For some reason I’m in the mood to write about this. So - my top tech tools:
- Adobe Lightroom: if you’ve been to a recent workshop of mine you know that I absolutely, positively cannot imagine living without this tool. It is the be-all end-all for cataloging, organizing, and applying darkroom functions to my tens of thousands of digital photos. I have LR 2.x; I notice the 3.0 beta is now available.
- Adobe Photoshop: essential for final edits in cropping, color-correcting, resizing, and exporting images into at least a dozen different formats, not to mention messing around with (moving, resizing, etc.) image elements when I’m playing with a composition.
- Email: I can’t imagine living without a fairly powerful email tool! MS Outlook allows html-formatted emails, so I can create my Artzines in nice table arrangements with pretty fonts, pix, etc. Now that I live on a Mac, I’m limping along with Apple Mail, which (sadly) lacks the power and functionality of Outlook. Looking forward to when Apple mail isn’t so limited…
- yousendit.com: this is my tool of choice for uploading large image files to send to galleries, magazines, my licensing agent, etc.
- Web design: I do my own web design - formerly with Frontpage, now with Dreamweaver. Not for the faint of heart; if you’re not technically inclined, go to one of the providers of full web designs for artists, or of template-based websites.
- Macbook Pro: this beautiful machine goes everywhere with me - workshops, photo safaris, etc.
- External hard drives: I have 4 right now - a 500 GB portable that’s powered by USB and pretty much lives attached to my laptop; two 500-GB Gtech practically bulletproof things; and a new 1 TB drive. All my photos are backed up in at least 3 different places, hence the need for lots of drives.
- Large LCD display: my reference photos are displayed on a 27″ monitor next to my easel. (I *wish* I had the $$$$ to afford a nice big Apple Cinema display! someday…)
- And of course…my pro digital camera and lenses - my bread-and-butter field tools.
This leaves aside things like word processors, desktop publishing tools, and spreadsheets - but I figure those are ubiquitous enough that they don’t need mention.
Anyone else? chime in!
Entries (RSS)
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:59 pm
-I use Aperture, which is the Apple image management product and am very, very happy with it. Effortless access to my over 30,000 images. I’m sure it’s the same with Lightroom.
-Ditto Photoshop. A must have. Although I’ve found iPhoto to be pretty handy on the MacBook Pro. But I don’t do much re-touching with it either.
-I never use snail mail if I can use email. I’m happy with Apple Mail, but then I use Constant Contact for my newsletter.
-I’ve found yousendit.com also to work well for shipping large files.
-I’m planning to ditch the static website in the next few months and move to a model that is more flexible and easy to update. I think the question to ask these days is not “What kind of website do I want?”, but “What is the best way to put my content on the internet?”
-MacBook Pro: can’t imagine life without mine.
-External hard drives: yup, at least two locations for everything; my Vault is in the detached garage, physically removed from the house.
-LCD display; check. I work off a 24″ glossy iMac monitor. My work definitely improved. And the 10mb Nikon RAW images look great.
-Cameras: 2 Nikon D80 bodies; one with a Promaster 28-300 and the other with a Nikon Nikkor VR (vibration reduction) 80-400mm (effective 600mm on a digital body).
-I guess what I would add is Constant Contact for newsletters. It’s worth it for the reports alone. I know exactly who has unsubscribed, which ones have bounced and why, how many were opened, which links were clicked and many times they were clicked….you get the idea. I’ve only had two unsubscribes so far, so I know my mailing list is clean and that the recipients are happy to get it. Impossible to do this kind of results tracking with standalone newsletters or, heaven forbid, a printed newsletter.
November 3rd, 2009 at 10:06 am
I use Mozilla Thunderbird for email and the addon calendar Lightning (Mozilla Sunbird is the stand-alone calendar). I hate Outlook.
I design my own website - with Dreamweaver 4.0 (really OLD version). I have the newer version of Dreamweaver and one day I may learn to use it. I got used to 4.0 and when I’m doing my website, I just want to get it done - without the fuss of learning the new program.
Image Manipulation - Adope Photoshop Elements. It does what I need to do when it comes to resizing images, color correction, etc. I have Photoshop full version but find it very cumbersome. (Note: I have a professional photographer friend who photographs my artwork for me - he knows what he’s doing and they always turn out great!)
