File :-(, x, )
Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
It's been a while, so here's a few new ones from today.

Not HDR, so please spare the flames.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshPhotographerunknownMaximum Lens Aperturef/3.5Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:04:01 20:20:06Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/5.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/5.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length18.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width750Image Height500RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshPhotographerunknownMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:04:01 20:35:09Exposure Time1/320 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width500Image Height750RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshPhotographerunknownImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:04:01 20:06:32Exposure Time1/25 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/3.5Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length18.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width500Image Height750RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> M/A !n21TE7QU8U
You work on a mac?
Those things hate me.
>> Anonymous
You might think they look gritty, but they just look cliche as fuck to me.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>152476
Yeah, a sluggish MacBook. I got it for my birthday last year, now I'm saving up for a Pro.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
this is over 9000
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
not too bad.. nice and clean, but overall really meh.
>> M/A !n21TE7QU8U
>>152471
I must say, I like this one.
The reflections are kind of awesome.
Anyway, I dunno if this is your car or you just found it somewhere just standing there, but more symmetry would be appreciated in this one.
READ: Park the fucking car in the middle of the ceiling beams.
>> Anonymous
>>152478

lulz

you realize there's no difference in performance between a macbook and a macbook pro other than video card

it would help a bit in aperture but photoshop doesn't even use it
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>152485
Actually, the MacBook Pro (last I checked) uses a faster hard drive, faster RAM, has better heat dissipation, and, yes, a better video card = higher resolution = more room to work on photos.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>152485
Difference between last year's Macbook and next year's Mac Pro should be significant, though. Moore's Law FTW.
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
>>152485
fail
>> Anonymous
>>152490

the 7200 rpm drive is an option and the performance increase is impossibly small, but on the other hand, you will get hit by shorter battery life

no, imac, macbook pro/non pro use the same ram, and lulz if you think faster ram makes your computer faster for this kind of thing. more ram = faster.

>> better video card = higher resolution

rofl, bigger screen = higher resolution. wow, i can't believe you said that.

but anyway, i'm just saying it's funny because you said it's sluggish. spec for spec, there is no difference between a MB and MB Pro for photoshop work

>>152496Difference between last year's Macbook and next year's Mac Pro should be significant, though. Moore's Law FTW.

i sure as hell think the lowest end notebook isn't as fast as a $5,000 workstation. rolleyes
>> Anonymous
>>152500

kid, learn about computers before you open your mouth,
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>152503
>lulz if you think faster ram makes your computer faster for this kind of thing

>rofl, bigger screen = higher resolution.

You're obviously a troll, or an intellectually bankrupt person. Either way, fuck off.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>152503
>i sure as hell think the lowest end notebook isn't as fast as a $5,000 workstation. rolleyes
Sorry, meant Macbook Pro. I'm not the macfag I was in my younger days, so I'm less versed in the names.

So, correcting: speed difference between last year's Macbook and next year's Macbook Pro should be significant. Moore's law ftw.
>> Anonymous
>>152507

Sigh, I'll actually take the time to type appropriately so it looks like I'm actually serious.

Please, please point me to a benchmark, any benchmark proving RAM clocked at higher frequency makes things blazingly fast than one clocked slower.

In any fucking case, they are both using the same goddamn RAM, christ.

>> better video card = higher resolution

Please explain that. Native SCREEN RESOLUTION is set by, GASP, your SCREEN, not your video card. Holy crap, how hard is it to grasp that concept?

Bigger screen = Higher resolution. Your monitor can only display a set resolution, having a better video card doesn't do jack shit unless your program is actually calling 3D rendering. Which Photoshop simply DOES NOT. Apple Aperture on the other hand DOES take advantage of a faster video card.

Again, please prove me wrong in any of these claims. You simply can't.

For the last time, a MacBook vs. a MacBook Pro with exact same specs, minus video card DOES NOT have any difference in performance for Photoshop.
>> Anonymous
>>152513So, correcting: speed difference between last year's Macbook and next year's Macbook Pro should be significant. Moore's law ftw.

Sure.

Except Apple has _yet_ to upgrade to Intel's newest chipset. I am a geek but not geek enough to know its name.

The iMac, MacBook, MacBook Pro have the same internals. Processor, motherboard, memory.

The only advantages for the MacBook Pro are, illuminated keyboard, optional LED screen, larger screen and video card.

All of which do NOT affect Photoshop in pure performance.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>152514
Higher RAM speed means you can read and write faster from memory. If you don't think this impacts system performance in reference to photo editing, I don't really know what to tell you. Read more, perhaps.

