Digital BW, The Print

So Anthony,

How is the B/W digital printing going? What system do you have at home now?


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony G. Atkielski" 
<anthony@a...> wrote:
> Carolyn Frayn writes:
> 
> > You lumped an entire user base into two categories.
> 
> The reality is that the entire user base does fall roughly into those
> two categories.  People are either interested in computers for their own
> sake, or they're not.  The vast majority of people using computers today
> are interested in computers as tools, not as ends in themselves.  This
> is quite a change from the early days of computers, when the only people
> using them were computer geeks (and a handful of accountants or others
> who absolutely could not do their job without computers, even in those
> days).
> 
> > I think of my computers as tools, and I upgrade, and I produce, I
> > don't spend all my time tinkering.. I took exception to your
> > absolutism.
> 
> Why do you upgrade?
> 
> > I could not produce what I do now if I was back on my little mac when
> > first introduced to my graphic arts division... I could not work as I
> > do now back on the DOS systems I used to debug for the sister end of
> > same company.
> 
> So you've only upgraded twice, from the old little Mac to a new OS X
> Mac, and from a MS-DOS system to Windows XP?
> 
> > As for Photoshop and older computer systems... gone are the days of
> > having a smoke while an image did a little rotate... Applying
> > corrections or elements and saving every iteration in case I have to
> > go back... Creating alpha channels to mask, and most recently, jumping
> > back and forth between 8 and 16 bit images to correct them.
> 
> I have yet to see a system that can do anything in Photoshop on a
> reasonably large image with no delay at all.  For one thing, that would
> require more memory than it is possible to configure on most systems.
> 
> There are still some impressionist filters that I have in Photoshop
> which might well take an hour or more to finish even on the fastest PCs
> (needless to say, I don't use them under such circumstances).
> 
> > I've had a few years of observations myself. I turned my commodore 64
> > monitor into a tv, it was still useful, the computer? No. I realize
> > you are not referring to these old methods, but your statement seemed
> > to relate a total negative stance on any developments.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with upgrading when you _need_ to upgrade.  But
> most people don't need to upgrade ... they simply do so because they've
> been conditioned to do so by vendors, and they never stop to critically
> assess the real need (if any) for upgrades.
> 
> The only people who look at upgrades with the critical view that they
> merit are people who must maintain production, mission-critical systems,
> or very large installed bases of computers.  These people cannot afford
> to blow money on useless upgrades, nor can they afford the high risks
> associated with them.
> 
> > Sure there are upgrades not worth the cost, I can't remember, but
> > one I passed by in the PS line.
> 
> So you've upgraded with every other version?  What did you need in each
> new version that you didn't already have?
> 
> > If you are producing what you wish in PS5.5, and have no need to
> > upgrade for a reason, then cool. If you are happy with your older
> > smaller slower systems, then cool. I remember PS5 being a great leap
> > from my previous versions. But I also remember how slow it all was.
> 
> It does the job for me, particularly with photography, since photography
> requires only a very limited set of tools (as compared with graphic art,
> which requires a much larger set of tools).  Photoshop CS has
> activation, which corrupts the boot sectors of disks and destabilizes my
> system, and potentially prevents me from working on critical projects.
> It adds nothing that would be useful to me in exchange for this.  It
> costs too much money.  And Adobe still doesn't fix fundamental problems
> with the product, such as memory management--it just adds more bells and
> whistles with each release, because it's a cheaper, shorter path to
> revenue.
> 
> > I believe this stuff advances faster than anything before it... I
> > agree it's sometimes either hard to keep up or not worthwhile to some.
> > But there are no absolutes.
> 
> The basics of image manipulation have not changed in many years.
> 
> > For me personally, the last two years of upgrades has given me a very
> > significant time savings.. And that in turn increases revenue.
> 
> How much of a net gain did you calculate as the direct result of
> upgrades during your last audit?
> 
> > On top of that, what I produce is more satisfying, I have the control
> > I desire.
> 
> You've had control with every version of Photoshop.  If anything recent
> versions do more and more on their own, without your control.
> 
> > Can't imagine saving my 2Gig files to floppies either :) Another great leap
> > for me, PS Large Document Format file saving.. Yahoo.
> 
> You can't put 2 GB of information on a floppy, no matter what format you
> use.