ipad possibilities?

[NRandall]

I am overseas at present with my camera and ipad.
I figured I would use a family member's laptop for a bit of image processing while away but on arrival I discover it is old and near death so I don't want to be the one to kill it with my big D610 files - and I don't want to shoot in jpeg.
Is there any way an ipad can be used for image transfer and processing?
I am unable to post images for at least two more weeks otherwise.

[MissionMan]

You could shoot raw plus jpg and edit the jpgs on the iPad while keeping the raw for backup

[ameerat42]

NR. NOT answering your direct Q because I have another perhaps more pressing.
What are you doing to store the presumably many BIG files you take each day?

If you can't do any processing - Ipad Q notwithstanding - are you ensuring a good backup?

Back to Ipad Q: I only suspect that your old computer might be streets ahead of it in processing power.
This is a guess, so if anyone comes up otherwise, then good.

Also, I'll move this to general help instead of photographic help.

Am.

[arthurking83]

The size of your D610's raw files won't kill the old laptop. It may run slow or display them crappily .. but the size of a file isn't a reason not to use the old laptop.

Of course not knowing the size of the laptop's hard drive, I'd say that it's still larger than the internal capacity of the iPad.

How many images do you expect to capture on average per day.

eg. If the D610's files are X Mbs large and you need 100 images per day for 14days 1400 x X = Gb's capacity.
Substitute X with 30(Mbs) and you subsequently need 42 Gbs worth of storage.

You can get a camera connection kit, or an SD card reader dongle for an iPad if need be.
You usually find this sort of stuff at flea markets(like the local one, or ebay)

[Warb]

Many people seem to have problems with the iPad Camera Connection Kit after upgrading to IOS8, so keep that in mind. Depending on the age of the iPad, and it's (free) memory size, files can be transferred to it with the camera connection kit, and edited with any of a large range of downloadable apps, including Photoshop Express (free) which now works with RAW files. Assuming the iPad is connected to the internet via WiFi or phone service, files can then be uploaded/posted.

Also note that depending on the version of IOS installed, you might find the iPad wants to upload pictures to the iCloud, which can burn through data at an alarming rate - and if it's not your AppleID that is logged on, then those pictures will be in someone else's iCloud!

So the answer is "yes".......

[bricat]

If you have a card reader connect to their computer, connect Ipad to their computer and transfer files from card reader to Ipad.

[NRandall]

Thank you all for this helpful information.
I do not have access to a car in my current location in Waikiki, relying on the public bus system to get me from place to place, and to run errands for my elderly parents.
I will ask the people at Hawaii Camera Rental tomorrow if they know where I might find a card reader locally.
Failing that , I think I will just not worry about trying to find a card reader and just buy another card if I fill my current cards , then process everything when I get back to OZ.

I did bring a memory stick with a couple of images for the current 52 week challenge, so I can post a couple of those hopefully at least.

[ameerat42]

Gosh, I don't get it? To buy a card reader? Why not buy a passport type drive instead? You'll get a USB3, but they're still USB2 compatible.
(Somebody better tell me what I missed. Put all files onto Ipad?)
Am(confused).

[Warb]

Gosh, I don't get it? To buy a card reader? Why not buy a passport type drive instead? You'll get a USB3, but they're still USB2 compatible.
(Somebody better tell me what I missed. Put all files onto Ipad?)
Am(confused).

I believe the OP was asking whether/how they could transfer images from camera to iPad, and then edit and post them. Hence mention of the iPad Camera connection kit. The card reader option was to allow cards to be read to the "old" laptop, from where they could be transferred to the iPad via USB for editing and posting, though of course that is normally possible with just a USB cable (assuming the camera has a USB port!).

However you raise an interesting point. If by "passport drive" you mean an external USB hard disk such as WD's "Passport" series (there are at least two on my desk at the moment!), then strictly for backup purposes (not viewing or editing) have you found a way to directly transfer files from a camera to a USB drive? I've never attempted or investigated it, because I use a Surface for on-the-move backup and editing, but it would be useful to know!

