Guess I'll hang on to my Hasselblad V

Post by Alan Browne
I can't get a decent price for my 500 C/M, even for my 120 Makro, so
I'll hang on to it ...
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0907/09070301hasselbladcfv39.asp
Claims no cable is needed. (Many backs use the lens sync signal). Must
expose on detecting light? (brochure says sync cable is only needed for
long ( > 1 s) exposures.
I can't locate a price, but I'm guessing about $25 - $30K.

I think for about $1000 you can adapt some older medium format film
cameras to existing 20-22 megapixel backs which sell used for around
$4000-$6000. I don't know if it can be done with the 500 C/M.

D. Peter Maus

2009-07-08 05:41:50 UTC

That would be one toy I wouldn't even consider selling. Unless I
was in desperate need of a new liver, or penis transplant or I'd
booked a vacation getaway on Lauren Graham.

Q.G. de Bakker

2009-07-08 15:04:35 UTC

Post by Alan Browne
Claims no cable is needed. (Many backs use the lens sync signal). Must
expose on detecting light? (brochure says sync cable is only needed for
long ( > 1 s) exposures.

Nope.
The pusher rod, tripping the exposed signal in film magazines, is used to
tell the bakc an exposure is imminent.

Post by Alan Browne
I can't locate a price, but I'm guessing about $25 - $30K.

Much, much less.
US$ 14k.

Stefan Patric

2009-07-08 19:49:05 UTC

Post by Q.G. de Bakker

Post by Alan Browne
Claims no cable is needed. (Many backs use the lens sync signal).
Must expose on detecting light? (brochure says sync cable is only
needed for long ( > 1 s) exposures.

Nope.
The pusher rod, tripping the exposed signal in film magazines, is used
to tell the bakc an exposure is imminent.

Post by Alan Browne
I can't locate a price, but I'm guessing about $25 - $30K.

Much, much less.
US$ 14k.

When they get the price down to about $1500US (or less) for a full-frame
6x6 back with an easily removable Bayer sensor for "true" b&w, I'll buy
one, but until then, guess I'm staying with film for the old 'Blad. Too
much wishful thinking?

But seriously, as far as I can tell the back only saves in Hasselbald 3F
RAW and TIFF. I'd like to see some JPEG options. At the very least, a
full resolution, high quality one embedded in the RAW file making the
images viewable in any file viewer for quick editing.

Stef

Alan Browne

2009-07-08 21:21:36 UTC

Post by Q.G. de Bakker

Post by Alan Browne
Claims no cable is needed. (Many backs use the lens sync signal).
Must expose on detecting light? (brochure says sync cable is only
needed for long ( > 1 s) exposures.

Nope.
The pusher rod, tripping the exposed signal in film magazines, is used
to tell the bakc an exposure is imminent.

Post by Alan Browne
I can't locate a price, but I'm guessing about $25 - $30K.

Much, much less.
US$ 14k.

This is a new, 39 Mpix back, not the CFV or CFV II.

The current CF 39 back is about $28K (multiple camera types, incl.
Mamiya, Hasselblad, etc.).

Post by Stefan Patric
When they get the price down to about $1500US (or less) for a full-frame
6x6 back with an easily removable Bayer sensor for "true" b&w, I'll buy
one, but until then, guess I'm staying with film for the old 'Blad. Too
much wishful thinking?

Used 16 Mpix backs for the 'blad are going for $4 - $8K.

Post by Stefan Patric
But seriously, as far as I can tell the back only saves in Hasselbald 3F
RAW and TIFF. I'd like to see some JPEG options. At the very least, a

DNG in the H2/H3 backs. This one too.

Post by Stefan Patric
full resolution, high quality one embedded in the RAW file making the
images viewable in any file viewer for quick editing.

DNG is viewable in many viewers - embedded thumbnails are JPG (I believe).

Q.G. de Bakker

2009-07-08 21:40:32 UTC

Post by Alan Browne
This is a new, 39 Mpix back, not the CFV or CFV II.

