a wasted image?

Just a way to make people treat digital pix more like film – A dollar per image should land us in the realm of large format film, as far as the amount of care taken per image.

Or maybe a coin operated digicam – a quarter per image, and you take it to your local one hour photo shop to be emptied as necessary. 🙂 —

Mike Russell
http://www.curvemeister.com
http://www.zocalo.net/~mgr
http://geigy.2y.net
F
Flycaster
Nov 2, 2003
"Mike Russell" wrote in message
Mike Wrote:
[re artifically making digicams more like film cams so we’ll take more
care
with our images]

Likewise, if it’s true that there is a downside to taking too many digital images, just burn a dollar bill for each image you take, and you’ll find yourself going back to your old film habits.
jjs wrote:
Uh, I don’t get it. Are you suggesting (correctly, IMHO) that a lot of real money is wasted in digital photography and that it amounts to $1 a wasted image?

Just a way to make people treat digital pix more like film – A dollar per image should land us in the realm of large format film, as far as the
amount
of care taken per image.
[snip]

I dunno about that Mike. Where I buy LF sheets (4×5), it’s more like $3 a pop, and it’s another buck for processing at the local lab. Likewise, 35mm trannies cost me about $0.38, developed and mounted, per exposure. Both assume B&H, and Fuji mailers for the 35mm.

As far as I’m concerned, digital exposures are, relatively speaking, free – the problem is people don’t cull the vast majority of shots that are bad, marginal, or even just "OK." IOW, digital allows people the economic freedom to practice, and even increase their bad photography habits.

—–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–
JK
JP Kabala
Nov 2, 2003
Well, while I do admit that I take a lot more exposures digitally than would be practical
if I were using film, there are some things to note

I do use a database, and most of these images never end up on my hard drive for any length
of time. For one thing, as I mentioned, my originals are burned to CD by the camera–
and those are indexed and archived by my software, with only thumbnails, keywords and location
held on-line. (one of my keywords being "trash") Periodically, as I put together enough images
of a given type, I will reassemble the best of the best, organize them according to content, and
burn them to higher capacity media, and adjust the db as necessary. The dB allows me to
do this painlessly. It also allows me to index, not just by exif-type info, but by keywords,
content and project or client number. This isn’t the painstaking process one might imagine
if you have good software and a logical bent. I can do large blocks of similar images in
seconds, then go back and refine things as necessary.

That said, I got vicious the other day and culled out lots of stuff– mostly experiments
that didn’t produce the results I wanted.

And as to using time profitably– I suspect my needs are different than most folks out there,
given what I do– so maybe I shouldn’t be considered a role model for anything. Right now,
part of the game plan is to develop and manage the sort of database discussed above
and work out best practices procedures for maintaining quality and streamlining work flow.

"Hecate" wrote in message
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 09:54:30 GMT, "JP Kabala" wrote:
Thanks…. when I’m going to be out for more than a week, I pack an
external
hard drive
for storage—I can get VERY carried away with the camera, and it doesn’t take up much more
space than a paperback book– I was just wondering if I could pick up
some
speed by moving the
scratch files—but it looks like the answer is no.

Those 25 pictures I posted from the Selby Gardens? I took 300, and kept probably 250 of them.
And that was just a 2.5 hour stop! (and I still need to go back to get
the
red bromeliads and better
pics of the Orchid Buddha. I think I’ve got a good solution to the
low-light
conditions plus no
tripod restrictions– and this time I won’t try to change discs in the Orchid lab, and I’ll keep
the lenses in a warm pocket next to my body so they don’t fog up from the humidity–which is
nearly 100% ) I came back from Miami with 10 CD’s of photos –would have been 3 or 4
times that number if it hadn’t rained the first 3 days I was there.
And, of course, that’s the problem with digital photography. People become much less able to delete pictures as they go along. Just a philosophical point, but I wonder how many you would have kept if you’d been burning film and had to select them on a lightbox first, and then scan them in.? How many would actually be worth your while keeping? And then how many would be worth archiving in electronic form even if you kept the negs and transparencies? And, finally, if you’re going to shoot and keep at that rate, how are you going to find a particular picture without using a database, and how much time are you going to spend tediously entering each individual frame into that database until you have them all done?

