Wye wrote:
Did SI ever recover its position in the industry after the move from 3D to XSI?  At one time they were really the top of the turnip pile but I feel like the transition to XSI kinda killed them...  I can't imagine that being bought and sold so many times (MS, Avid, then Autodesk) could've helped either.

I sort of stopped paying too close attention to them and did more work in Alias after around '95, mainly because of what my surroundings dictated -- what was already in place there.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
I am once again reminded that MM is mostly populated by engineer and IT types.

I don't know a single creative that cares about, or wants to know about, how computers work.

You don't know everyone!   

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
Yep.  In the 80s I used to do a lot of hand transcriptions of music for composers.  Back then, the only way to produce charts were either to have them offset printed or drawn by hand (a very exacting process as the notes had to be spaced on paper correctly).  With the advent of the Mac, you could get a program that allowed for desktop publishing of music.  PC, at that time, couldn't do it.  So many of us in creative fields, from music, to design, to layout, film, photography - we started back when mac was the only real option and just stuck with it.

Not to the degree you could in Sibelius.  Yes, you could do a simple chart, but if you were scoring for orchestra (what I did) it wasn't really an option.

Sibelius was developed first for Acorn computers around 92/93, then ported to PC in the late 90's and the Mac about a year later.

Justin Foto wrote:
Sibelius was developed first for Acorn computers around 92/93, then ported to PC in the late 90's and the Mac about a year later.

Must be a different program then.  The first one I used was in 1986.  Forgive my memory, it was 28 years ago!

Wye wrote:
UNIX-ness is a *huge* need for me in my line of work (and for my general sensibilities).  Without it I feel like I am working with both hands tied behind my back.

I miss how everything was runnable from the command line and everything could be piped so you could build complex systems from simple components which were in turn built from unix commands, but some people in some places (in authority, but not technical) just did not take to that.

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:

I miss how everything was runnable from the command line and everything could be piped so you could build complex systems from simple components which were in turn built from unix commands, but some people in some places (in authority, but not technical) just did not take to that.

Yup.  It's the backbone of the production pipeline we've built here.  Everything is controlled with shell scripts and environment variables.  Every application is launched from the command line so that everything shares all of the proper settings and variables.  I've never worked in a Windows-based large production environment so I literally have no idea how people function without such things (heck.. I don't know how we would function without having symlinks and fully-qualified absolute paths in our pipeline).  I've known no other way since the early 90s so the idea of working any other way is a nightmare to me.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
I am once again reminded that MM is mostly populated by engineer and IT types.

I don't know a single creative that cares about, or wants to know about, how computers work.

I know very few creatives that know nothing about computers especially graphic and game designers. Same goes for the audio folks. Heck most of the photographers I know either worked in the tech field or continue to work in the tech field.

While I am not as old as a lot of you I have always known photographers and visual artists to be geeks and nerds since technology has always been key to their craft.

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
Okay, well, there you have it.

PCs are good because they are technical.

But Macs are better because they are more technical.

Hah.. for me that is definitely true.

For this programmer/photographer/visual effects guy the Mac only became palatable when it became a UNIX platform.  Only *then* did it have the best of both worlds -- a fantastic GUI with all of the UNIX/command line goodness I'd come to love/need over the years.

I'd suffered through Linux because it was the only option at the time.  The foundation was there but god damn the GUIs were *awful* and I really hated dealing with things like the aforementioned Wacom drivers.  But I put up with them because, for me, it was the only game in town.  Once Mac OS X matured and enough software vendors bought in the switch was a no-brainer for me.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
I am once again reminded that MM is mostly populated by engineer and IT types.

I don't know a single creative that cares about, or wants to know about, how computers work.

The Grand Artist wrote:
I know very few creatives that know nothing about computers especially graphic and game designers. Same goes for the audio folks. Heck most of the photographers I know either worked in the tech field or continue to work in the tech field.

While I am not as old as a lot of you I have always known photographers and visual artists to be geeks and nerds since technology has always been key to their craft.

The bolded part is certainly true here… 

Yes, most photographers have always been a bit geeky, given science involved pre-digital - but even that's not always the case.  There were many who only shot.  Myself, I was a darkroom geek.

Most creative types I know USE computers - I certainly do.  I don't know any who care about how they work.  Every creative I've ever known, myself included, views them as appliances.  Like a toaster.  I don't care how my toaster works, nor do I care to learn.  I just want it to make toast.  Does a chef make more delicious meals because they the internal workings of a gas range? 