This is the 'CFV III', called CFV 39.
Same line, current generation.

Post by Alan Browne
The current CF 39 back is about $28K (multiple camera types, incl. Mamiya,
Hasselblad, etc.).

Yes.
But this one (Hasselblad V-System, hence the "V" in "CFV 39") only is $14K.

Hasselblad is lowering prices. Haven't you noticed?
Yet the price for this next-generationCFV is nearly double that of the
previous one.

Wolfgang Weisselberg

2009-07-10 10:58:06 UTC

Post by Stefan Patric
But seriously, as far as I can tell the back only saves in Hasselbald 3F
RAW and TIFF. I'd like to see some JPEG options. At the very least, a
full resolution, high quality one embedded in the RAW file making the
images viewable in any file viewer for quick editing.

If you need a quick JPEG, it's easy enough to quickly batch
process your RAWs or TIFFs when you import them ...

-Wolfgang

Stefan Patric

2009-07-10 18:34:51 UTC

Post by Stefan Patric
But seriously, as far as I can tell the back only saves in Hasselbald
3F RAW and TIFF. I'd like to see some JPEG options. At the very
least, a full resolution, high quality one embedded in the RAW file
making the images viewable in any file viewer for quick editing.

If you need a quick JPEG, it's easy enough to quickly batch process your
RAWs or TIFFs when you import them ...

Yes, I could, but it's the convenience of it. And if you're editing a
thousand images waiting for the conversion is very time consuming
particularly stressful when you have the art director and client
impatiently waiting, too. Time is money.

However, my guess is there is an embedded JPEG in the RAW, if only a low
res one, for quick image viewing on the digital back's LCD. I have an
old Canon D30 (not 30D) that does that, even though it makes no mention
of such in any official Canon literature.

Stef

Alan Browne

2009-07-10 19:26:18 UTC

Post by Stefan Patric
But seriously, as far as I can tell the back only saves in Hasselbald
3F RAW and TIFF. I'd like to see some JPEG options. At the very
least, a full resolution, high quality one embedded in the RAW file
making the images viewable in any file viewer for quick editing.

If you need a quick JPEG, it's easy enough to quickly batch process your
RAWs or TIFFs when you import them ...

Yes, I could, but it's the convenience of it. And if you're editing a
thousand images waiting for the conversion is very time consuming
particularly stressful when you have the art director and client
impatiently waiting, too. Time is money.
However, my guess is there is an embedded JPEG in the RAW, if only a low
res one, for quick image viewing on the digital back's LCD. I have an
old Canon D30 (not 30D) that does that, even though it makes no mention
of such in any official Canon literature.

Again, the output of the hassy CFV-39 back (as described here) is
optionally DNG. This opens in most OS' folder displays as a large
thumbnail and of course in many viewers and editors.

Stefan Patric

2009-07-11 18:27:29 UTC

Post by Stefan Patric
But seriously, as far as I can tell the back only saves in Hasselbald
3F RAW and TIFF. I'd like to see some JPEG options. At the very
least, a full resolution, high quality one embedded in the RAW file
making the images viewable in any file viewer for quick editing.

If you need a quick JPEG, it's easy enough to quickly batch process
your RAWs or TIFFs when you import them ...

Yes, I could, but it's the convenience of it. And if you're editing a
thousand images waiting for the conversion is very time consuming
particularly stressful when you have the art director and client
impatiently waiting, too. Time is money.
However, my guess is there is an embedded JPEG in the RAW, if only a
low res one, for quick image viewing on the digital back's LCD. I have
an old Canon D30 (not 30D) that does that, even though it makes no
mention of such in any official Canon literature.

Again, the output of the hassy CFV-39 back (as described here) is
optionally DNG. This opens in most OS' folder displays as a large
thumbnail and of course in many viewers and editors.

As understand it, the back only outputs in 3F RAW and TIFF, but Photoshop
can read the 3F files and CONVERT them to DNG. It's the time-wasting
converting I would want to avoid.

