One more question...

Thanks Andrew.
One of the things I have been told is that Lightroom is preferred over
Aperature because it integrates with Photoshop seamlessly, whereas
Aperature requires some fiddling to get it to work with Photoshop.
I do use Mac's and and played with Aperature a little but do not have
any experience with Lightroom. I am told they are very similar.

To the group:
How much RAM does it take to get RAW to load faster?
(All my RAW images are in the 8-11 MB file size.)

Andrew-S wrote:
I generaly shoot in High JPG unless I am doing portraits, tricky exposures
or weird lighting. Then I shoot in RAW. Image noise and resolution is not
a problem as long as you are in the highest quality JPG.

As matter of fact I recently sold a 60+ inch enlargement and few smaller
ones that where shot with a borrowed EOS 5D in high JPG to a contractor.
Someone else had done a similar shoot with a Nikon D2Xs and shot their
images in RAW. In the end even though I was several hundred dollars more,
the contractor chose my images for enlargement. Quite simply I had better
colour and less noise than the Nikon shooter. To be fair about this though
I still say the Nikon system has the best flash technology of any of the
current camera systems.

It's a case by case basis for the old argument over which is better, RAW or
JPG. I have seen and encountered many situations in which RAW is the only
way to go, and many other times where JPG is best choice.

For software I would encourage you to download trial versions of:

Lightroom from Adobe,
IView Media Pro by Microsoft,

Capture One by Phase One,

and if your a Mac aficionado,

Aperture by Apple.

I have or have worked with almost all of these titles (Capture One is the
exception), and all are VERY VERY good.

"john smith" wrote in message
...
Thanks Andrew.
One of the things I have been told is that Lightroom is preferred over
Aperature because it integrates with Photoshop seamlessly, whereas
Aperature requires some fiddling to get it to work with Photoshop.
I do use Mac's and and played with Aperature a little but do not have any
experience with Lightroom. I am told they are very similar.

To the group:
How much RAM does it take to get RAW to load faster?
(All my RAW images are in the 8-11 MB file size.)

Any additional RAM will allow your system to run faster. I don't have any
experience with Aperture, but, I really like Lightroom because of the
previously mentioned integration with PS. If I'm just processing the image
and not manipulating it, I do almost everything in Lightroom.

Rob

My Mac is running at 2 gigs of Ram (it's only a Macbook).

My PC has 4 gigs of ram

and my PC LapTop has 2 Gigs.


If my shoot runs a thousand images or more images I hate life on either the
Mac or the PC Laptop. My Pc Desktop just groans once and I have my thousand
or more images in JPG in about 10 minutes. If the images are in raw make
that a 1000 images in about 20 minutes.

Word of advise from someone who sells cameras and processes images in
batches of a 1000. Don't get too hung up on the power of Raw on the other
hand don't believe that a JPG can do everything. Each has their merits and
weaknesses; an intellegent balance of when to shoot one versus the other is
the best way.

Andrew



"john smith" wrote in message
...
Thanks Andrew.
One of the things I have been told is that Lightroom is preferred over
Aperature because it integrates with Photoshop seamlessly, whereas
Aperature requires some fiddling to get it to work with Photoshop.
I do use Mac's and and played with Aperature a little but do not have any
experience with Lightroom. I am told they are very similar.

To the group:
How much RAM does it take to get RAW to load faster?
(All my RAW images are in the 8-11 MB file size.)

"Andrew-S" wrote:

My Mac is running at 2 gigs of Ram (it's only a Macbook).
My PC has 4 gigs of ram and my PC LapTop has 2 Gigs.
If my shoot runs a thousand images or more images I hate life on either the
Mac or the PC Laptop. My Pc Desktop just groans once and I have my thousand
or more images in JPG in about 10 minutes. If the images are in raw make
that a 1000 images in about 20 minutes.
Word of advise from someone who sells cameras and processes images in
batches of a 1000. Don't get too hung up on the power of Raw on the other
hand don't believe that a JPG can do everything. Each has their merits and
weaknesses; an intellegent balance of when to shoot one versus the other is
the best way.

So the moral of the story is, have more RAM than the size of your
datacard? :-))

I don't know if thats true or not because my largest CF cards are only 4
gigs. And the most my PC supports is 4 gigs.

However I may try an 8 gig in the near future...


Andrew

"john smith" wrote in message
...
"Andrew-S" wrote:

My Mac is running at 2 gigs of Ram (it's only a Macbook).
My PC has 4 gigs of ram and my PC LapTop has 2 Gigs.
If my shoot runs a thousand images or more images I hate life on either
the
Mac or the PC Laptop. My Pc Desktop just groans once and I have my
thousand
or more images in JPG in about 10 minutes. If the images are in raw make
that a 1000 images in about 20 minutes.
Word of advise from someone who sells cameras and processes images in
batches of a 1000. Don't get too hung up on the power of Raw on the
other
hand don't believe that a JPG can do everything. Each has their merits
and
weaknesses; an intellegent balance of when to shoot one versus the other
is
the best way.

So the moral of the story is, have more RAM than the size of your
datacard? :-))

"Andrew-S" I-Still-Hate-Spammers@Sorry-I had-to-leave-for-bit.com
wrote in :

My Mac is running at 2 gigs of Ram (it's only a Macbook).

My PC has 4 gigs of ram

and my PC LapTop has 2 Gigs.


If my shoot runs a thousand images or more images I hate life on
either the Mac or the PC Laptop. My Pc Desktop just groans once and I
have my thousand or more images in JPG in about 10 minutes. If the
images are in raw make that a 1000 images in about 20 minutes.

Word of advise from someone who sells cameras and processes images in
batches of a 1000. Don't get too hung up on the power of Raw on the
other hand don't believe that a JPG can do everything. Each has
their merits and weaknesses; an intellegent balance of when to shoot
one versus the other is the best way.

Andrew



"john smith" wrote in message
...
Thanks Andrew.
One of the things I have been told is that Lightroom is preferred
over Aperature because it integrates with Photoshop seamlessly,
whereas Aperature requires some fiddling to get it to work with
Photoshop. I do use Mac's and and played with Aperature a little but
do not have any experience with Lightroom. I am told they are very
similar.

To the group:
How much RAM does it take to get RAW to load faster?
(All my RAW images are in the 8-11 MB file size.)





Raw is good for the really important jobs but Jpegs a best fo the everyday
volume that I shoot

Why on earth are you loading all 1000 images into memory at once?

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 20:50:22 -0400, "Andrew-S"
I-Still-Hate-Spammers@Sorry-I had-to-leave-for-bit.com wrote:

My Mac is running at 2 gigs of Ram (it's only a Macbook).

My PC has 4 gigs of ram

and my PC LapTop has 2 Gigs.


If my shoot runs a thousand images or more images I hate life on either the
Mac or the PC Laptop. My Pc Desktop just groans once and I have my thousand
or more images in JPG in about 10 minutes. If the images are in raw make
that a 1000 images in about 20 minutes.

Word of advise from someone who sells cameras and processes images in
batches of a 1000. Don't get too hung up on the power of Raw on the other
hand don't believe that a JPG can do everything. Each has their merits and
weaknesses; an intellegent balance of when to shoot one versus the other is
the best way.

Andrew



"john smith" wrote in message
.. .
Thanks Andrew.
One of the things I have been told is that Lightroom is preferred over
Aperature because it integrates with Photoshop seamlessly, whereas
Aperature requires some fiddling to get it to work with Photoshop.
I do use Mac's and and played with Aperature a little but do not have any
experience with Lightroom. I am told they are very similar.

To the group:
How much RAM does it take to get RAW to load faster?
(All my RAW images are in the 8-11 MB file size.)


--
This message has been brought to you by solar and wind power. Who needs the national grid?
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Way down in Louisiana, Boudreaux's old lady had been pregnant for some time and now the time had come. So he brought her to the doctor and the doctor began to deliver the baby. She had a little boy and the doctor looked over at Boudreaux and said, "Hey, Boudreaux! You just had you-self a son! Ain't dat grand!"
Boudreaux got excited by this, but just then the doctor spoke up and said, "Hold on! We ain't finished yet!" The doctor then delivered a little girl. He said, "Hey, Boudreaux! You got you-self a daughter! She a pretty lil ting, too."
Boudreaux got kind of puzzled by this and then the doctor said, "Hold on, we still ain't got done yet!" The doctor then delivered another boy and said, "Boudreaux, you just had you-self another boy!"
When Boudreaux and his wife went home with their three children, he sat down with his wife and said, "Mama, you remember dat night what we run out of Vaseline and we had to use dat dere tree-in-one Oil?"
His wife said, "Yeah, I do!"
Boudreaux said, "Man, it's a damn good ting we didn't use no WD-fourty."