Photo Catalog - Adobe Photoshop Elements. This little catalog is great! When I need to find an image, I simply go to the catalog and find all the photos I have of one subject at once. An image can be in more than one catalog at the same time - which is great if you have an animal photo that also has great landscape in it as well. Admittedly, it is time consuming to catalog the images after I take them, but once done, it is great to be able to find just what I’m looking for. Over 10,000 photos so far! I have also scanned my “film” photos and added them to the catalog.
Cameras - Canon digital Rebel XT and Canon Rebel XT (film). Zoom 300mm with 2x converter (manual focus only). 18-55 mm lens. These are the two I use most, but I have two others. Lens are interchangeable on both bodies - which is great and why I bought the Digital Rebel as opposed to a Nikon, etc. I simply did not want to have to buy new lenses. I’d like to upgrade the digital - someday but it will be to a higher end Canon. I also have a Canon Powershot 3.2 mp which I use more for family photos.
Artwork catalog - eArtist3 software (http://www.artscope.net/eArtist/index.html). Now here’s a great tool. Let’s you catalog your art and keep track of where it’s at. It can track exhibitions, clients, shows, sales, exhibit expenses, commissions, and inventory and generate invoices; shipping labels, gallery labels, and all kinds of reports. I love it. When I send paintings to a gallery, I simply add them to an exhibition event and then it prints out a report with each piece (including a thumbnail photo), price, etc. I print out two and have the gallery sign my copy and they keep one.
External hard drives - 250 gb FreeAgent Go. Mostly to back up my photos.
Laptop - Dell XPS M1330. When I bought this, I packed it with all the goodies - oodles of ram; fast processor and extra 9V battery. It has the clearest screen of any laptop I’ve ever seen - crystal clear. It is a smaller (lighter - 3lb) laptop which is great for this “little” person who doesn’t want to carry a 7lb laptop through airports!
Desktop - Dell Optiplex 320 - loaded. ‘Nuf said.
I’m kinda set in my ways and when I find something that works well for me, I don’t usually “upgrade” just to get the “newest, bestest” stuff. If it works - don’t fix it. Besides, the learning curve for my old brain is far too long!
November 3rd, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Forgot to mention: once Verizon has a decent smartphone (eg, iPhone or similar) that will be one of my essential tools - that, or I’m getting an iPod Touch soon. Use model: load it up with artwork images and it’s a portable portfolio (have lost count of the number of times I could have used this).
November 3rd, 2009 at 5:44 pm
I didn’t notice any real difference in function between Elements and the full Photoshop, but I upgraded because I needed to be able to do CMYK conversions for print publication. Elements, at least at the time, didn’t have that function and I couldn’t find any utilities on the web that would do what I needed. But I’ve never regretted upgrading. It was worth it for me.
After test-driving every program out there, I settled on Flick! for my painting records. It’s essentially a powerful data base with a very, very friendly user interface. I had trouble getting it installed correctly and the guy who runs the company (in New Zealand) hung in with me and was very responsive.
Do I love my iPhone. Ohhhh, yeah!
November 3rd, 2009 at 8:04 pm
In Montana, Verizon is pretty much it - no AT&T, Sprint, etc. so smartphones currently really limited. Awaiting iPhone, Droid, etc…
So…blush…I can’t believe I’m admitting this, but I’ve just been using a spreadsheet to track paintings. Mainly because every art database program I’ve ever seen was also ridiculously expensive (hello! I spent a carefully considered $500 for my entire Adobe CS3 suite with PS/DW/etc, I’m not spending **$1500** for one stupid database program when I can limp by with a free spreadsheet program…)
November 3rd, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Hi Julie,
I have been using Working Artist as my art database program for several years now. It is inexpensive to purchase - $114.00 with free upgrades. They are based in Olympia, WA, very good to work with and always improving. I cannot say enough postive about them. Cheryl Renee Long
November 3rd, 2009 at 10:22 pm
I tried Working Artist but didn’t care for the interface. But, admittedly, I was already into eArtist 3 and it was working for me. It is only $125 and has everything - including contact management, etc.
If I ever move west (someday hopefully), I will have to switch to Verizon. Sprint does not seem to work anywhere out there - was in Colorado and the only people able to use their cell were those with Verizon.
