Digital BW, The Print

Anthony,

Seems to me your arguing for the sake of arguing - please accept that 
for  many of us - especially those of us who do this for a living - an 
upgrade is usually always a timesaving and money making event.

And for those of us who use Macs - an upgrade is almost always a very 
simple thing - install, reboot and go back to work.

If you prefer to work with old software and methods, that's OK - you do 
what is good for you - but please accept - without getting 
argumentative and using silly arguments - that some of us do things 
different than you do - and you should accept that!

Now - don't waste your time arguing or rebutting me - or anyone else - 
just accept that for the vast majority of artist/photographers - 
whatever - an upgrade is normally a positive thing.

One more thing - the mac G5's can address up to 8 GB of memory:

"64-bit processors enable the Power Mac G5 to break through the 4GB 
barrier and support up to 8GB of 400MHz, 128-bit DDR SDRAM � four times 
more than a typical PC. More main memory and fast 6.4 GBps throughput 
means you can write large projects to memory 40 times faster than to a 
hard disk."

C


			Christer, AKA Christer Rosewell

			  http://www.ChristerArt.com
		  	   3.5 million visitors to date..


On Mar 9, 2005, at 7:24 AM, 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...>
> Subject: Re: Re: I don't know a justification for CS in real 
> photography
>
> Carolyn Frayn writes:
>
>> I don't even understand your point.
>
> The point is that upgrades are usually a waste of time and money.
>
>> Ya well, software has changed a little.
>
> Not really.  It is always getting more bloated and complicated, but
> that's about it.  The complaints of IT managers today echo the
> complaints of IT managers forty years ago.
>
>> Argh.
>
> You don't really know, do you?  A new version came out, and you bought
> it.  No real analysis of cost vs. benefit.  That's how most computer
> users do things, thanks to heavy conditioning by computer hardware and
> software vendors.
>
> In the olden days, before times got tough, people were conditioned to 
> do
> the same thing with cars.  That's not as common today, although a few
> people still feel they have to buy a new car simply because there are
> new cars to buy.
>
>> Nope.. There were many in between.
>
> So what were the reasons for each incremental upgrade?  There are only 
> a
> few logically valid reasons for upgrading:
>
> - An upgrade fixes a bug that interferes with your work.
> - An upgrade provides a feature that will be essential to your work.
> - An upgrade is forced by compatibility issues with other people.
> - An upgrade is forced by other upgrades (hardware or software).
>
> Note that features _essential_ to your work are extremely rare.  Most
> people are emotionally attracted to new features, but they don't
> actually _need_ them.
>
>> I didn't say there were no delays, I said it was much faster.
>
> Speed gains are usually due to hardware upgrades.  I don't recall ever
> seeing speed gains with an upgrade of Photoshop, since each version
> tends to be more bloated than its predecessor.
>
>> So we're all sheep then. Conditioned and simple minded, good to know.
>
> Yes.  That's the current IT business model for desktop systems.
>
>> What does that have to do with upgrading photoshop.
>
> A great deal, since for some people Photoshop is part of a
> mission-critical workflow.
>
>> And who dictates they are useless.
>
> It's not up to anyone to prove them useless; it's up to vendors to 
> prove
> them useful, notably with respect to upgrades.  Unless they can count 
> on
> users upgrading blindly to each new version.
>
>> Your photography then, there are other sorts out here.
>
> The other sorts are more like digital art.  If all you are doing is
> emulating what used to be done in the darkroom, the functions you need
> are pretty simple.  If you are manipulating images beyond that, it's 
> not
> just photography any more.
>
>> Do you print?
>
> I usually have a lab print, as it's cheaper and the quality is better
> (for color photos).  I can print my own black and white, but until I
> dedicate a printer to B&W printing, the quality will not be optimal.
>
>> THAT costs money too... Bells and whistles to one are worthwhile tools
>> to another.
>
> It's surprising how few bells and whistles can withstand the scrutiny 
> of
> careful analysis, however.
>
>> That would be none of your business.
>
> No need to give it, as I know there was none.  You never audited it,
> anyway.  Nobody ever does.  If they did, they certainly wouldn't be
> upgrading all the time.  But Microsoft, Adobe, Intel, AMD, and other
> vendors appreciate your business.
>
>> Oh yes, they're taking over.. Turn off adobe call home.
>
> That has always been the trend with all software, including Photoshop.
>
>> Well, this has been fun... Don't know how I got involved, but I'm
>> stepping down... I know you love this argument stuff Anthony, I don't.
>> It gets old fast and I have work to do.
>
> Right.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]