Barebones B&W

[Annie M.]

OK... time to get my work 'out there' (galleries/web)... questions...

Is it possible to run photoshop or somesuch on a iMac 2.66GHz with 2GB RAM... (images will only ever be B&W... neg sizes will top out at 77sq inches)

Can an iMac burn CDs of my work suitable for submitting to galleries?

Scanner... not over $500... is there anything out there that can take a 7x11 neg?

The setup can be slow... I am time rich!

If I can burn a CD is this something I can just pop into another computer with it's glorious high end printer and make a print? My final output will be traditional B&W... I am just curious and want to compare and see if there is any there there.

Thanks... Annie

[Annie M.]

also... I am on dialup will I be able to post images on the web or will I have to make a CD and use another computer...

Thanks... Annie

[Jim Galli]

I'm not a Mac guy (or a pc guy for that matter) but at work we have an Epson 1640XL scanner with the transparancy adapter in the lid. It will do 11X17 transparancy scans. The stuff you see on my site is perhaps 40% neg scans inverted in PS done on this scanner. I suppose it isn't good enough for serious art output or folks would be using them instead of paying for drum scans. But it's wonderful for first look and CD type things. Not under $500 but if you find a scanner that will see tranny at 8.5X11 I'll be interested to find out also.

[Ken Lee]

My computer is a 3+ year old Mac laptop with only 2 GB or RAM, and a 1.5 GHz processor. I regularly work on large files with it, up to 700 MB in size.

It's not fast compared to other machines, but that only matters if you are trying to run a "production" environment, where you need to blast out many images in quick time, where time is money.

Dialup shouldn't matter, if you plan to put small JPG images on the web. You can always go to a library or cafe which offers free internet service, and perform the uploads there if you need to.

With a readily available and affordable scanner that only goes up to 8.5 x 11, you can scan 11x17 images in pieces, and then stitch them together.

[Annie M.]

Thanks Ken... that is precisely what I needed to know.

Hey Jim... I'll let you know if I encounter any such scanner... (ps... my bear is back and she has a cub this year... sweet!)

[Ralph Barker]

Instead of scanning your 7"x11" negatives directly, Annie, you might consider scanning your finished contact prints, instead. That will open up a wide variety of less-expensive 8.5" x 11" scanners aimed at the "consumer" market. That also has the advantage of reflecting any manipulation you've done in the printing process.

[Oren Grad]

Scanner... not over $500... is there anything out there that can take a 7x11 neg?

The Microtek i800 can scan transparent materials up to 8x12". I bought the i800 rather than one of the other low-end flatbeds specifically because I have 7x11 and 5x12 negatives.

[phaedrus]

The setup can be slow... I am time rich!

If I can burn a CD is this something I can just pop into another computer with it's glorious high end printer and make a print? My final output will be traditional B&W... I am just curious and want to compare and see if there is any there there.

Thanks... Annie

Re your last two questions:
The setup you mention needn't be slow using Photoshop if you use a scratch disk. That could be an external FireWire disk that could (and should!) also be used to back up your image files. Make two partitions on it, the first around 100 GB for the scratch disk, the second for the files.
TIFF files on a CD are fine for getting them from one computer to the other. If you have limited time on the big rig or aren't driving it yourself, it'd be useful to know the print's intended dimensions and the printers native dpi beforehand. Then you can scale your TIFF files to the right size and dpi so no dithering will be done in the printer's driver. As importantly, your can sharpen beforehand, a process that can take a long time running.
Proofing should be done on the target computer, the one connected to the big printer. It needs paper/ink/printer profiles and a calibrated monitor. This is the last step where you need to make creative decisions, essentially, what do I want to sacrifice to the limitations of the process.
You see, it's not much simpler or faster than the chemical process of printing. But you can leave the light on ...

Best regards, Christoph

[Annie M.]

thanks all... another question... I know this is getting tedious... however...

I have been offered to purchase a slightly used HP Compaq dc5100 Business Desktop PC (3.4ghz/1gig) with DVDRW, XPP, photoshop and some kind of backup thingy for $800... I have no idea what this is however the price would make it possible for me to get a Epson v700 and the HP for less than the price of the iMac... anyone know anything about HP computers... can a business computer be used for photography? Could this suffice for the purposes I stated in my original post?

thanks...

[Donald Miller]

Annie, I used a Compaq (HP) for several years. It had a slower processor than the one that was offered to you. I upgraded to two gigs of ram and it did just fine. Ram is cheap today unless you deal with buffered ram. The DVDRW will allow you to burn CDs and DVDs...not sure of the write speed because you didn't mention that...but since you mentioned that time was not a problem...should be fine.