As for the photo conversion, my photographer saves my images in 3 formats - rgb, cmyk and raw so I have what I need. If I take a photo myself, I send it to my son who has all the “toys” and knows how to do what I need done. (He’s the art director for an outdoor magazine publisher.)
November 4th, 2009 at 6:58 am
I’m with Marti. I really, really dis-liked the Working Artist interface. Very visually cluttered to my eye. And then the developer announced they were quitting. From what Cheryl says, they obviously found someone good to carry on.
But when I switched to a Mac it became academic since, at least two years ago, they didn’t have a Mac version. Flick! has a really clean professional interface and costs all of…..$29.95 (they’re Australian not Kiwi, oops)
http://www.arawak.com.au/flick.html
November 4th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
This is great - I get to learn from all of you! I’ll have to try the Flick tool.
Marti, I photograph all my paintings myself (except for the super duper high res - the 100+ MB files I need for full size prints, which I go to a professional to do). Believe me, it’s incredibly handy to be able to photograph a piece and run it through Photoshop and send an image off to a gallery (or post to my blog here, or to Facebook, or to my website, or a magazine, or…the list goes on). I can’t imagine not having that speed and control myself. But then, I’m pretty type A (= anal retentive control freak, IOTW).
I need so many variations of sizes and resolutions on any given image that PS or PS Elements is a must.
November 4th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Julie: I would love to be able to photograph my own work, but alas, I haven’t the room or the lighting. If it is a lovely day outside, I can set up my tripod and fire away on the deck; otherwise Kevin does amazing things in his studio while I “supervise” (grin). I also have the luxury of my son being so adept at all those programs - so I just email Kevin’s image and he works his magic!
Susan and all - eArtist3 is available for Mac too.
November 5th, 2009 at 8:22 am
Which techno-weenie tool to use is all fine and good, but I think the really important question is
Can your dog do this?
November 6th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Here’s an interesting topic for discussion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4gw_3nA5G4&feature=player_embedded
The interesting thing from the artistic standpoint is what the scientist (an image expert) says about humans being very bad at judging shadows.
some of us obsess about getting things accurate in our paintings (I know I worry about details like shadows and reflections), but if what he says is true (and there is no reason to doubt it), it does not make all that much difference with regard to “believability” of a painting.
That is actually surprising to me (though i have looked into this stuff enough to know that working out the actual geometries of reflections and shadows can be extremely complicated)
So, now i know that I can just throw in any old shadows and reflections and no one will be the wiser.
November 8th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Mmm, Larry…in watching this my takeaway was that the shadows were close, but that nose shadow threw people off. When I look at a painting in which the light was ‘mixed’ (a combination of reference photos, with different angles of light in each), it jumps out at me - both the light differences and the shadow differences.
So, sorry, but you’re not off the hook with respect to good, correct shadows and reflections. In fact, IIRC we discussed this in one of your critique pieces …
November 13th, 2009 at 8:36 am
..that nose shadow threw people off…
The funniest and most ironic thing about this is that people actually think the correct shadows are wrong in the case of the Oswald photo.
of course, they have a motive for doing so which may be coloring their judgment, so to speak, but the scientist who did the analysis also said the nose shadow threw him.
So perhaps the lesson here is “get the main shadows right, but don’t worry about the minor ones too much” because even if they are correct, people may think they are wrong and in that case, better not to have them there at all.
I think it would be interesting to analyze old paintings from the standpoint of shadows to see how many of the old masters actually got the shadows correct and also maybe to see if there are “shadow fingerprints” that might allow you to identify the artists based purely on their shadow technique.
and by the way, man, you have a good memory. Your workshop is like a dream to me now.
What was it, ‘62? (or ‘63)
November 13th, 2009 at 8:53 am
By the way, this shadow stuff seems to come up a lot with conspiracy theories in general.
Much of the so called “evidence’ that the moon landings were faked is based on supposed inconsistencies in the shadows present in the photos.
In that case, there is actually an added element (in addition to the fact that humans are not good judges of this stuff) that people sold on the idea of conspiracy ignore (or perhaps are not even aware of): quite significant image distortions by wide angle camera lenses. These are not small distortions, by any means and have to be taken into account when considering (apparent) directions of shadows with respect to a light source.