To Drag and Drop, that is the question...

Submitted: Saturday, Oct 09, 2004 at 12:06
ThreadID: 16912 Views:2080 Replies:3 FollowUps:2
This Thread has been Archived
So, who here is a guru?

On my Apple iBook, I plug in a third party CF card reader, and use Canon File Viewer Utility to transfer the images, painfully slow.

Can I just simply drag the contents of the CF card straight to my hard drive, then convert / import after?

Dumbass question I know, but I am having problems with the crappy Canon software, which is clunky at best.

Cheers

10001101110000110101100110110101 ( Wolfie )
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: David T - Saturday, Oct 09, 2004 at 13:21

Saturday, Oct 09, 2004 at 13:21
Fellow Mac & Canon User,

What are you shooting your photos in - JPEG or RAW. As you say convert, I should imagine it is RAW.

How long does it take per image?

You should be able to copy the images across to the HD and set the canon software to convert a batch of images in a directory. Won't necessarily be any faster though.

As for the whole JPEG / RAW arguement, that's another story - but most pro's shoot JPEG - very little advantage in RAW files.

Bye
DavidT
AnswerID: 79484

Follow Up By: Lone Wolf - Sunday, Oct 10, 2004 at 00:39

Sunday, Oct 10, 2004 at 00:39
David.........

I shoot CRAW, enabling me to play with exposure & white balance later. Convert to 16 bit TIFF for Photshop, and play with later.

Cheers

Wolfie
0
FollowupID: 338954

Follow Up By: David T - Monday, Oct 11, 2004 at 06:42

Monday, Oct 11, 2004 at 06:42
If you want to use RAW it will be slow regardless - only way to speed things up is to use a G5 desktop with lots of memory. Which iBook do you have, G3 or G4 processor? I have a PC desktop and will have to agree with PC lovers, that it is significantly faster than my G4 Powerbook with 512Mb ram when processing images. Still prefer the Mac though.

On the issue of image quality and RAW/TIFF vs JPEG, I was reading on the website of the printing lab I use (who are one of the top digital labs in brisbane, used by many professional photographers) and they will print you two photos as comparison of your image at JPEG level 12 compression and JPEG 7 compression. They claim you won't be able to see the difference. The reason why they do this is for photographers who want to send their images in via the web - lot smaller files with level 7 compression so much faster to transmit over the web. Repeatedly saving at JPEG 7 will degrade the image, but if you work at JPEG 12 and then save at JPEG 7 just before sending it to the lab, there will be no problems.

I did the sums when looking at a colour printer for home and reckoned I would have to print about 6-800 A4 sized enlargements at home to come anywhere near breaking even with having my images printed at lab on photographic paper - when you take into account cost of top quality printer, ink and photo paper. Hence, I have a black and white laser printer and use the printing lab for my photography.

I realise there are advantages in being able to fiddle with white balance and exposure after the fact - the retort from the professional photographer who I asked about the same issue was - get it right at the camera, saves heaps of time in post processing of images. You'll fit more images on your memory cards and save time downloading.

One of the big advantages of digital is being able to fiddle with images after the fact, but possibly some people fiddle too much and try too hard to get "image quality". Remember a 6x4 image at 250dpi is only 1.5 megapixels - less than half of what most cameras produce...

Just my 2 cents worth - which in the age of rounding is worth bugger all.

Bye
David T
0
FollowupID: 339034

Reply By: The Explorer - Saturday, Oct 09, 2004 at 13:38

Saturday, Oct 09, 2004 at 13:38
Hello - based soley on the Canon I have now (A75) - the images are not in any special format - just jpeg's - so there is no conversion required. Once copied (by dragging & dropping) from CF card to HD you can use any imaging software to view/edit.

On my old Canon PS 600 "RAW" was simply an uncompressed jpeg - not any special format. My newer camera does not use this term - it simply gives you different image resolutions (ie number of pixels) to use - the better the resolution, the more pixels, the bigger the file...again theyre all just jpeg's.

Cheers
Greg
I sent one final shout after him to stick to the track, to which he replied “All right,” That was the last ever seen of Gibson - E Giles 23 April 1874

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message
Moderator

AnswerID: 79486

Reply By: Member - Steve M (SA) - Saturday, Oct 09, 2004 at 22:42

Saturday, Oct 09, 2004 at 22:42
Hey Wolfie

Next time I drop around I'll give you the name and number of the IBM state manager. He lives the other side of Brighton Road.

;-))

AnswerID: 79540

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (9)