[ameerat42]

Ta Warb. No I have not got a way to go direct from Camera-to-ExtHDD. The fastest way I have is:
CF card into USB3 card reader into Laptop (USB3). It's about 10X faster than Camera (USB2) into Laptop(still USB3).

I usually edit on that machine, but there is no noticeable difference in speed whether I have the files to edit on the
laptop SSD or on the external USB3 HDD connected to it.

(I have 3 of those little blighters kicking around:D Eminently useful!!)
Am.

[Warb]

Slightly off topic..

USB hard drives are indeed useful, but being mechanical drives they are prone to failure especially if handled roughly. Amongst the rubbish on my desk (and yes it's one hell of a mess!) there are currently two busted LaCie "Rugged" drives, one busted Seagate Freeagent Go-Flex drive and one busted WD My Passport drive awaiting "sterilisation and destruction". They are/were all drives used by local businesses for scheduled backups, used in a rotation with a bunch of similar devices. The business owners, or their nominated people, store the drives off-site and take one in and one off-site every day. Each drive is therefore transported (normally in somebody's handbag) and connected once a week. The working life of a drive, before it fails, is perhaps 3 or 4 years at most and often much less. The LaCie Rugged drives (strangely) seem more prone to failure than others, which I would guess is down to their greater size and weight together with the fact that (as always) the rugged appearance causes the users to take less care of them!

Out of interest, the failures are fairly evenly distributed between the interface and the drive itself. By which I mean that when I open the case up and extract the actual drive (they're only standard 2.5" hard disks in a flashy box), about half the time I can plug the drive itself in to a dock on my desk and extract the data, which means the drive is good and the interface between USB and SATA has failed. Obviously I'm not including those units with physically smashed connectors, or ports jammed up with chewing gum and other detritus (not uncommon!) in that comparison. But it does surprise me because intuitively I'd expect the mechanical disk to be the weak point, but that doesn't seem to hold out.

USB hard drives are relatively cheap per GB, and have high capacities. But they are mechanical devices and can be damaged by dropping. USB flash drives (thumb drives, as my wife calls them) are very variable. The cheap ones cannot be relied upon, or perhaps CAN be relied upon to fail at the worst moment! The more expensive versions, especially those that protect the connector, can be good if you can find a design that actually works - those where the connector "telescopes" in and out of a sleeve don't actually stop dirt getting to it!

My own preference is "ruggedised" USB 3 flash drives. They cost more per GB, and limited to 128GB, but are faster and when sealed in their (allegedly) mil-spec tubes are light and waterproof. But I still only use them for transporting data, not as permanent or long term storage!

In fact when I'm away for a while I copy my pictures to the Surface and then on to my flash drives, but I don't delete them from the CF card. I have a Pelican case in which I store spare 16GB CF cards, and swap a full one for an empty one. I keep the Pelican case of CF cards in the car, and the flash drive with me. So even if the car is stolen or ransacked, I still have my pictures.

[arthurking83]

The only direct method of transferring images off a (proper) camera to a "passport' type ext HDD I've found is via my Android tablet as a intermediary.

A USB OTG(On The Go) cable/adapter is connected to the tablet. This allows two USB devices attached at the same time, or the use of the card reader option.
You can't use both at the same time .. card reader or USB.
Android recongnises both USB devices attached .. using a file browser(ES Explorer in my case) I navigated to the camera and then folder .. and dragged images from there to the "passport" type HDD. Took forever and a week to transfer, but the point was to confirm it worked.

In practical reality tho .. if one were to purchase all the hardware stuff necessary .. it's just some much easier to purchase a pile of cards to match your camera's needs!
While the tablet setup worked, and was still a reasonably true mobile(and hence small) footprint .. it's just tedious to do.

The largest card I can use on my 7" Galaxy Tab is 64Gig, so as a standalone storage/backup device it's really isn't useful. Even tho it has a sim card and WiFi .. back to cloud is not an option where I tend to go on my trips. It's never been used for such purposes .. and again to bring this to a reality level discussion .. backing up 400 75Mb D800E files to the clouds is a seriously silly idea!(this is besides the fact that you don't have Wifi or even GSM service 200klms west of Coober Pedy or Lake Eyre :p

If backup/storage is possible requirement for the use of a memory card .. sometimes it's better to purchase larger slower cards rather than more money on faster but ultimately lower capacity cards!