This speaks to a general pet peeve of mine regarding the site.  Look at photography talk.  Photography is almost NEVER discussed.  But photography EQUIPMENT…

Justin Foto wrote:
You could do music scoring on Commodore machines back then.

And later the Commodore Amiga and Atari ST were also excellent with music composition, especially Atari systems which had built-in MIDI ports for music composition purposes.

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
If you just want to make toast then you probably don't need a rich inner life and a wide range of interests, but if you want to make art...

Do I need to know how the computer works to make art?

Not how the programs work, but how computers work?

I guess somewhat.  I need to be able to turn it on.  I need to be able to understand if my system resources are inadequate for a particular function I suppose.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:

Do I need to know how the computer works to make art?

Not how the programs work, but how computers work?

I guess somewhat.  I need to be able to turn it on.  I need to be able to understand if my system resources are inadequate for a particular function I suppose.

You need to know all you can about everything to make art. Or write literature.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
Do I need to know how the computer works to make art?

Not how the programs work, but how computers work?

I guess somewhat.  I need to be able to turn it on.  I need to be able to understand if my system resources are inadequate for a particular function I suppose.

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
You need to know all you can about everything to make art. Or write literature.

Ah, yes, in that I will agree.  However, when prioritizing the list of interests to explore as a set of life experiences to derive from, I would place electrical engineering somewhere below bullfighting.  But your point is valid.  It all depends on what you wish to explore.

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
You need to know all you can about everything to make art. Or write literature.

Not so sure about this one...

Too many "technicians" who know everything about every minute details and formulas about perfect lighting, retouching and how the different processors work in their computers and have their monitors calibrated with the best software... knowing the Zone system by heart, can recite the Kelvin equivalent for color temperatures...

... yet... they don't have imagination for concepts, boring perfect images that only tell the story about the photographers knowledge, but nothing about the model, the mood or the concept.

That would go now deeper into the philosophy what "art" and "art creation" is.

I know so many gear-head photographers who amassed tens of thousands of photo and lighting gear and know exactly how everything works... yet their photos are bland...

Then, look at our on and off MM member Michael Donovan... some of his most interesting work (b&w) is technically extremely simple..., some are more elaborate, but his fashion images just absolutely rock in my opinion... I rather strive for something like that then absolute technical perfection... I am a storyteller, not a technician.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:

The bolded part is certainly true here… 

Yes, most photographers have always been a bit geeky, given science involved pre-digital - but even that's not always the case.  There were many who only shot.  Myself, I was a darkroom geek.

Most creative types I know USE computers - I certainly do.  I don't know any who care about how they work.  Every creative I've ever known, myself included, views them as appliances.  Like a toaster.  I don't care how my toaster works, nor do I care to learn.  I just want it to make toast.  Does a chef make more delicious meals because they the internal workings of a gas range? 

This speaks to a general pet peeve of mine regarding the site.  Look at photography talk.  Photography is almost NEVER discussed.  But photography EQUIPMENT…

that is exactly the difficult part for photographers. Every time i give workshops, this is a standard issue, i mean the ones that have or had it as hobby,...it's all technology based. i have to make them loose of their photographic geeky-ness.

While the best photographers i know come from other fields, mostly graphic designers....they are proficient at technique, but are not focused on the technocracy that hobby photographers have...they rather focus on the visual communication..

Herman
www.hermanvangestel.com

Justin Foto wrote:
Yes, but Windows image viewer starts much faster.

From Windows 7(do not know about Vista), the Win Image Viewer is
color managed, but you must use monitor profiles V2 and not V4.

Btw, the fastest Image Viewer of the universe is http://www.fastpictureviewer.com
but I prefer to browse with ACDsee.

udor wrote:
I am a storyteller, not a technician.

Anyone who stays willfully ignorant of large swaths of human endeavor will have a lot fewer stories worth telling.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
I am once again reminded that MM is mostly populated by engineer and IT types.

I don't know a single creative that cares about, or wants to know about, how computers work.

This speaks to a general pet peeve of mine regarding the site.  Look at photography talk.  Photography is almost NEVER discussed.  But photography EQUIPMENT…

That is definitely a worthy discussion which probably belongs in the photography forum but really what are most people going to say. Everyone here pretty much likes their own style and nothing else so if a person is not doing exactly the same thing then they have no interest.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
I am once again reminded that MM is mostly populated by engineer and IT types.