I don't know why Hasselblad didn't have embedded JPEGs as an option just
like all other pro digitals do. Although, I would like the option of
having the JPEGs--at whatever resolution and compression I choose--saved
separately at the time the image is created, too. It's just much more
convenient than having to do it separately.

Stef

Alan Browne

2009-07-11 19:06:43 UTC

Post by Stefan Patric
But seriously, as far as I can tell the back only saves in Hasselbald
3F RAW and TIFF. I'd like to see some JPEG options. At the very
least, a full resolution, high quality one embedded in the RAW file
making the images viewable in any file viewer for quick editing.

If you need a quick JPEG, it's easy enough to quickly batch process
your RAWs or TIFFs when you import them ...

Yes, I could, but it's the convenience of it. And if you're editing a
thousand images waiting for the conversion is very time consuming
particularly stressful when you have the art director and client
impatiently waiting, too. Time is money.
However, my guess is there is an embedded JPEG in the RAW, if only a
low res one, for quick image viewing on the digital back's LCD. I have
an old Canon D30 (not 30D) that does that, even though it makes no
mention of such in any official Canon literature.

Again, the output of the hassy CFV-39 back (as described here) is
optionally DNG. This opens in most OS' folder displays as a large
thumbnail and of course in many viewers and editors.

As understand it, the back only outputs in 3F RAW and TIFF, but Photoshop
can read the 3F files and CONVERT them to DNG. It's the time-wasting
converting I would want to avoid.

Do it via Bridge and it's part of the transfer to the computer. Files
leave the memory card in raw (3F) and are stored as .DNG on the computer
- see below.

Post by Stefan Patric
I don't know why Hasselblad didn't have embedded JPEGs as an option just
like all other pro digitals do. Although, I would like the option of
having the JPEGs--at whatever resolution and compression I choose--saved
separately at the time the image is created, too. It's just much more
convenient than having to do it separately.

I read the brochures differently. But even if it is as you say, then
you can do as I do: load onto the computer via Bridge and use that to:

-rename the files (eg: IMG_8754 becomes: "Paris 20090622-0023")
-add some metadata (photographer, copyright, whatever)
-convert to DNG while storing (includes compressed/non-lossy or lossy;
embedded JPG, embedded raw, etc...)

This makes for a longer upload time than a straight file transfer (due
to processing) but everything ends up in a useful format, renamed and
browse-able in Bridge (etc)).

Stefan Patric

2009-07-12 22:25:05 UTC

Post by Stefan Patric
As understand it, the back only outputs in 3F RAW and TIFF, but
Photoshop can read the 3F files and CONVERT them to DNG. It's the
time-wasting converting I would want to avoid.

Do it via Bridge and it's part of the transfer to the computer. Files
leave the memory card in raw (3F) and are stored as .DNG on the computer
- see below.
[snip]
This makes for a longer upload time than a straight file transfer (due
to processing) but everything ends up in a useful format, renamed and
browse-able in Bridge (etc)).

You're failing to see my point: I don't want to waste the time
converting regardless of what image format it's converted to just to
decide which images to delete. Most of the time, I don't even have to do
anything else to the remaining RAW files, since that's all most ADs want
from me as final output anyway.

Besides, other medium format digital backs have the imbedded JPEG option,
among others. So, why not Hasselblads'? That's really my point. It
can't be for cost savings. A JPEG license isn't all that expensive.

Also, FWIW, DNG is of no use to me.

Stef

Alan Browne

2009-07-13 00:10:54 UTC

Oh that. In Bridge you will see the images before importing them.

Post by Stefan Patric
Besides, other medium format digital backs have the imbedded JPEG option,
among others. So, why not Hasselblads'? That's really my point. It
can't be for cost savings. A JPEG license isn't all that expensive.

Free actually. JPEG is beyond patent.

Post by Stefan Patric
Also, FWIW, DNG is of no use to me.

It's just TIF in a wrapper.