Some cameras have dual card slots too. I'd prefer it if they were designed with the same card types(and better if they were CF) .. but that's digressing.

Image backup with these cameras is easy as.
Some(most?) of these cameras have an option to transfer from one card to another.
On the D800, one is a CF and SD for the other.

If the need ever arises I can simply find a place to purchase more SD cards(of CF cards.. but this is much less likely) .. and use the camera to transfer images from the main card to the backup cards.

Progress can be a good thing, even tho we may not instantly recognize it as such.

[Warb]

I've just discovered the WD My Passport Wireless, launched late last year. With a 2TB disk drive it costs AU$300 and has an SD slot to backup or transfer your files directly, without any other device. It then connects by WiFi (or USB 3) to iPad, phones, laptops, TV's etc. for streaming, viewing or editing and will act as a wireless hub to connect multiple devices, including sharing an internet connection.

Great.... but SD and not CF...... oh well!

[ameerat42]

The only direct method of transferring images off a (proper) camera to a "passport' type ext HDD I've found is via my Android tablet as a intermediary.

A USB OTG(On The Go) cable/adapter is connected to the tablet. This allows two USB devices attached at the same time, or the use of the card reader option.
You can't use both at the same time .. card reader or USB.

Another way to say "stymied":D

[arthurking83]

Stymied ... LOL!

While it's humorous, it is workable(if you're desperate) .. but just one of those things I don't see as important.
Then again, the need to post up an instant account of 'where One currently is' is one of those aspects of life I find (personally)unimportant .. and (philosophically)curious.

[Warb]

Then again, the need to post up an instant account of 'where One currently is' is one of those aspects of life I find (personally)unimportant .. and (philosophically)curious.

If talking about the "FaceBook" style of constant mood/location update, I completely agree.

However the "backup" aspect is entirely different - the risk that 400+ photo's could be lost when a single card is lost, damaged, faulty or stolen is very real, and the ability to reduce that risk by making multiple copies is something that to me is well worth the effort.

There is also the "keeping in touch" aspect. We spent several months travelling through NT and WA, and created a blog on which my wife uploaded a photo or two each day, together with a diary of what we had done. It allowed those people to whom we gave access to see what we and our kids were doing, and when we got back we had it printed as a book.

[arthurking83]

At the risk of going way OT .. I understand that people want to 'always' stay in touch.
My brother used one of those logbook type accounts during his European Vacation.

Was kind'a interesting every now and then.

I found that when he came back tho(after 2 months), and showed some images, I was really only interested:
1/ in the quality of the images
2/ only in the ones I hadn't seen already.

via the blog, the viewing of the images was very casual ... maybe 10 .. 30sec max!
(almost a kind of yeah .. seen images of BigBen, or the Greek Islands .. millions of times)

But on viewing his complete cache of images on his laptop, I seemed to be more curious on some of the more interesting images.
He had thousands in total(I set him up with a netbook, and have him a 2.5" portable HDD I'd won from an AP comp! :D).

I loaded Nikon's ViewNX2(on his laptop) when he got back to help him 'process' the images into a rendering that looked a bit more pleasing than the as is raw images (simple stuff like WB, picture controls, etc).

Backing up .. sure .. but backing up large raw images is impractical in some if not many instances(eg, D800 sized files .. in not many 24Mp camera raw files as well).

Strangely, I had the idea yesterday to 'blog' a quick picture of where I ended up on the day.
Was at a popular tourist destination, and apart from two other people, I was basically the only one with a 'proper camera'.
proper camera doesn't mean DLSR either .. any camera capable of capturing a very high quality image.

There must have been at least 30(most likely more) people there at any one time, and all were smartphoning at some point .. usually multiple times.
I had hours to kill(at one point) and spent some of it observing.

Two things became clear .. that I noticed .. the smartphone people spent less time taking in the tourist spot .. just wandering around and absorbing the location.
The non smartphoners(all older people too BTW!) wandered around more and seemed to be taking in more of the detail of the place.

