Notwithstanding all of the pre-announcement hype it’s now clear that the iPad 2.0 update would be appropriately described as incremental.
A quicker processor, further streamlined design and the inclusion of cameras that really should have been there in the first place make for more of an evolutionary release than the revolutionary one Apple would like to claim.
The last lab in the world to process Kodachrome is right about now shutting down its K-14 service forever. Rolls arrived from all over the globe in the lead-up to the December 31 midday deadline, and all that remained was to fulfil as many of those orders as the last canister of blue dye would allow for.
As much as it’s a nostalgic moment for many and the end of an era for all of us, let’s not mourn the passing of film for too long. Not only is the future equal or better in quality terms, it’s faster, cheaper, more profitable, and far more accessible. And the future is already here.
When the iPad landed earlier this year many photographers were immediately intrigued by the idea of using a tablet computer to present their portfolios to clients and editors. The hardware appeared to be uniquely fit for that purpose but it took a very long time for similarly qualified software to arrive on the market. While there was no shortage of apps able to display pictures as a slideshow, none of them quite made the grade as a professional portfolio presentation tool for reasons I’ll go into later.
The top search engine query bringing people to this blog has for months now been “iPad as portfolio?” or similar. So presumably there is plenty of demand and where there is demand there is money to be made. Even with that lure, for months we waited.
The pace of iPad App releases by newspaper and magazine publishers has ratcheted-up of late with most major publications now boasting a product in the App Store or at least one at a mature stage of development.
While that may give hundreds of mastheads an iPad presence, I don’t think many have thoughtfully embraced the new platform at all well. For an industry that desperately needs a circuit-breaker — something that adds value to the online reader experience and thereby to balance-sheets as well — none so far would appear to have game changer potential.
What a difference a decade makes for Apple. During the late nineties the computer company (that’s all they built back then) nearly went broke. But then came the iMac which changed the company’s fortunes, followed by the iPod, which changed the world.
For most of its thirty years in business Apple has held underdog status, a David in the context of a Microsoft Goliath. The Apple brand brought connotations of a fringe-dwelling cult and its followers were personal computer outcasts with just a two or three-percent market share. But you need to strain hard to remember those days now given what Apple has become: today it’s a globally dominant force in half a dozen markets.
Only a few short years ago most photographers had not been persuaded to adopt the Raw file format in any great number and of those who had, it tended to be pulled out just for special occasions. The hefty overheads that came with Raw files, together with the less than ideal post production software of the era, made it a very time consuming proposition. High quality JPGs were so much easier to deal with that they tended to win the argument on most occasions.
In the years since we have acquired much better computers, far cheaper storage media and hugely improved software. Together, all of this has reduced those overheads to the point that working with Raw files has become akin to handling JPGs. Now that they can enjoy all the benefits and few of the constraints, it has come to be that for most of the photographers that I know at least, shooting in Raw is now standard.
But while Raw certainly helps them make better pictures, a seldom realised danger has arisen as an unintended consequence of this mass-migration.
Here’s a quick note to alert you to a handy new app that I think is worth investigating if you’re a photographer with an iPad.
Australian photographers are getting ripped off by global manufacturers who set dramatically different prices for different regions. In many cases we’re paying through the nose relative to our American friends for the very same goods and services and I would like to know why.
If anything it would have been the incessant marketing and manipulative PR antics of Apple that might have diluted my interest in the iPad. But knowing this brand as I do and relying on the company’s equipment for years as I have, I was able to put aside my inclination towards cynicism long enough to have a proper look at the iPad. It’s also wise to pay attention when a company like Apple says it’s going to create an entirely new computer platform completely afresh.
Now that the dust has settled I am happy to say the 1D Mark IV is Canon redeeming itself for its misdemeanours in the Mark III. They knew their professional business depended on getting it right, and I think they have.
There’s no doubt the Mark III autofocus was a catastrophe for many of Canon’s customers and its marketing department alike. Others complained about colour fidelity, and some unlucky souls experienced both ailments. While not everyone received these tainted units, enough did for it to seriously affect the company’s professional business. As misfortune would have it, arrival of the Mark III coincided with the release of an excellent camera by Nikon which brought that company back from the brink of professional irrelevance (if you cast your mind back five years you’ll remember Nikon weren’t even in the ballpark in professional terms and photographers were deserting them in droves). Now though, Nikon is without question back in the game in a big way, with thanks in part to Canon.
Recent Comments