Stefan Patric

2009-07-14 03:37:01 UTC

Do it via Bridge and it's part of the transfer to the computer. Files
leave the memory card in raw (3F) and are stored as .DNG on the
computer - see below.
[snip]
This makes for a longer upload time than a straight file transfer (due
to processing) but everything ends up in a useful format, renamed and
browse-able in Bridge (etc)).

Oh that. In Bridge you will see the images before importing them.

If you're seeing the images on the computer screen, they already have
been imported and converted for viewing, just not saved to the hard
drive. Right? No other way.

Besides, I'm a Unix/Linux/BSD, started-with-the-Amiga guy. Don't use
Photoshop (even if it were ported): more app than I will ever need.

Stef

Alan Browne

2009-07-14 20:31:40 UTC

Do it via Bridge and it's part of the transfer to the computer. Files
leave the memory card in raw (3F) and are stored as .DNG on the
computer - see below.
[snip]
This makes for a longer upload time than a straight file transfer (due
to processing) but everything ends up in a useful format, renamed and
browse-able in Bridge (etc)).

Oh that. In Bridge you will see the images before importing them.

If you're seeing the images on the computer screen, they already have
been imported and converted for viewing, just not saved to the hard
drive. Right? No other way.
Besides, I'm a Unix/Linux/BSD, started-with-the-Amiga guy. Don't use
Photoshop (even if it were ported): more app than I will ever need.

Whatever works for you is of course your affair. And you're right that
unless the Hassy back embeds a small JPG into the raw file Bridge import
won't preview it to you.

(Note: Mac OS X _is_ UNIX compliant and PS runs under Mac OS X without
the need for X11).

Stefan Patric

2009-07-15 20:44:48 UTC

Post by Stefan Patric
You're failing to see my point: I don't want to waste the time
converting regardless of what image format it's converted to just to
decide which images to delete. Most of the time, I don't even have
to do anything else to the remaining RAW files, since that's all most
ADs want from me as final output anyway.

Oh that. In Bridge you will see the images before importing them.

If you're seeing the images on the computer screen, they already have
been imported and converted for viewing, just not saved to the hard
drive. Right? No other way.
Besides, I'm a Unix/Linux/BSD, started-with-the-Amiga guy. Don't use
Photoshop (even if it were ported): more app than I will ever need.

Whatever works for you is of course your affair. And you're right that
unless the Hassy back embeds a small JPG into the raw file Bridge import
won't preview it to you.

My point. And that's for any viewer, regardless of OS.

My first DSLR was the Canon D30 (not 30D). It had a little 120 x 160
pixel jpeg embedded in its RAW file to view the image on the camera's
LCD; however, because of the image's small size, it was useless for
anything else. So, every time, before I could start my initial editing,
I had to convert every RAW file. What a pain in the butt! And on a 1
GHZ machine with 1.5g RAM, a fairly fast machine for the day, it would
take hours even though I had scripted the process. And the RAWs were
only 3 megs each.

Post by Alan Browne
(Note: Mac OS X _is_ UNIX compliant and PS runs under Mac OS X without
the need for X11).

Yes. Underneath that flashy Mac GUI with all the eye candy, you'll find
good 'ol NetBSD (http://www.netbsd.org/). And from what I've been told,
besides Mac apps, you can also run BSD and Linux apps, if you have the
appropriate libraries installed. But since I don't own a Mac, I've never
verified this.

Stef

Alan Browne

2009-07-15 20:56:51 UTC

Oh that. In Bridge you will see the images before importing them.

If you're seeing the images on the computer screen, they already have
been imported and converted for viewing, just not saved to the hard
drive. Right? No other way.
Besides, I'm a Unix/Linux/BSD, started-with-the-Amiga guy. Don't use
Photoshop (even if it were ported): more app than I will ever need.

Whatever works for you is of course your affair. And you're right that
unless the Hassy back embeds a small JPG into the raw file Bridge import
won't preview it to you.

