161–170 of 232 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Linux on Windows is still a disaster? It's been something I want to play around with but haven't had the chance yet.
I read it as a standalone Linux on Desktop is a disaster. Not Linux on Windows.
N.B.: the "switch to Windows" is from macOS and not from Linux, just in case anyone was wondering. I think it's very interesting that the availability of Linux on Windows helped the author choose Windows.
The switch stories are always either “from Mac-OS” or “to Linux”, the former being a “oh no you didn’t” and the latter being “I’m with cool birds now” narrative. It’s basically non-stories because your OS matters as little as what programming language you use. Pick the one that works for you, but don’t become a fucking missionary or tie your personality to your brand of choice.
I find that people naturally tend to want others to be like them.
It doesn't matter whether its politics, religion, OS, camera brand, camera sensor size, programming language, diet fad or whatnot.
Maybe it makes them feel better about the choices they made?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Linux on Windows is still a disaster? It's been something I want to play around with but haven't had the chance yet.
The fact that there is a wall between the Linux stuff and Windows stuff (“You can't edit a file that originates from the Linux userland inside Windows.”) sounds very hacky to me.
I can't imagine spending $6000 on a computer for editing photos and then saying "It also means I don't plan to buy and meticulously use a color calibration device". My computer might not be half as fast, but at least I know my blues are the shade of blue I think they are.
Given the proliferation of the screen as a photo consumption device, and considering how just about every screen out there has slightly different properties (color temp & gamut, brightness and contrast, OLED vs LCD), what will calibration necessarily accomplish?
So, the main reason he switched to a Windows machine was to use the latest/fastest hardware with Adobe Lightroom and Premiere, but then he goes on to say the Lightroom and Premiere don’t take advantage of many core CPUs, the fastest GPUs, fastest SSDs, etc... And Windows is fine after tweaking and adjusting dozens of settings. I’ll just stick with a Mac.
Premiere Pro definitely takes advantage of GPU and CPU very efficiently. Lightroom does not - which is why instead of going for some 18 core i9 7980XE build where it has more cores but a much lower clock per core, i opted for just 6 cores but with a very high clock.
Ryzen and Threadripper is supposed to be a beast for content creation that can use a lot of cores
I recall reading in SoS (sound on Sound) years ago that the big name recoding studios where worried about this back then.
I'm leaning in the same direction myself. My 2017 MBP Pro has been a disappointment. The touch bar is a nuisance. The excessively large trackpad leads to a lot of phantom taps, and I'm still using adapters to plug things into it. Since I'm wrapping up the last of my iOS client work there's nothing really tying me to macOS any more and a PC seems to provide way more bang for the buck for the things I care about - Andr…
2016 MBP with touchbar reporting in. I have the 13” model without a dedicated graphics card, and I made the mistake of getting an external 4K display. The laptop can use the display, but everything is remarkably sluggish for a computer I paid $3000aud for. Especially safari with a few tabs open. The most embarrassing part is that I sort of got used to it and stopped noticing, until I spent time on my Windows gaming p…
I used the built-in GPU on my desktop with a 4K monitor and outside of gaming, it did not affect the UI snappiness at all. I would suspect that if you had the 15" MBP with the quad core CPU and turned off the discrete graphics that you would notice that the Intel HD graphics 4k performance is pretty good.
I can't imagine spending $6000 on a computer for editing photos and then saying "It also means I don't plan to buy and meticulously use a color calibration device". My computer might not be half as fast, but at least I know my blues are the shade of blue I think they are.
Serious question: If you're not selling work to be printed or resold as stock, how important is calibration these days? Given the proliferation of the screen as a photo consumption device, and considering how just about every screen out there has slightly different properties (color temp & gamut, brightness and contrast, OLED vs LCD), what will calibration necessarily accomplish?
I publish a lot of black and white images in part to further reduce the uncertainty of the end-viewer's calibration. Can't get a perceived color cast if there's no color.
Both me and my wife recently realized something: the JPEG produced by the Pentax cameras we own are 90% of the time better than what we achieve with hours of raw conversion tweaking. Given that I'm not doing retouching most of the time, dealing with raw files becoming more and more a pain, without an actual gain. Had anyone else thought about this?
Canon, Fuji and Olympus OOC JPEGs also have great reputations.
>> Given that I'm not doing retouching most of the time, dealing with raw files becoming more and more a pain, without an actual gain.
If you're not retouching, there probably is no point for you to edit RAW. I use RAW myself mainly to correct color temp and high iso noise reduction. The noise reduction in particular is useful for me because I prefer to use smaller sensor cameras.
That's reminiscent of a 4chan post where the user downloads a program, tries to execute, is then warned by Firefox, but ignores it, warned by the AV Software, but disables it, warned by Defender, and disabled, and finally warned by UAC and disables it, only to get it infected and flame away because Windows sucks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Serious question: If you're not selling work to be printed or resold as stock, how important is calibration these days? Given the proliferation of the screen as a photo consumption device, and considering how just about every screen out there has slightly different properties (color temp & gamut, brightness and contrast, OLED vs LCD), what will calibration necessarily accomplish?
Calibration puts you (hopefully) in the middle of the distribution of errors, so your viewer is more likely to see pretty much what you intended. I publish a lot of black and white images in part to further reduce the uncertainty of the end-viewer's calibration. Can't get a perceived color cast if there's no color.
But you can still have other problems depending on the dynamic range of your photos.
I often edit my photos so that stuff in shadows are not perceptible. The problem is that I edit on my laptop LCD screen, but on my phone OLED at default settings, I see clearly everything that was supposed to be hidden in the shadows.