It may make a difference what PS the computer has installed. The most recent is CS3. A lot of folks still use CS2. CS3 has some features that are nice but you can upgrade without buying the full version of CS3 if you need and decide to. PS 7 is a more dated version...but still upgradeable.

I don't know about up on the island but computers are quite inexpensive today...$800 seems a bit high unless it has a something like a 24 inch flat screen monitor.

The backup is probably an external HD so that you can save your files in the event of a HD crash.

[Anupam]

I am sure anyone shooting 7x11 has already discovered the concept of a contact print. Ask a question, get an irrelevant blurb.

Your iMac should be more than sufficient for web stuff. For high quality print sized scans from that negative size, it might be really slow but should still do the job.

[Ken Lee]

Photoshop runs fine on a PC. You didn't mention a monitor. But 1 GB isn't enough. The operating takes up almost that much.

You'll want at least 2 GB, and you need to find out - before you buy - how much can be accommodated on the motherboard of that machine. One of the reasons those machines are cheap, is that they often skimp on things. For example, it may have no network capability, or a crummy graphics card, etc. It may not have a CD burner, etc. Make sure it has what you need.

The iMac, even in a low-end configuration, will have everything.

[Kuzano]

Need more CPU (processor info). Is the 3.4 Gh processor a Pentium P4. Since it's an HP computer, the trend may have been to the Celeron processor to lower production costs. If it's a Celeron, pass on it. It will be much less capable than a Pentium P4. The Celeron from Intel is the budget, low performance processor.

Also, under no circumstances be led astray to the Windows Vista Operating System. It's being given the death knell by Microsoft for the new more efficient OS7 under development. Vista takes the first Gigabyte of RAM just to support the O/S.

You can have someone local to you build a dual core intel in the 3 Gh range, 160 Mb hard drive, Windows XP, DVD burner, 2Gb of RAM, for under $550. You can buy Photoshop CS3 Academic with full features for $300 if you attend a class or two at a local community college and buy from the book store. Photoshop CS3 comes with Bridge.

I build computers on a custom basis. Two of my current absolute no-no's.

1) I will not use AMD or Celeron processors unless the computer is expendable and used simply for internet and email.

2) Under no circumstances will I build a computer using Windows Vista.

Another suggestion is to install a 160Gb hard drive for the OS and programs, then to install a second internal 250Gb hard drive to act as a scratch disk for Photoshop and for internal data storage.

Here is a link to a well known hardware tech site called Toms Hardware. It's been on line for a long time and a recognized site for computer techs. This link takes you to a page where the site outlines all the hardware I have suggested for $426, and the XP operating system will run approximately $100.

Naturally, someone needs to assemble all this and get it running. That runs a couple of hours of labor...

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/234760-29-guide-core-budget-system-overclock

[Nitish Kanabar]

OK... time to get my work 'out there' (galleries/web)... questions...

Is it possible to run photoshop or somesuch on a iMac 2.66GHz with 2GB RAM... (images will only ever be B&W... neg sizes will top out at 77sq inches)

Absolutely. Photoshop may run slowly on this setup with 2GB of RAM if you are working with large images and multiple layers etc. But it will work.



Can an iMac burn CDs of my work suitable for submitting to galleries?


Yes. The CD is just a medium of storing images - it is the image quality that the galleries will be interested in.

[Nitish Kanabar]

thanks all... another question... I know this is getting tedious... however...

I have been offered to purchase a slightly used HP Compaq dc5100 Business Desktop PC (3.4ghz/1gig) with DVDRW, XPP, photoshop and some kind of backup thingy for $800... I have no idea what this is however the price would make it possible for me to get a Epson v700 and the HP for less than the price of the iMac... anyone know anything about HP computers... can a business computer be used for photography? Could this suffice for the purposes I stated in my original post?

thanks...

Yes - this setup will also work for your stated purpose.

These came with either a Celeron or with a Pentium processor. For your purpose, the type of processor should not be a matter of concern. However you may find that 1G of RAM is low and you'd want to add more RAM to it.

There are a couple security issues you'd want to be aware of for a Windows PC- virus protection, regular updates, spyware, etc. I.e you'll probably need to spend some time learning how to protect your investment.

[Annie M.]

I negotiated the price down to $500 so I decided to get the PC... the processor is a P4651... the memory is expandable to 4GIG. With a quality scanner I should be able to get where I need to be.