My point. And that's for any viewer, regardless of OS.
My first DSLR was the Canon D30 (not 30D). It had a little 120 x 160
pixel jpeg embedded in its RAW file to view the image on the camera's
LCD; however, because of the image's small size, it was useless for
anything else. So, every time, before I could start my initial editing,
I had to convert every RAW file. What a pain in the butt! And on a 1
GHZ machine with 1.5g RAM, a fairly fast machine for the day, it would
take hours even though I had scripted the process. And the RAWs were
only 3 megs each.

Post by Alan Browne
(Note: Mac OS X _is_ UNIX compliant and PS runs under Mac OS X without
the need for X11).

I think Mac OS X resemblance to BSD has been severely changed over the
years - the kernel is the Mach kernel which is said to replace the BSD
kernel. Many -NIX apps will run under Mac OS X, often with X11 as the
GUI (The Gimp for example).

Stefan Patric

2009-07-15 21:40:41 UTC

Post by Alan Browne
(Note: Mac OS X _is_ UNIX compliant and PS runs under Mac OS X without
the need for X11).

Yes. Underneath that flashy Mac GUI with all the eye candy, you'll
find good 'ol NetBSD (http://www.netbsd.org/). And from what I've been
told, besides Mac apps, you can also run BSD and Linux apps, if you
have the appropriate libraries installed. But since I don't own a Mac,
I've never verified this.

I don't even think the Mach kernel is still in development by the
originators. Apple, I've read, has taken it over for their own
purposes. Although, I'm sure Mach, in some form or other, is floating
around the open source development community. There are some, me
included, that prefer micro-kernels over Linux and BSD's standard
monolithic ones. They each have their advantages and disadvantages.

Stef

Alan Browne

2009-07-15 22:22:47 UTC

Post by Alan Browne
(Note: Mac OS X _is_ UNIX compliant and PS runs under Mac OS X without
the need for X11).

Yes. Underneath that flashy Mac GUI with all the eye candy, you'll
find good 'ol NetBSD (http://www.netbsd.org/). And from what I've been
told, besides Mac apps, you can also run BSD and Linux apps, if you
have the appropriate libraries installed. But since I don't own a Mac,
I've never verified this.

I don't even think the Mach kernel is still in development by the
originators. Apple, I've read, has taken it over for their own
purposes.

It would appear. The claim that it is the Mach kernel is from Wikipedia
which is usually reliable for "nerd" input.

Post by Stefan Patric
Although, I'm sure Mach, in some form or other, is floating
around the open source development community. There are some, me
included, that prefer micro-kernels over Linux and BSD's standard
monolithic ones. They each have their advantages and disadvantages.

At the level I use them, probably no difference. However one important
change to Mac OS X will come out in the 10.6 release this late summer.

Part of it is to get full benefit of 64 bit processors and the rest,
perhaps more important is for multi core / multi CPU environments. The
OS has changed how tasks are queued for execution in order that
resources be maximized without application programmers needing to worry
much about the target CPU architecture. More:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/#grandcentral

as well as the use of the graphics processor as an additional CPU
(OpenCL) - requires Apps to be compiled for it however. (Same link
above). [Not sure if my machine will support that however].

Stefan Patric

2009-07-17 03:14:49 UTC

Post by Stefan Patric
I don't even think the Mach kernel is still in development by the
originators. Apple, I've read, has taken it over for their own
purposes.

It would appear. The claim that it is the Mach kernel is from Wikipedia
which is usually reliable for "nerd" input.

Apple took the Mach kernel and massaged it to suit its purposes for OS
X. I don't know if that code is available, but under the Open Source
license, it's suppose to be.

At the level I use them, probably no difference. However one important
change to Mac OS X will come out in the 10.6 release this late summer.

Very generally, monolithic kernels work best with servers while micros
are more suitable for desktops.

Post by Alan Browne
Part of it is to get full benefit of 64 bit processors and the rest,
perhaps more important is for multi core / multi CPU environments. The
OS has changed how tasks are queued for execution in order that
resources be maximized without application programmers needing to worry
http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/#grandcentral

Sounds like the way cluster supercomputer kernel-OSes work, so that how
the app is distributed and executed through the cluster is transparent to
the user, and doesn't require special compiling of the app itself.

