[filmscanners] RE: Digital Darkroom Computer Builders?

["Laurie Solomon" <laurie@advancenet.net>]

>On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:21:00 +0200, Anthony wrote:
>>For a good image-processing system,....

Even Anthony's and others proposed graphic workstation configurations for
digital darkrooms are not all that specialized custom configurations but
more like high end configurations which can even be obtained ready made if
you are willing to specify your needs and pay the additional price.

>Current "high end" consumer machines are "adequate" for image processing,
and not more than that.

Interesting comment, but unless I missed a post, you never mentioned what
else you were including as part of a digital darkroom's processes besides
image processing and possibly by inference printing.

>Plenty of great
>photos were taken with Exactas; does that mean that's the best you can
>do, and anything over that is fluff and eyewash?  I think not.

But then again if one is using film and and/or photographic wet processed
paper, this may be so except at the margins where lens quality improvements
may marginally improve the image quality in  sharpness, distortion, and
color shift terms.  Improvments in the quality of the images may have
nothing to do with the camera or even the lens as much as being due to the
improvement in the film, papers, emulsions, and chemistry. Shooting with the
same film, most good to high quality lenses, and using the same processing
and printing, I doubt if the brand, age, or model of camera will make all
that much difference

>We don't coat our own plates anymore, do we?

For those that still do use plates (some fine arts types using non-standard
processes and procedures), they very well might be coating their own plate -
in fact they might even have to because I know of no plate makers or
suppliers, let alone ones who make and supply coated plates as opposed to
film.

>To me, at least, this is very much a scanning issue.

And this may indeed limit what is possible from any given hardware system
configuration and will be entirely dependent on the speed and limits of the
scanner.  Moreover scanning has always been notably slow even with respect
to high cost medical scanners like CAT scans and MRI scans so why would you
expect reasonably priced graphic scanners to be faster or display
improvements in speed sooner.  The fact that the peripherals impact on the
operation of a system and the type of configuration will be dependent on
what peripherals are being used means that there will never be s asingle
standard graphics workstation configuration that is good for all kinds of
graphics work - let alone digtial darkroom of photography work.  Each has to
configure to their own needs and desires, given their work, workflows,
pocketbook, and desires.

-----Original Message-----
From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of gannet@intnet.net
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 6:42 AM
To: laurie@advancenet.net
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Digital Darkroom Computer Builders?


It's interesting (to me at least) that my question has gotten more
responses on this list than anywhere else it was placed.  This is a
techie group.  Ok, so we knew that already. :)

On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:21:00 +0200, Anthony wrote:
>For a good image-processing system, you need to add a zero to the RAM and
>disk space, and add at least 2-5 inches to the monitor size and make it a
>high-end monitor (I prefer Sony).  Configuring multiple disks as a RAID
>would be even better, since the defective memory management of Photoshop
>often must be compensated by fast disks.

This has been my experience as well.  I'm rarely processor bound, even
with a "measly" Athlon 1.2.  I am constantly memory bound with 512 MB.
With 160 GB I'm still in pretty good shape, but I'm already having to
"manage" my files to keep disk usage down.  I hate that, and always
have.

Current "high end" consumer machines are "adequate" for image
processing, and not more than that.  The fact that most of us are
getting by with those (or less) is beside the point.  Plenty of great
photos were taken with Exactas; does that mean that's the best you can
do, and anything over that is fluff and eyewash?  I think not.

I find it interesting, and surprising, that many of the responses I've
gotten have been basically shrugs, "there's no market", "my Dell is
just fine", etc.  This from a group (photographers) known for being
agonizingly geeky over technical minutiae that has practical effect
only at the margins.

In any case, it looks like the answer is no, there are no specialist
vendors, other than perhaps the DV/3D guys.  It would be nice to speak
with those who have actually worked with (and integrated!) the
different cards, tablets, video drivers, scanners, etc., but I'm going
to have to tough it out and do it myself.  Which is not terrible, I'm
not boo-hoo-hooing.  It just seems, well, silly for each of us to
*have* to figure this out on our own, or live with suboptimal systems.

We don't coat our own plates anymore, do we?

Thanks to all for the responses.  Keep 'em coming, I think this is a
worthwhile discussion.  And, to keep this somewhat on-topic, the thing
that is really driving this for me is wanting to scan to larger and
larger file sizes and be able to deal with the resulting files before
I turn old and gray.  To me, at least, this is very much a scanning
issue.

Gannet
St. Petersburg, Florida

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body