<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Two Worlds Images: The Photography of Richard Harris Reviews Feed</title>
<description></description>
<copyright>Copyright 2007</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:16:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
<generator>http://www.movabletype.org/?v=3.2</generator>
<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs> 
<item>
<title>Olympus E-3: First Impressions</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>
This has been a long wait: in a market where the life of a digital camera can be measured in months rather than years, the three year wait for Olympus' follow-up to their i* (where * can be either '-conic' or '-diosyncratic', according to your taste) E-1 DSLR has been an ice age. While competitors' cameras, and even Olympus' own consumer DSLRs have leapt ahead in resolution and specification, the E-1 has soldiered on with its modest 5 Megapixel sensor and tank-like build quality, continuing to delight those of us who value a photographer's camera over one designed to tick specification checkboxes. That's something of an Olympus tradition &ndash;&nbsp;like that other industry iconoclast, Apple, Olympus have rarely headlined on numbers, but have usually delivered where it counts: build quality, lens quality and sheer usability - I'm actually sitting here with my heirloom Olympus OM-2n beside me, rediscovering just what a joy it is to hold and use &ndash;&nbsp;I really do believe that cameras that feel the product of precision engineering by people who care inspire better image creation than those that come across as marketing-led, cost-driven consumer electronics. So does the new 10MP E-3 fall into that most desirable of categories? 
</p>
<p>
Firstly though, a small disclaimer: This isn't a press review camera but my own beast, purchased with semi-real money. Nor is this intended to be a 'numbers and menus' review - life being far too short for that &ndash;&nbsp;but rather my first impressions of it and how it performs in daily use.
</p>
<p>
I've also have had a Canon EOS 5D on hand, so I'm now working on some comparisons with that, for publication as soon as I can set some Photoshopping time aside.
</p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.two-worlds.com/imageination/2007/12/olympus_e3_firs.html</link>
<guid>http://www.two-worlds.com/imageination/2007/12/olympus_e3_firs.html</guid>
<category></category>
<pubDate>Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:16:12 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Apple &amp; Intel Photographic Workflow: Update]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>
With the first three ranges of Intel-powered Macintosh systems all now shipping, I and many other power-hungry users are keeping a close eye on the availability of key imaging and workflow software products in the Universal Binary form that allows them to run natively, at full speed, on the Intel machines. 
</p>
<p>
There's a wide range of software available to support all or part of the photographic imaging workflow, and this is my own update on the current release state of my favoured workflow applications, including both those I use day-to-day and those I'm trialling, reviewing or considering.
</p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.two-worlds.com/imageination/2006/03/apple_intel_pho.html</link>
<guid>http://www.two-worlds.com/imageination/2006/03/apple_intel_pho.html</guid>
<category>Software</category>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Mar 2006 14:50:43 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Apotheosis of the PowerBook</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>
The <a href="http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/" title="MacBook Pro Info">MacBook Pro</a> is a very cool, very fast and very shiny computer. But, as of now, largely pointless for me: until such time as core applications for the photographer and image munger are released as Universal Binaries, I'd simply be paying more for a machine that ran Photoshop and its ilk more slowly than my existing machine (under the <a href="http://www.apple.com/rosetta/" title="Rosetta Info">Rosetta</a> emulation environment), and which wouldn't run some plug-ins at all. Unless I was using <a href="http://www.apple.com/aperture/" title="Aperture Info">Aperture</a> as the heart of my workflow (which I can't, due to its current, "limitations" in RAW conversion), the only benefit would be that the Finder, email and text editor would run ludicrously fast (and they're fine already). The first generation MacBook Pro has also taken <a href="http://www.two-worlds.com/2006/01/the_powerbook_is_dea_1.html" title="MacBook Pro Issues">some backward steps</a> in its specification that smack of a rush to market.
</p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.two-worlds.com/imageination/2006/03/apotheosis_of_t.html</link>
<guid>http://www.two-worlds.com/imageination/2006/03/apotheosis_of_t.html</guid>
<category>Computers</category>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Mar 2006 14:11:36 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The Powerbook is Dead&hellip;]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>
&hellip;Long live the, ah, MacBook. 
</p>
<p>
So we're starting with sad note in technohistory:  I've been surgically attached to both the name and entity of Powerbook since it first appeared rather more than fourteen years (and to my laughingly named Mac "Portable" before that), so I'm unlikely to convert to the casual dropping of, "I'll just grab my MacBook&hellip;" overnight. Or possibly not ever. And what happens when Apple migrates their Power Mac range to Intel - do we end up with the Mac Mac?
</p>
<p>
But enough of the sentimental maundering &ndash;&nbsp;this is supposed to be about what the Intel shift means to travelling photographers and meedja types, for whom a &lt;whatever&gt;Book is their weapon of choice, and for those Wintel frustratees who are considering a shift, now that direct platform comparisons are possible for the first time.
</p>
<p>
First things first, then &ndash;&nbsp;just what is a MacBook, and what's changed from the previous generation of PowerPC-based machines?
</p>
<h2 class="title-left">Design</h2>
<p>
A <a href="http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/whatsinside.html" target="_blank" title="MacBook Pro specification">full specification</a> is available on the Apple web site, so I'm not going to reiterate that, but concentrate on what's changed, for better and worse. The basic industrial design remains as for the <a href="http://www.apple.com/powerbook/index15.html" target="_blank" title="Powerbook G4 specification">15" Aluminium PowerBooks</a>, albeit in a case that's 1cm wider than before, but a couple of mm slimmer &ndash;&nbsp;almost back to the thickness of the PowerBook Ti. Depth remains the same. Strange to tell, that little extra slimness is much more significant for travelling than the extra centimeter of width &ndash;&nbsp;I'll happily trade a bit of footprint for something I can stuff into the narrowest possible space in a crowded equipment bag. A good start then. Now for the rest&hellip;
</p>]]></description>
<link>http://www.two-worlds.com/imageination/2006/01/the_powerbook_i.html</link>
<guid>http://www.two-worlds.com/imageination/2006/01/the_powerbook_i.html</guid>
<category>Computers</category>
<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2006 14:30:43 +0000</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>