Post by Alan Browne
as well as the use of the graphics processor as an additional CPU
(OpenCL) - requires Apps to be compiled for it however. (Same link
above). [Not sure if my machine will support that however].

Don't know about the Mac, but I read a couple years ago, that some team
was working on a Linux kernel that would automatically distribute
execution of the OS, apps, etc. over multi-core/multi-cpus without the
need for custom compile of anything except the kernel.

Ain't progress grand?

Stef

nospam

2009-07-17 07:41:28 UTC

Post by Stefan Patric
I don't even think the Mach kernel is still in development by the
originators. Apple, I've read, has taken it over for their own
purposes.

It would appear. The claim that it is the Mach kernel is from Wikipedia
which is usually reliable for "nerd" input.

Apple took the Mach kernel and massaged it to suit its purposes for OS
X.

actually next did for nextstep/openstep and apple inherited that.

Post by Stefan Patric
I don't know if that code is available, but under the Open Source
license, it's suppose to be.

it's available.

Ray Fischer

2009-07-13 02:18:45 UTC

Post by Alan Browne
Again, the output of the hassy CFV-39 back (as described here) is
optionally DNG. This opens in most OS' folder displays as a large
thumbnail and of course in many viewers and editors.

As understand it, the back only outputs in 3F RAW and TIFF, but Photoshop
can read the 3F files and CONVERT them to DNG. It's the time-wasting
converting I would want to avoid.

Smirk. Is that really what's stopping you from buying that gear?

--
Ray Fischer
***@sonic.net

Stefan Patric

2009-07-14 01:50:31 UTC

Post by Ray Fischer

As understand it, the back only outputs in 3F RAW and TIFF, but
Photoshop can read the 3F files and CONVERT them to DNG. It's the
time-wasting converting I would want to avoid.

Smirk. Is that really what's stopping you from buying that gear?

No. There are others. But in general, if a product fails to meet basic
requirements, why would you buy it? Or, doesn't that make sense to you?

Stef

Wolfgang Weisselberg

2009-07-13 14:08:55 UTC

If you need a quick JPEG, it's easy enough to quickly batch process your
RAWs or TIFFs when you import them ...

Yes, I could, but it's the convenience of it.

You could (have someone) automate it, so it'd be as convenient.

Post by Stefan Patric
And if you're editing a
thousand images waiting for the conversion is very time consuming

You often come back to the computer with new 1.000 images?

Post by Stefan Patric
particularly stressful when you have the art director and client
impatiently waiting, too. Time is money.

... and have the art director and client waiting for you?

Post by Stefan Patric
However, my guess is there is an embedded JPEG in the RAW, if only a low
res one, for quick image viewing on the digital back's LCD. I have an
old Canon D30 (not 30D) that does that, even though it makes no mention
of such in any official Canon literature.

How slow *is* dcraw -h for your RAWs?
And did you try dcraw -e yet?

-Wolfgang

Stefan Patric

2009-07-14 03:13:39 UTC

If you need a quick JPEG, it's easy enough to quickly batch process
your RAWs or TIFFs when you import them ...

Yes, I could, but it's the convenience of it.

You could (have someone) automate it, so it'd be as convenient.

Been there. Done that. Never, again.

Why do you think pro DSLRs have built-in the option for a high quality
JPEG in the RAW file or to be saved separately outside it? There must be
a reason, yes? It's to save time! And like they say, time is money.

Post by Stefan Patric
And if you're editing a
thousand images waiting for the conversion is very time consuming

You often come back to the computer with new 1.000 images?

Quite often.

Most people who have never shot full time, professionally don't realize
how much pros really shoot. For example, since 2006, for just one
client, I shot over 250,000 exposures, wore out two bodies (shutters
failed), and am on my third one. And I only averaged about 3 days a week
shooting for them 9 to 10 months a year.

Post by Stefan Patric
particularly stressful when you have the art director and client
impatiently waiting, too. Time is money.

... and have the art director and client waiting for you?

