• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / The Last Word / Wagging the dog, again

Wagging the dog, again

May 14, 2013 JimK Leave a Comment

There’s an oft-told line about how the Apple II made its way into businesses in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Thousands of businessmen walked into computer stores and said. “Sell me a copy of Visicalc and something to run it on.”

I just bought a Mac. It’s been more than ten years since I bought the last one. The precipitating reason was so I could run Iridient Developer, which is Mac-only.

There are other reasons. Many of my friends use Macs exclusively. Some of them, when they find out I use PCs, treat me with a disgusting mixture of sympathy, contempt, and a kind of patronizing indulgence. I tell them that I’ve used Macs, but I know that my experience is so old that it’s not particularly relevant to today’s world.

A little history. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, when I first started doing digital image processing, the industry was in the process of moving from a model where the work was performed on proprietary, special purpose workstations from companies like Scitex, Dainippon, Crossfield, and Hell, to general purpose desktop computers. The computers of the time were barely up to the task, and there was a brief flurry of applications developed for Unix-based workstations from companies like Silicon Graphics. PCs and Macs were much less expensive, and Macs were a more attractive platform for two reasons: the graphic artists of the day already used Macs because it had become the de facto platform for desktop publishing, and PCs were still struggling with memory addressing issues left over from the DOS days.

So, when I started looking for a photo editing environment, the Mac was the place to be. Photoshop initially was Mac-only, and, although Picture Publisher, the best PC alternative, wasn’t a bad program, it was clear that Photoshop had the legs. So I got a Mac and Photoshop 1.0. I used Macs for about 12 years, while still continuing to use Unix workstations and PCs and PC clones.  During part of that time I was also in charge of IT for a medium-sized company, and we ran a mixed Mac/PC shop, so I got a good look at what it took to support the two platforms. Sometimes Mac support was painful, especially in the dark OS 7.x days, and during the transition from Motorola 68xxx processors to the IBM-based PowerPC architecture.

In the early part of the current millennium, I decided that all the apps I really needed ran on the PC, and I mothballed my lozenge-shaped, candy-colored tower Mac. I loaded OS X on it just ot see what the fuss was about, but never did serious work under that OS.

In my Macless ten years, I’ve always wanted to really try to use and OS X computer, but I it never got to the top of the priority list. Iridient Developer pushed me over the top.

I’ve been reporting on the process of getting the new Mac running in my geeky blog. I will say here that the ten years of development have made Windows and Mac OS X more similar than different, that I love having a real Unix machine again (OS X could be thought of as Unix with a pretty face), and that Apple networking in a Windows Domain is not  a trivial exercise.

And, I do like Iridient Developer.

 

The Last Word

← Processing raw B&W infrared images Just say “no” to roll paper →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • JimK on How Sensor Noise Scales with Exposure Time
  • Štěpán Kaňa on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Štěpán Kaňa on How Sensor Noise Scales with Exposure Time
  • JimK on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Geofrey on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • JimK on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Geofrey on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Javier Sanchez on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?
  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.