Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 28, 2006, 7:15 AM   #11
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

bper wrote:
Quote:
I'm not a computer expert, but I think the problem may be more with the video card then the computer itself.
video card has nothing to do with editing images. it's all taken care of with ram and yourvirtual memory.
  Reply With Quote
Old Jul 28, 2006, 7:41 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Monza76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,095
Default

I like the look and the functionality of Lightroom but it is slow. I tried CS2 on my computer as well and found it was also quite slow. I find that the original Photo Shop Elements and either RSE or PPL serve my purpose most of the time and are well within my computer's capabilities.

BTW all I have currently is a 2.5GHz celeron with 512MB of RAM and S3 on board video. The computer was purchased to keep the kids away since it is most definitely not a game machine. I now have two hard drives, a 40GB and an 80GB, a CD-burner and a CRT monitor. I believe that RAM and processor speed are far more important than the video card for photography.

I shoot mostly jpeg and then do some minor post processing (usually just levels and USM) and get very nice results. If I had more computing power, and a DVD burner, I may use RAW more often. I will try the software on a P4 laptop (about 2.5GHz and 512MB as well I think) and see if the better processor makes a difference. Except for shots in very poor light conditions I find jpeg from my camera to be more than adequate, and anyone who has looked at Tom's images knows that jpeg quality from Pentax is not an issue.

Not wanting to start a brand war here but, I find that Canon's consumer levelDSLRs produce jpeg images that are a little more processed in the camera. The result is that they look better at first, but closer examination shows what I describe as an artificially smooth look, like a very good post processing job pushed maybe one step too far. It is hard to describe but if you compare faces shot with both cameras you may see what I mean. A friend of mine shoots for a company that does school and corporate pictures (assembly line photography) and they use the Fuji S2 because of its excellent skin tones. They shoot only jpeg since they deal in high volume and fast turnover, but their 11" X 17" portraits (the S2 is a 6MP camera) are excellent.


Ira

BTW, I use a DL and the only setting I have adjusted is image tone, it is set to natural.
Monza76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 28, 2006, 10:43 AM   #13
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Hastings UK
Posts: 70
Default

I know that this is a little off topic here but I feel it's probably worth a mention. Adobe are currently recomending a minimum of 1 gig of ram for lightroom, and point out that in it's current beta form the windows version (I can't comment on the Mac version) will use 100% of a systems resources when performing certain tasks.

I have a high end workstation to cope with the demands I put on it for day to day programming and to see a machine with 2 gig of ram brought to a shuddering halt is quite an eye opener. The demands of digital photography require a reasonably new machine (by which I mean P4 or above) and a very large amount of ram. The latter in reality is the key to performance for just about any computer, but is clearly going to be critical for anyone considering Lightroom as a raw editor.

Dom
dms25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 28, 2006, 11:55 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
ennacac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,198
Default

RAM is the secret! A friend had 2gigs in his Mac G5, but now that he has 8Gigs it just flys using CS2 and lightroom.

Tom
ennacac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 28, 2006, 1:16 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,056
Default

Hmmm - well, my hubby has been bothering me to replace his (my old) laptop. Perhaps I should buy myself a new one with 2 mb ramand give him mine (PentiumM, 512 ram, and my main computer, normally hooked up to a 19" monitor). I had been thinking of buying more memory for mine, since it is only 18 months old, but perhaps I can justify getting a faster one for myself.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 28, 2006, 3:23 PM   #16
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Hastings UK
Posts: 70
Default

'A friend had 2gigs in his Mac G5, but now that he has 8Gigs it just flys'

What a terrible waste of 8 gig of ram, putting it into a mac.

Dom
dms25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 28, 2006, 3:32 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Fred666's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 191
Default

And so the PC/MAC debate goes on!



Darren
Fred666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 28, 2006, 3:53 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,056
Default

LOL! I've used both, I like both, and won't criticize either one. I'm using a PC and sometimes wish I had a mac. When I was using a mac, I thought I wanted a PC. Go figure...
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 28, 2006, 4:04 PM   #19
TDN
Senior Member
 
TDN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,288
Default

dms25 wrote:
Quote:
'A friend had 2gigs in his Mac G5, but now that he has 8Gigs it just flys'

What a terrible waste of 8 gig of ram, putting it into a mac.

Dom
Mac is just optimised for photo/video/audio editing and regular deskjob work.

Normally you shouldn't have trouble editing images at around 2Ghz and a gig of Ram.

Look at it as a dam. Your processor is the lake and the ram is the dam itself.
To retrieve the electrical power all the water needs to pass trough the dam. The bigger your dam is, the better the water can pass.

However, after some time, the size of the dam will reach a point where it doesnt matter much if you increase it further.

So basicly you need to match the right RAM memory with the right processor speed.


Anyway, unless you want ot spend a fortune on a fast pc, you'll always have a little delay working with 6megapixel photos.

Also, don't edit them on the card itself. Mostly it's the speed of your usb/card reader that slows you down. Transfer all images to your hard drive first. You'll go 10 times as fast.


Ok now back on topic:
Edvinas , that's amazing, what the bright mode does! It almost looks like a manually processed RAW, whereas the natural is a lot softer.
I'm switching my DL to bright mode right now!


TDN

TDN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 29, 2006, 1:38 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 116
Default

Regarding computer performance, I'd reiterate the importance of sufficient RAM, but also add that hard drive performance is critical as well. If you're used to running on 512 MB RAM, then increasing to 1 GB will provide noticeable improvements. There's a good chance you'll see improvement past 1 GB, but at that point I'd look to the hard drive as well. If you have absolute gobs of space on your hd - say 100 GB or so that is free, then you're hd probably isn't slowing you down, but if you're always budgeting space (saving, deleting, saving, deleting, etc.) then you'll have data fragmented all over your hd. Try degragging your hard drives - it may help quite a bit, although the fuller a hard drive is, the less effective (I find) a degrag is.

When you're starting up photoshop or light room or whatever your computer has to read a hefty amount of data from the hard disk and store it into RAM where it will be able to work faster. Once there and you start editing, converting, etc. the computer is reading that info from the hard drive, putting it in ram - and when you save it all - back to the hard drive. The problem is, just having a photoshop-esque program running at all uses a good chunk of your RAM, but your system needs RAM to do other tasks including process your images. So, if you're short on RAM, the computer will supplement with virtual memory (which is treating space on the hard drive as if it were RAM). This will make things slow. If your hd doesn't have a lot of free space and hasn't been defragged in a while, your system could crawl as it tries to shovel around all the data before it ends up as a finalized image on your hd.

During all this time, it's likely your processor is just sitting around waiting for your system to manage its memory. I'd recommend RAM and ample hard drive space . Someone mentioned having 8 GB of ram, on a laptop, I think. I'm amazed that any laptop could accommodate that much ram - that's even a stretch for most desktops, and I've built a fairly decent gaming machine. In any case, if you were going to invest a bunch of money in ram, I wouldn't expect the system to benefit much beyond 2 GB of ram. The video card would play almost no role here at all.

I hope my rant has been helpful!

Pat
pwithem is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:01 PM.