Resolution is governed by the screen, yes, but also by a video card. You can buy a cheap video card and it'll display 640x480 on a 1680x1050 screen or buy a good video card and display full resolution.
>> Anonymous
>>152516Higher RAM speed means you can read and write faster from memory. If you don't think this impacts system performance in reference to photo editing, I don't really know what to tell you. Read more, perhaps.

No, I simply do not need to read more. The RAM in all iMacs, MacBooks and MacBook Pros are one and the same. DDR2 667 MHz.

Case fucking ended.

>> Resolution is governed by the screen, yes, but also by a video card. You can buy a cheap video card and it'll display 640x480 on a 1680x1050 screen or buy a good video card and display full resolution.

Obvious statement is obvious.

I'm making fun of why you can say "better video card = higher resolution"

You cannot go any higher than the native resolution of your LCD. Regardless of if you had 2 8800 GTX in SLI in them.

The video card doesn't do shit until it's called for. Which Photoshop has absolutely no use.

So getting a MacBook Pro for a LARGER screen makes sense. Getting a MacBook Pro because it has a better video card for Photoshop doesn't.
>> parshimers !y2fz.HIyUQ
>>152516
i dont think that's been an issue since the 90's lol, any videocard these days can do just about any resolution
it sure as hell wouldnt be a limitation on a laptop
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>152515
>Except Apple has _yet_ to upgrade to Intel's newest chipset.
Sounds like they're due. Maybe they'll have an upgrade by the time he saves up enough money for it.

>>152516
>Higher RAM speed means you can read and write faster from memory.
While I agree with you that RAM speed effects overall system speed, I can't find any evidence that the Macbook Pro has faster RAM than the Macbook...
>> Anonymous
I just want to state for the record how beethy quickly shut the fuck up.

See how he likes to jump in, specially when tripfags are invovled. Running his mouth when he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about.

Christ he's an annoying faggot.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>152525
Troll smarter, not harder.
>> Anonymous
>>152524While I agree with you that RAM speed effects overall system speed, I can't find any evidence that the Macbook Pro has faster RAM than the Macbook...

Again, while 800 vs. 667 is faster on paper. I have yet to see any TANGIBLE performance increase

People don't go, oh man, I wish my RAM was faster!

More RAM = faster. faster RAM = money wasted.
>> Anonymous
>>152526

I don't even know what that means, to be honest.
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
>>152525
LOL

i'm actually at work right now... which is why i'm often gone for gaps and not always on the internets

troll more
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>152530
It means that constantly railing on Beethy gets old. Try something new. Be more subtle.

>>152529
>People don't go, oh man, I wish my RAM was faster!
I don't have any evidence to back up my argument either. But! Other than the lowest model, the Macbook Pro has twice the cache as the Macbook, and more cache does have an effect on system speed.
>> Anonymous
Well for the record again, I will state I was wrong on the processors.

The MacBook Pro is now using Penryn instead of Merom. With the only advtange of increased battery life by 7-15%.

So uh, I apologize for that but point still stands.
>> Anonymous
>>152534

Yes, that's Penryn for you. But benchmarks are the same for performance.

>>152532

I'm fine with that. If you have the time, please humor me and explain why my first post was "fail".
>> Anonymous
I like the first one although you got some weird aliasing on the roof edge with the resize.

Middle one is ok, but not that great if you ask me.

I liked the car one, but agree with the earlier poster that symmetry here would have been 100% win. You could sell it to the manufacturer for use in advertising if you tightened up the reflected lines of the roof.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>152556
Oh, hey, yeah. I forgot that there were actual pictures in this thread.

In after shitstorm.

>>152469
This is my favorite of the three. I'm a sucker for urban decay type shots and I really like the composition. You've cut off just enough of the building to make it interesting.

>>152471
Looks like an ad for whatever type of car this is. I like the slight lack of symmetry. Symmetry's boring.

>>152466
Meh
>> Anonymous
what do you do in shooping to get this style? I really like the car one.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
     File :-(, x)
>>152562
The car one I ran a contrast adjustment, upped saturation, adjusted color curves, then used a Soft Light layer to dodge and burn, which was coincidentally suggested by someone on this forum. Whoever it was, thanks, it works wonders.

I've marked the car one for a reshoot, I'm going to bring some reflectors and redo the picture for symmetry.

Pictured is original out of the camera, 2nd one is the picture after the RAW dialog and the third is post processed.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:04:02 00:20:06Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1500Image Height750
>> Anonymous
The car is nice, the others are boring. It's a hut, nothing more. Boring subject += colorholgalikeshooping != good picture.