Is digital photography making us less critical? And taking up more time in dealing with the results instead of that time being spent usefully taking more good quality images?

Just a few thoughts 🙂



Hecate

veni, vidi, relinqui
H
Hecate
Nov 3, 2003
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 18:31:01 -0800, "Flycaster" wrote:

And, of course, that’s the problem with digital photography. People become much less able to delete pictures as they go along. Just a philosophical point, but I wonder how many you would have kept if you’d been burning film and had to select them on a lightbox first, and then scan them in.? How many would actually be worth your while keeping? And then how many would be worth archiving in electronic form even if you kept the negs and transparencies? And, finally, if you’re going to shoot and keep at that rate, how are you going to find a particular picture without using a database, and how much time are you going to spend tediously entering each individual frame into that database until you have them all done?

Is digital photography making us less critical? And taking up more time in dealing with the results instead of that time being spent usefully taking more good quality images?

Just a few thoughts 🙂

Good ones too. About 1 out of 4 stays on my HD after the first look – and this is *after* deleting about 50% of the shots as I take them. Hmmm…that’s fairly close to the 3 or so keepers per roll I’d get when shooting tranny film. Funny thing…
LOL! Yes, I was expecting people who were professional photographers to say something like that, but I did wonder if even they had fallen into the "well it’s on the hard disk so I may as well keep it" philosophy. ISTM, that there is a great temptation, especially given what you can do with PS, to say "Well, that shot’s crap, but the tree looks good, and the sea looks nice in that one…" and so forth.

Whereas old fashioned me, still working with film will say "why waste the space" and still go out and take specific trees, sea shots, whatever, for use in PS, but just ruthlessly discard anything that isn’t up to scratch even if it has a nice tree in it 😉



Hecate

veni, vidi, relinqui
H
Hecate
Nov 3, 2003
On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 10:35:25 -0600, (jjs) wrote:

If you are collecting data, then here’s mine: I tend to pare my negatives with brutal criticism – to the trash with most of them! When I print, I keep up to three versions of the print I like the most – if I can get three: one each for different viewing light. In my early printing days, I kept too many prints and negatives and later went back and pared them again, and again until I have only a few prints and negatives.
Similarly, in my digital scanning of negatives, which is neccessarily early in the technology, I keep far too many over-photoshopped renditions, just as I kept too many prints in the early days. I am still not comfortable with PS renditions and am now working on a flow to standardize, to settle down as I did with printing. In other words, doing less manipulation, straighter scans with the goal to make digital negatives which are as true to the original film as possible.
When it comes to striclty digital images, then we are speaking of my day job and I am fortunate that half that work is done for an editor who still loves medium and large-format work. The other half is just plain crap. But most of "professional" photography on assignment is crap.

That’s interesting. I’m not really collecting data, just posing some questions. I just have the feeling that hard disks are filling up all over the world with a lot of stuff, that if it was on film, would go straight in the bin. (Assuming of course that the person doing the sorting knew the difference <g>).

And on your last comment, Theodore Sturgeon the SF writer said, "90% of science fiction is crap. But then, 90% of everything is crap". 😉



Hecate

veni, vidi, relinqui
H
Hecate
Nov 3, 2003
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 11:07:28 -0800, "Flycaster" wrote:

As far as I’m concerned, digital exposures are, relatively speaking, free – the problem is people don’t cull the vast majority of shots that are bad, marginal, or even just "OK." IOW, digital allows people the economic freedom to practice, and even increase their bad photography habits.
Yes, as I said above, I have a feeling that, in a few years time, there’s going to be thousands of terabytes of badly taken, poorly exposed images cluttering up hard disks all over the world. 😉



Hecate

veni, vidi, relinqui
H
Hecate
Nov 3, 2003
On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 20:42:25 GMT, "JP Kabala" wrote:

Well, while I do admit that I take a lot more exposures digitally than would be practical
if I were using film, there are some things to note

I do use a database, and most of these images never end up on my hard drive for any length
of time. For one thing, as I mentioned, my originals are burned to CD by the camera–
and those are indexed and archived by my software, with only thumbnails, keywords and location
held on-line. (one of my keywords being "trash") Periodically, as I put together enough images
of a given type, I will reassemble the best of the best, organize them according to content, and
burn them to higher capacity media, and adjust the db as necessary. The dB allows me to
do this painlessly. It also allows me to index, not just by exif-type info, but by keywords,
content and project or client number. This isn’t the painstaking process one might imagine
if you have good software and a logical bent. I can do large blocks of similar images in
seconds, then go back and refine things as necessary.