Thanks again for your help everyone... Annie

[Kuzano]

Celerons are to Pentiums what Durons are to Athlons - budget processors. Less speed.

The most important similarities and differences between the Pentium 4 and the Celeron chips are:

Core: The Celeron chip is based on a Pentium 4 core.

Cache: Celeron chips have less cache memory than Pentium 4 chips do. A Celeron might have 128 kilobytes of L2 cache, while a Pentium 4 can have four times that. The amount of L2 cache memory can have a big impact on performance depending on the task.

Clock Speed: Intel manufactures the Pentium 4 chips to run at a higher clock speed than Celeron chips. The fastest Pentium 4 might be 60 percent faster than the fastest Celeron.

Bus Speed: There are differences in the maximum bus speeds that the processors allow. Pentium 4s tend to be about 30 percent faster than Celerons.


When you sort all this out and compare the two chips side by side, it turns out that a Celeron and a Pentium 4 chip running at the same speed are different beasts. The smaller L2 cache size and slower bus speeds can mean serious performance differences depending on what you want to do with your computer. If you are on a budget and all you really do is check e-mail and browse the Web, the Celeron will be fine for you. If you need something much faster, then you need to go with the Pentium 4 due to its higher clock speeds and faster system bus.

This is relative to older computers, and of course now we have the Duo and Quad core choices which open up the pathways in the processor even more. In fact, Microsoft could not release Vista until Intel pushed the duo-core processor into the market place. While Vista did not require the Duo Core, Microsoft did not want to push the issue on running Vista on legacy hardware. Little did they know how bad it was really going to be in real life.

So, in order to avoid having to apologize to people I consult for, and not have to continually explain these technical differences, I simply avoid Celerons. The price differential for a budget (Celeron or AMD) processor simply does not warrant the loss in performance.

Yes, a Celeron will get the job done, eventually.

[Gene McCluney]

For years I used Photoshop on a Mac with only 1 gb of ram. The "key" so to speak is Photoshop likes to see twice (x2) the amount of RAM as the size of the scan file. So if you scan is 500mb, then you need 1 gb of ram. Photoshop can work on computers with as little as 750mb of ram, you will just be limited on file size you can open in Photoshop.

[Annie M.]

My new Mac is being delivered tomorrow... yippee!!

[ic-racer]

If you want 'barebones B&W', what are you doing with a computer?

A view camera, some developing trays, a contact printing frame and a way to rinse and you are ready to go.

Much less costly than the computer route and if you need to you can do it all without electricity and on location.

My thoughts exactly, but I didn't want to be the first to say it :)

[Annie M.]

ic...

look at the title of this section of the forum... it is 'Digital Hardware'... obviously I was looking for the basics within the digital realm... and as another poster has been so kind to point out I shoot primarily 7x11 so I am very familiar with the traditional darkroom options... I am trying to avail myself of an alternative technology is all.

.... you know I find it tedious when people post not to be helpful but just to express unwarrented disrespect to others.

[sanking]

Hi Annie,

You go girl. Several years ago I decided that scanning my LF and ULF negatives and correcting tonal values in Photoshop, then making digital negatives, offered much in terms of enhancement for my own work. It was a good decision, and even though some people have criticized my decision I am ok with it. And I know many photographers who have also made the hybrid decision to shoot film and scan. In fact, there is a web site set up for those discussions, and by against all expectations, by the same fellow who founded APUG.

Stick to your guns. I for one think you are on the right track. For a long time I have believed that hybrid techniques involving film capture and scanning offered wonderful possibilities for creative image making.

And the bottom line is this. You don't need a drum scan to make great prints from 7X11" negatives. Most of the Epson and Microtek scanners, now and past generation, will give you more than enough quality for prints in the 2X-3X range from your B&W negatives. So when Lenny Eiger tells you that you need a drum scan for your 7X11 negatives (assuming your desire is for prints in the 2X-3X range), diss him.

If you have doubts, just look at some of the wonderful work by Ken Lee in View Camera from 5X7 negatives scanned with consumer type flatbeds.

Sandy King





ic...

look at the title of this section of the forum... it is 'Digital Hardware'... obviously I was looking for the basics within the digital realm... and as another poster has been so kind to point out I shoot primarily 7x11 so I am very familiar with the traditional darkroom options... I am trying to avail myself of an alternative technology is all.

.... you know I find it tedious when people post not to be helpful but just to express unwarrented disrespect to others.

[Annie M.]

"Stick to your guns"... oh great now I have to buy guns... does it ever end!?

Thanks Sandy... I am very excited about exploring the potential of the process!