I don't know a single creative that cares about, or wants to know about, how computers work.

I don't know a single person under 25 who doesn't know about computers.  What you see as engineer and IT types is about 10-15 years out of date, thisis all common knowledge now.

My kids have used computers, tablets, and the like starting in Pre-K.  They learn web development and programming (granted its pretty basic) in middle school.

Wye wrote:
Yup.  It's the backbone of the production pipeline we've built here.  Everything is controlled with shell scripts and environment variables.  Every application is launched from the command line so that everything shares all of the proper settings and variables.  I've never worked in a Windows-based large production environment so I literally have no idea how people function without such things (heck.. I don't know how we would function without having symlinks and fully-qualified absolute paths in our pipeline).  I've known no other way since the early 90s so the idea of working any other way is a nightmare to me.

Yeah, UNIX (well Linux now), is really the preferred platform for large database driven production systems (supporting large [many opensource] Java/JEE applications). Usually Windows is relegated to the backoffice systems, which shares data with production.
The whole idea of UNIX which enabled creating more sophisticated processing functionality by leveraging pipelines of small cooperating utilities, was rather ingenious.
I can make shell scripts stand on their head - but having said that, I'm not crazy - for many many things I prefer a UI.

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
Anyone who stays willfully ignorant of large swaths of human endeavor will have a lot fewer stories worth telling.

Has nothing to do with my life, my knowledge and life experiences... my life experiences and understanding far surpasses my solid'ish knowledge of technical aspects... and from that base, my comment stands.

If you know they paintings I created, you would understand what kind of imagination I have... and not every "gear collecting photo engineer" has automatically the ability to create surreal worlds in their minds.

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:

Yeah, UNIX (well Linux now), is really the preferred platform for large database driven production systems (supporting large [many opensource] Java/JEE applications). Usually Windows is relegated to the backoffice systems, which shares data with production.
The whole idea of UNIX which enabled creating more sophisticated processing functionality by leveraging pipelines of small cooperating utilities, was rather ingenious.
I can make shell scripts stand on their head - but having said that, I'm not crazy - for many many things I prefer a UI.

CLI is a UI.
{|}

udor wrote:

Has nothing to do with my life, my knowledge and life experiences... my life experiences and understanding far surpasses my solid'ish knowledge of technical aspects... and from that base, my comment stands.

If you know they paintings I created, you would understand what kind of imagination I have... and not every "gear collecting photo engineer" has automatically the ability to create surreal worlds in their minds.

Nice!

I see you have a little influence of Salvador Dalí going on.
{|}

HighLander wrote:
Nice!

I see you have a little influence of Salvador Dalí going on.
{|}

LOL... thanks... Dali is usually the first that comes into people's mind... then those who are more familiar with surrealism may mention Magritte... yet, I am not influenced by either one.

A major gallery in Soho is interested in my work and compared me directly to a very well known (in those circles) surrealist, Rafal Olbinski, whom I didn't know either, until the moment the gallerist got excited when he saw my work and pulled out books to show me. They are very interested in my work, since they also had a two months solo exhibition with Olbinski, which was very successful... (they want to introduce me to him and his agent in Connecticut)

But... all of that just to make the point that technical knowledge is not what creates art... it's imagination... technique helps to make it visible to others...

udor wrote:

LOL... thanks... Dali is usually the first that comes into people's mind... then those who are more familiar with surrealism may mention Magritte... yet, I am not influenced by either one.

A major gallery in Soho is interested in my work and compared me directly to a very well known (in those circles) surrealist, Rafal Olbinski, whom I didn't know either, until the moment the gallerist got excited when he saw my work and pulled out books to show me. They are very interested in my work, since they also had a two months solo exhibition with Olbinski, which was very successful... (they want to introduce me to him and his agent in Connecticut)

But... all of that just to make the point that technical knowledge is not what creates art... it's imagination... technique helps to make it visible to others...

I'm familiar with Rafal Olbinski work, and now that you brought it up it is quite apparent!
I did not think that right off though. Best of luck with this endeavor Udor!

I wish you well!
{|}

Gary Blanchette wrote:
I was really looking for a simple yes or no, but I forgot I was on MM...

Seriously, thanks everyone. There is definitely a lot of food for thought here.

Yes... If you have the want, OS X is the way to go.
{|}

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:
If we were still in the 90s this would be true (the OP).
Now they are both equally capable, albeit Apple seems to have a more flag-waving fanbase.