That said, I got vicious the other day and culled out lots of stuff– mostly experiments
that didn’t produce the results I wanted.

And as to using time profitably– I suspect my needs are different than most folks out there,
given what I do– so maybe I shouldn’t be considered a role model for anything. Right now,
part of the game plan is to develop and manage the sort of database discussed above
and work out best practices procedures for maintaining quality and streamlining work flow.
Thanks. I was just interested to see what people were doing, and what their opinions were about this. I suspect a lot of people won’t be as careful about selecting what is worth keeping and what isn’t. Whilst I can see that a badly exposed picture of say, Grandma, which may be the only one around, is worth keeping, I have a feeling that digital is ushering in an era where just *everything* is kept whether it’s worth keeping or not.



Hecate

veni, vidi, relinqui
EG
Eric Gill
Nov 3, 2003
Hecate wrote in
news::

That’s interesting. I’m not really collecting data, just posing some questions. I just have the feeling that hard disks are filling up all over the world with a lot of stuff,

There was a news item (yesterday?) about the amount of data stored last year jumped to 800MB for every person on the planet(!)

that if it was on film, would go
straight in the bin. (Assuming of course that the person doing the sorting knew the difference <g>).

Heh.

I was shooting an event Friday before last and a friend pointed out another photographer and jokingly suggested we use the Mafia solution. I told him thanks, but I’m better than he is.

(Of course, this was just the second night of shooting with the new 10D, and I was still naive enough to trust the autofocus in low light).

I’ve seen some very good film photographers making a lot of mediocre digital shots – and the amateurs making much worse. I think you’re quite correct.
H
Hecate
Nov 4, 2003
On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 03:58:17 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

Hecate wrote in
news::

That’s interesting. I’m not really collecting data, just posing some questions. I just have the feeling that hard disks are filling up all over the world with a lot of stuff,

There was a news item (yesterday?) about the amount of data stored last year jumped to 800MB for every person on the planet(!)

that if it was on film, would go
straight in the bin. (Assuming of course that the person doing the sorting knew the difference <g>).

Heh.

I was shooting an event Friday before last and a friend pointed out another photographer and jokingly suggested we use the Mafia solution. I told him thanks, but I’m better than he is.

(Of course, this was just the second night of shooting with the new 10D, and I was still naive enough to trust the autofocus in low light).
I’ve seen some very good film photographers making a lot of mediocre digital shots – and the amateurs making much worse. I think you’re quite correct.

<g> And, to be fair, I’ve seen some very good amateurs outshine the professionals, but then, that used to be in the area I was in – nature/wildlife. There are some excellent amateurs out there. I’m sure that wouldn’t be true of news or fashion.



Hecate

veni, vidi, relinqui
F
Flycaster
Nov 4, 2003
"Hecate" wrote in message
<g> And, to be fair, I’ve seen some very good amateurs outshine the professionals, but then, that used to be in the area I was in – nature/wildlife. There are some excellent amateurs out there. I’m sure that wouldn’t be true of news or fashion.

Galen Rowell once told my wife that a majority of the world’s best photographs would never be seen because they were collecting dust in peoples’ drawers.

—–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–
H
Hecate
Nov 5, 2003
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 18:03:15 -0800, "Flycaster" wrote:

"Hecate" wrote in message
<g> And, to be fair, I’ve seen some very good amateurs outshine the professionals, but then, that used to be in the area I was in – nature/wildlife. There are some excellent amateurs out there. I’m sure that wouldn’t be true of news or fashion.

Galen Rowell once told my wife that a majority of the world’s best photographs would never be seen because they were collecting dust in peoples’ drawers.
I think that probably has some truth in it. I don’t know if you’ve ever seen the pictures produced by amateurs in the British Gas Wildlife competition each year (in the UK) – absolutely brilliant and just as good as the professionals.



Hecate

veni, vidi, relinqui

Must-have mockup pack for every graphic designer 🔥🔥🔥

Easy-to-use drag-n-drop Photoshop scene creator with more than 2800 items.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections