Recently Browsing 0 members
No registered users viewing this page.
Hey, I would love to upgrade my data management workflow, and I'm looking for some expert help. First of all, I don't know anything about NAS and how they work. Neither FTP, servers, etc. I just would love to find a simple-ready solution (hopefully, it's possible).
So far, I have "all my life data" in two (6+10TB) G-Technology thunderbolts drives in Raid 0. Plus DropBox. In my G-drives I have EVERYTHING; in my Dropbox, everything but all raws. Easy. I worked this way since 2000, and I have to say I'm happy and I can always find everything I want, I'm organized. But I know I can do better. Let me explain to you where the issue is. My DropBox has 2TB data, while my G-Drives have the same 2TB Dropbox + 4TB WORK files, so far so good. The only thing I can't do without messing up with some files is keeping the G-drives automatically updated. Every time I have new jobs to back up, they go all in the G-drives (C1 catalogs, jpegs, raws, and miscellaneous). But my Dropbox it's not synced with my G-drives. So, every week, when I launch my G-drive1, I update the Dropbox folders manually. This is good enough for me, until a very few times, I messed it up 😞 No big deal. But I'm sure I can do better; I just don't know-how.
When the new job is backed up, my Carbon Copy Cloner automatically clones all the info from G-drive1 to G-drive2. So, I have two clones of EVERYTHING backups, just in case. Plus everything online on DropBox (except the raws). Did you understand? I hope it's not so messy. 🙂
My idea was to buy a new desktop hard drive, maybe 12TB, but more like a NAS solution. In addition to all my backups, I would love to have another one with EVERYTHING I have (so far, it's 6/7 TB). FWIS, a NAS is like a desktop hard drive, permanently ON and connected with an ethernet cable to the network. And I can access my files everywhere online, right? Pro and cons? I just need a simple automatic solution.
Maybe, I can make it easier. I could only put WORK in my G-drives and have a new small NAS drive dedicated backup of my iMac and Dropbox (which is the same). Does it make sense? 🤔
What do you suggest? Any tip or advice that can change my life?
Thank you in advance for your help
I am wondering how to optimize my workflow since I got the M10M.
Right now, I have a - not so satisfactory - workflow with my SL / CL : I download some pictures (JPG) via Leica Fotos to my iPad Pro to share the best shots quickly after quick tweaking, and then (sometimes a very looong time later) download the whole SD card content (DNG) to my iMac and process them through LR 6 (and Tonality CK for B&W). I like the results, but it is long and somewhat tiresome, all the more so LR is a bit slow on my Mac.
And work is done almost twice for the best pictures.
I find my processing is easier with the M10M, than my former M(240), as (my opinion after a short time using it) I get BW results I like quite quickly on LR, and even with Photos on the iPad.
So I am thinking about rationalising and getting complementary workflows with my Mac and my iPad, ie not doing things twice : downloading DNG pictures on the iPad and downloading the rest later through the computer, and join everything in the same catalogue. I could use a HDD/SSD with the iPad to copy the pictures : I don't really need/want to stock pictures on the cloud.
It seems the paying iPad Fotos app is designed for such things, and I am thinking about it as results with the M10M seem to be easier to get (though I find abnormal Leica dare to ask for a paying app...)
Has anybody tried the solution, and tell if he is satisfied with the results ? Or do you have another / better workflow ?
thanks for your inputs on your optimal workflow on your M10M !
Medium format quality? Test results: M10P vs. M10M vs Sony a7riv vs Phase One IQ4 with optimum lensesBy onasj
Leica’s new M10 Monochrom (M10M) has been touted by multiple reviewers as offering image quality rivaling that of medium-format film. And Sony explicitly claims that its a7riv camera rivals medium-format cameras. In this test, I compare side-by-side the Leica M10P (24 MP, color) with the M10M (41 MP, monochrome), the Sony a7riv (61 MP, color), and the “full-frame medium format” (54 x 40 mm sensor) Phase One IQ4 (151 MP, color), currently the largest and highest-resolution imaging sensor available to most photographers. (Note that the 102-MP Fuji GFX-100 has a cropped (44 x 33 mm) version of the Sony-manufactured sensor In the IQ4.) For each camera, I used the very best available lens at the best-quality aperture and at base ISO.
Leica M10P + Leica APO 50 Summicron at f/5.6, ISO 100
Leica M10M + Leica APO 50 Summicron at f/5.6, ISO 160
Sony a7riv + Sony 85/1.4 GM at f/5.6, ISO 100
Phase One IQ4 + Rodenstock HR90 at f/9, ISO 100 (yes, the base ISO of the IQ4 is 100, not 50).
Shooting the IQ4 at f/9 gives a comparable depth of focus as shooting the other cameras at f/5.6. I know from my other tests, and from discussions with Phase One dealers, that at f/9 diffraction is not limiting in practice for the IQ4 sensor (though it can be limiting at apertures smaller than f/9).
Everything was shot on a tripod with 2-3-second release delay to avoid shake, at subject distances to give similar subject size and position. Note that the aspect ratio of the IQ4 sensor is 4:3, rather than 3:2 like the other sensors, so I used frame width to match framing. Since I was shooting the IQ4 on a technical camera, all four cameras were mirrorless, with no risk of mirror slap vibrations spoiling sharpness.
Raw files were exposure-matched and converted to monochrome using Capture One 20. Then each converted max-quality JPEG was auto-bicubic-scaled in Photoshop to either 7864 pixels wide (the width of native M10M images) or to 14204 pixels wide (the width of native IQ4 images).
You can download all the raw files and full-resolution max-quality JPEG files here:
A tiny 100% crop from near the center of the 14204 pixel-wide images was composited into a matrix for comparison, attached to this post. Click on the image to see the comparison full-size. I choose to use the scaled-up 14204-pixel-wide images since one goal of this test is to determine if any of these imaging systems can approach medium format quality, not to test if they can approach down-sized medium format quality. You can build analogous matrices from the smaller images as well using the files in the above link if you would like.
Summary of findings:
1) As expected, all of these four imaging systems with optimum glass, ISO, and aperture produce excellent images at their native sizes.
2) The Bayer CFA-less M10M does indeed punch above its megapixel weight. With respect to capturing subject details, I found the M10M (41 MP) and Sony a7riv (61 MP) to be virtually identical. In fact, to my eye the M10M+50 APO was able to capture slightly more details than the a7riv+85 GM—compare the lint on the upper grey band of the vessel in the attached matrix.
3) The Phase One IQ4 eats all the competitors for lunch if you compare image quality at 100%. But a 14,204-pixel-wide image printed at 200 dpi is 6 feet wide (!). At any practical viewing distance (assuming you don’t need to crop heavily), I would say that the IQ4, M10M, and a7riv are actually quite similar, even when scaling up the latter two images to the 14,204 pixel width of the IQ4 image. Which is pretty cool.
4) The M10P, as you might expect for a 24-MP camera thrown into a resolution and sharpness gunfight, lags well behind the others, but even so, once I view the M10P image at about 50% magnification it begins to look quite similar to the other images.
5) In terms of bang for the buck, Sony offers outstanding value, as usual. The Sony a7riv + 85 GM lens costs ~$5,200. Either Leica body + the 50 APO costs ~$17,000. And the Phase One IQ4 + Rodenstock HR90 costs around $55,000. And the Sony is the only one of the four tested systems that offers autofocus.
So can the Leica M10M or the Sony a7riv offer image quality rivaling that of state-of-the-art digital medium format systems? Yes, at practical viewing sizes and distances, when using optimal glass. But if pixel peeping or (very) large prints are your target application, then medium format, for now, has no peer.
Ladies and gentlemen, I just published my latest Blog post with some reflections on the state of Internet publishing, as well as with some truly exciting news: I am honoured to announce that I will be writing for Medium Format Magazine!
Follow the link to read the article: https://www.vieribottazzini.com/2019/08/vieri-bottazzini-on-medium-format-magazine.html
Thank you for reading, best regards