I think there's still a strong inertia effect going on.  Companies and individuals who were using only Macs in the 90s are probably still using mostly Macs now. 

And think of how hard it is for a single person to switch, then consider how hard it would be to get an entire company to switch.  Staying on the same platform for 20+ years will require significant time upgrading, but it can be done gradually.  It's not as easy to gradually switch to a different platform, and stopping everything to replace every computer is rarely a feasible option.  And that's assuming that those companies have any reason to switch.

There is certainly a lot of flag waving from a handful of people, but I do think that a strong majority of creatives are using Macs.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
This speaks to a general pet peeve of mine regarding the site.  Look at photography talk.  Photography is almost NEVER discussed.  But photography EQUIPMENT…

I think there's a lot more common ground when it comes to gear.  I mean, everyone needs some gear; without a camera, you can't really be a photographer.  But you can be a photographer without knowing or thinking much about photography as a whole.

There are also a lot more definite answers.  Will this camera do X?  Is this flash compatible with Y?  Is Z sub 1 better than Z sub 2?  There are virtually no definite answers to questions about photography, which makes it more difficult to talk about.

I only minored in photography in college, but I'd say that 80% of the actual instruction that took place had to do with technical matters.  There was very little discussion about what makes a good photograph good.

On the other hand, in my major, creative writing, there's a lot less technical stuff to teach.  Once you get through teaching scansion and how many lines are in a sestina, the rest is analyzing what has been written.

Gary Blanchette wrote:
I was really looking for a simple yes or no, but I forgot I was on MM...

Seriously, thanks everyone. There is definitely a lot of food for thought here.

Are Macs really favored by industry Pros.

Yes.

So just how true is his remark?

Partially true.

Hasn't Windows systems kind of caught up?

Yes.

Are graphics on a Mac monitor superior?

No.

Brian Diaz wrote:
There is certainly a lot of flag waving from a handful of people, but I do think that a strong majority of creatives are using Macs.

I think that there is kind of a cult behaviour that goes with Macs...

They have a "certain reputation" and everybody who uses one swears by it, especially because "it's the standard of the creatives... so, I use one, I am in that field... hence I am a creative/artist, too!"

There is this buzzword of being more "intuitive"..., and I am sorry... I am using PC's all my life... then I had a Mac Pro at home, using it for 1.5 years parallel to my PC... and... I found that machine not intuitive at all, it was rather cumbersome and I actually found many of the design features, (small, almost undetectable power button and other hardware stuff) rather pretentious... sorry... but that's how I felt about it.

On top of it... my software that I use for editing ACDSee Pro wasn't available, until they've made a version and some upgrades for Mac... but those were so weak, scrawny skeletons of the PC version that they were literally useless...

I ended up not using it for work, just entertainment...

I say: to each it's own... and I prefer a PC...

udor wrote:
I think that there is kind of a cult behaviour that goes with Macs...

They have a "certain reputation" and everybody who uses one swears by it, especially because "it's the standard of the creatives... so, I use one, I am in that field... hence I am a creative/artist, too!"

There is this buzzword of being more "intuitive"..., and I am sorry... I am using PC's all my life... then I had a Mac Pro at home, using it for 1.5 years parallel to my PC... and... I found that machine not intuitive at all, it was rather cumbersome and I actually found many of the design features, (small, almost undetectable power button and other hardware stuff) rather pretentious... sorry... but that's how I felt about it.

On top of it... my software that I use for editing ACDSee Pro wasn't available, until they've made a version and some upgrades for Mac... but those were so weak, scrawny skeletons of the PC version that they were literally useless...

I ended up not using it for work, just entertainment...

I say: to each it's own... and I prefer a PC...

Sorry Udor, but typical a techie comment:
powerbutton? settings? tweaks? you are probably missing the eternal dialog boxes and confirmation buttons as well? no need for that if you want to work creative...as mentioned...mac , you're less confronted with the computer aspects, more on creating. It's all possible, but it's all well under the hood... just drive

(btw ACDsee?, coming typical form an amateur-PC-world...staying in your comfort-zone? Lightroom, Aperture, CaptureOne, or even Photomechanics or Canon Utilities...it's just like asking why Patience/Solitaire is not on Mac... )

The only thing i actually miss natively on Mac is CorelDraw, faster, more versatile and smoother than Illustrator

Herman
www.hermanvangestel.com

VISTA: [CANCEL] OR [ALLOW]