Lots of times, they are with you at the shoot.

Post by Stefan Patric
However, my guess is there is an embedded JPEG in the RAW, if only a
low res one, for quick image viewing on the digital back's LCD. I have
an old Canon D30 (not 30D) that does that, even though it makes no
mention of such in any official Canon literature.

How slow *is* dcraw -h for your RAWs? And did you try dcraw -e yet?

As I said above: "Been there. Done that. Never, again."

Stef

Wolfgang Weisselberg

2009-07-16 11:22:40 UTC

Post by Wolfgang Weisselberg
You could (have someone) automate it, so it'd be as convenient.

Been there. Done that. Never, again.

You probably should upgrade your old 386, then.

Post by Stefan Patric
Why do you think pro DSLRs have built-in the option for a high quality
JPEG in the RAW file or to be saved separately outside it?

Because consumer DSLRs offer the same.
Because they already offer JPEG-only in various sizes and
compressions as output. (as do consumer DSLRs)
Because sports shooters can amass serious numbers of shots in
an hour or two and they must be sighted very fast.

Post by Stefan Patric
There must be a reason, yes?

Sure. It's called "sales".

Post by Stefan Patric
It's to save time! And like they say, time is money.

It's there not to hurt sales. And if you bought a backend that
doesn't support that, well, why did you? Didn't you know your
own needs?

Post by Wolfgang Weisselberg
You often come back to the computer with new 1.000 images?

Quite often.
Most people who have never shot full time, professionally don't realize
how much pros really shoot.

That depends entirely on what the pros shoot --- I imagine
most of the many-images-per-day pros use DSLRs.

Post by Stefan Patric
For example, since 2006, for just one
client, I shot over 250,000 exposures, wore out two bodies (shutters
failed), and am on my third one. And I only averaged about 3 days a week
shooting for them 9 to 10 months a year.

You probably should rethink whose bodies to buy if your shutters
fail that often. But then you are shooting more than a photograph
per minute all the time through if you do 8 hour days --- and
that's only ~500 shots/day.

Post by Wolfgang Weisselberg
... and have the art director and client waiting for you?

Lots of times, they are with you at the shoot.

So your computer is also at the shoot. How about
transferring the images *as they are shot*, using WiFi or
firewire or whatever technology and converting them as they
arrive? That way, no more waiting for slow card readers and
flash memory ... time is money.

Or maybe you should return to your computer more often than
every few days.

Post by Stefan Patric
However, my guess is there is an embedded JPEG in the RAW, if only a
low res one, for quick image viewing on the digital back's LCD. I have
an old Canon D30 (not 30D) that does that, even though it makes no
mention of such in any official Canon literature.

How slow *is* dcraw -h for your RAWs? And did you try dcraw -e yet?

As I said above: "Been there. Done that. Never, again."

You didn't even *try* to understand what dcraw -e does. Well,
your loss, if your knee jerk reaction forces you to buy a
different backend it's not my problem.

Of course, if you had a backend driven by open source, you
could have asked someone to implement a straight to JPEG
conversion, no problem.

-Wolfgang

D. Peter Maus

2009-07-16 12:23:03 UTC

Post by Wolfgang Weisselberg
And if you bought a backend that
doesn't support that, well, why did you? Didn't you know your
own needs?

That may be the $64,000 question.

D. Peter Maus

2009-07-15 16:49:08 UTC

Post by Stefan Patric
And if you're editing a
thousand images waiting for the conversion is very time consuming

You often come back to the computer with new 1.000 images?

I do. Did this weekend, as well.

I've got an industrial shoot in two locations in 3 weeks. 1000
images will be light.

Q.G. de Bakker

2009-07-15 18:10:13 UTC

Post by D. Peter Maus
I do. Did this weekend, as well.
I've got an industrial shoot in two locations in 3 weeks. 1000 images
will be light.

You keep on shooting until your confidence that something useable might be
among the many shots has grown enough that you dare to stop?

D. Peter Maus

2009-07-15 18:37:32 UTC