As an example, a group of three older(maybe 60-ish) guys wandering around inside the hut, and I specifically noted their comments on the detail and work on the wooden door latches on the hut. (very good and well made too BTW).

Almost all of the younger couples/groups of couples/trekkers types) that came and went .. all were more interested in standing on this one particularly sizable rock and selfie-ing, or panorama-ing, and so forth.
it's not that none of them went in to absorb the detail of the building .. many did. But most of them would come and go as a matter of curiosity .. or signing the guest book or whatever.

Again.. I'm going OT , but the point is that in maintaining this need to post up our current doings in the current prolific and urgent methodology .. I think it's desensitizing the idea of a photo.
That is, at some point in the future, it's almost certain that the first person will suddenly tire of it all and all the rest will follow like dominoes too.

.. anyhow, I'll stop veering this thread off topic.

[Warb]

I'm not sure why backing up should be impractical? I use 16GB CF cards. A 128GB flash drive will store the entire contents of 8 such cards, no matter how big each file is.

People's interest or appreciation of photo's is perhaps dependant on their "personality", for want of a better term. A keen photographer may well look at the technical quality of a picture. An "artist" may look at the content in purely aesthetic terms. A car enthusiast might drool over a low resolution, slightly blurred picture of a Ferrari. Most people are probably more interested in the content and the the "story", than the technical or aesthetic quality. If a photo is designed to sell, it requires different qualities than those taken to remember a place, person or event. The photographer at Uluru, who sells pictures of the rock in thunderstorms, is selling "art" to hang on a wall. It must be striking and dramatic because it is art. But when Dick and Maud take photo's of themselves standing at the base of the rock, it is simply an aide memoire. When they look at the picture they don't actually look at it, they look through it at the image in their memory. Many years ago a friend of mine who owned a hifi shop told me that he sometimes found musicians to initially be quite unable to tell a good hifi from a poor one. He believed it was because "they listen to the music in their heads, rather than with their ears". I suppose this is why I get more enjoyment from a 30+ year old faded "Instamatic" photo of friends from my teenage years than I do from a hi-res modern image of people I've never met?

I do agree about the selfie thing though. Especially the "lone selfie" with no regard to background or context! But I don't think the "problem" is related to phones taking pictures. I remember watching bus loads of teenagers in the Kimberley, walking around the various rock formations. Yes, they took selfies and group photo's (at the time, the "jumping" photo was fashionable, so they were all trying to hit the button on their iPhones whilst their friends were in the air, Toyota style!), but they really didn't want to be there. They followed the marked path, looking at the ground or the games on their phone. They only looked up when the tour guide told them to look at the view, at which point they glanced, possibly took an iPhoto, then marched off looking at the ground. I guess perhaps 20,000 year old rock art, or an original settlers cabin, doesn't compare to a game of Brain Crush? But then maybe I was like that when I was a teenager? Maybe it takes a bit of age, or an appreciation of mortality, before our interest shifts from ourselves to the world around us?

But what IS the idea of a photo? If its an accurate representation, then does that rule out editing and post production? If it's art, then why take a picture at all - surely there are enough existing images that we can Photoshop together to make something interesting? If it's a memory jogger, then are a few extra pixels important?

Very little of which has anything to do with copying files to an iPad. Sorry!

[arthurking83]

I'm not sure why backing up should be impractical? .....

Ah! My mistake.
I assumed with the term 'backup' (n that reply) you meant to the ether/cloud/social site/etc .. not a proper back up type you can physically get your arms around.


Thinking about all this (yet again) .. I reckon I've just worked out what us photographers need!

... patent pending :p

[phild]

+ 1 for Photoshop Express for the ipad which allows basic processing and works surprisingly well. From memory it's a free app but has in app purchases for some of the fuctionality.

I was pleasantly surprised with the noise reduction capabilities which from memory were an in app purchase.

I bought the connection kit but in my case the Canon 6D has Wi-Fi and can upload without any physical connection. I used my ipad exclusively for processing for a blog while OS, the results were surprisingly good.