| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/26/2012 09:12:49 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by Tiny:
Originally posted by Neil:
LR Library size: 344819
|
Do you guys never throw anything out ?
I have been doing digital 10 years and have 5400 and lots of those ready to bin. |
That's one of the problems...I take, for example, 30 shots of each scene/thing I want to shoot (especially if i have bracketing turned on). Now, to throw some away means you need to know which is best. Are they all sharp? Was everything as I want it? LR without the 1:1s made it too hard to answer that question and throw it away.
And not to completely blame it on LR, it just takes too long to go through and decide which shots to keep and which to discard. Often, I just go through and pick the ones I want to process immediately. Then the problem is, should I just delete the rest? Or save them in case I have time to go back and look for other "gems". So far, I've been saving things. It does become a problem though for storage, even though I have lots of it (I have 4 TB right now allocated for my main photo drive...and I have about 3 of it used!)
ETA: Put it another way...I shoot and pull the "great" ones (one or two, if I'm lucky) out. That leaves a lot of good ones, but perhaps they are just "ordinary". I have trouble throwing those out.
Message edited by author 2012-12-26 09:15:01. |
|
|
|
12/26/2012 10:13:49 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by Neil:
Originally posted by Tiny:
Originally posted by Neil:
LR Library size: 344819
|
Do you guys never throw anything out ?
I have been doing digital 10 years and have 5400 and lots of those ready to bin. |
That's one of the problems...I take, for example, 30 shots of each scene/thing I want to shoot (especially if i have bracketing turned on). Now, to throw some away means you need to know which is best. Are they all sharp? Was everything as I want it? LR without the 1:1s made it too hard to answer that question and throw it away.
And not to completely blame it on LR, it just takes too long to go through and decide which shots to keep and which to discard. Often, I just go through and pick the ones I want to process immediately. Then the problem is, should I just delete the rest? Or save them in case I have time to go back and look for other "gems". So far, I've been saving things. It does become a problem though for storage, even though I have lots of it (I have 4 TB right now allocated for my main photo drive...and I have about 3 of it used!)
ETA: Put it another way...I shoot and pull the "great" ones (one or two, if I'm lucky) out. That leaves a lot of good ones, but perhaps they are just "ordinary". I have trouble throwing those out. |
this is a personal decision of course. Best i can do again, is share what i do - just to share another viewpoint.
When working an assignment for someone else - if its not part of the requirements and it doesnt catch my eye, it gets deleted - its something that took some cringing in the early days, but comes more naturally now.
When its a personal project, i ll usually look at at 2-3 times on seperate occasions. If it doesn't catch my eye by then - its getting deleted.
Message edited by author 2012-12-26 10:26:01. |
|
|
|
12/26/2012 02:24:02 PM · #28 |
So, I did a little testing with 6D RAW files. On my desktop (i7 2600k, 8GB RAM, Win7 64-bit) system they take 3.5 seconds to load at 1:1 resolution in the develop module. This is noticeably slower than the smaller 5D RAWs. During this test I had the Render Previews setting in the Import screen set to "minimal" so this would result in the longest render times in the Develop Module. Changing to render 1:1 previews on import did not make a huge difference for me in the time required to load at 1:1 magnification in Develop. Some interesting information here, and here. The second link discusses SSD impact to Lr performance. Sadly, there isn't much improvement to be had. Lr's performance seems to be almost entirely dependent on processor and memory performance.
Here's hoping that the next major update to Lr will include GPU acceleration. Meantime, I think this little experiment has taught me that I should consider moving to 16GB of faster RAM and doing a little overclocking to increase memory and processor throughput. |
|
|
|
12/26/2012 09:34:08 PM · #29 |
I see kirbic beat me to the link for optimizing lightroom.
I really don't see a huge drag on my system using LR4. Maybe im just used to it, but when i preview images in "Library" its fairly quick, it might take a second to load the preview to see if its sharp. But when i go into develop it does take about 5-6 sec to load the full image (mainly 18MP 60D and 20MP 5d2 raws) the only thing that causes me problems is noise reduction (I can hear the fan fire up to high speed whenever i pull that slider) and sometimes cloning if its a larger circle.
|
|
|
|
12/30/2012 11:28:22 AM · #30 |
I'd like to thank Neil for letting me hijack his thread.
I'm looking into a new system. Can someone recommend a CPU in the $100 or slightly over range? I've always been partial to AMD, and the FX-8150 looked like a good idea, but I'm reading mixed reviews about it now. This whole business of 6 or 8 cores has my head spinning.
ETA: Oops! Forgot to mention that I'm hijacking this thread because Lightroom (currently 3.6) is the most resource-hungry thing that I run. It's a drag on my Athlon 64 X2 4000+ with 4GB RAM. I run Windows 7 64-bit.
Message edited by author 2012-12-30 11:32:55. |
|
|
|
12/30/2012 01:27:31 PM · #31 |
| Lightroom is a CPU-hungry beast. CPU power and memory amount/speed are paramount. Honestly, I would not recommend any of the AMD CPUs, but you are going to spend more than you are looking to spend for an Intel chip. Realistically, to put yourself in the best position with Lr, you want an i7 processor and at least 8GB of RAM. An i7 2600K processor will set you back about $280. |
|
|
|
12/30/2012 01:53:56 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by bvy:
I'd like to thank Neil for letting me hijack his thread.
I'm looking into a new system. Can someone recommend a CPU in the $100 or slightly over range? I've always been partial to AMD, and the FX-8150 looked like a good idea, but I'm reading mixed reviews about it now. This whole business of 6 or 8 cores has my head spinning.
ETA: Oops! Forgot to mention that I'm hijacking this thread because Lightroom (currently 3.6) is the most resource-hungry thing that I run. It's a drag on my Athlon 64 X2 4000+ with 4GB RAM. I run Windows 7 64-bit. |
if you're running 64 bit why not add more ram? prob cheaper then the cpu and more bang for your buck imo |
|
|
|
12/30/2012 03:00:49 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by smardaz:
Originally posted by bvy:
I'd like to thank Neil for letting me hijack his thread.
I'm looking into a new system. Can someone recommend a CPU in the $100 or slightly over range? I've always been partial to AMD, and the FX-8150 looked like a good idea, but I'm reading mixed reviews about it now. This whole business of 6 or 8 cores has my head spinning.
ETA: Oops! Forgot to mention that I'm hijacking this thread because Lightroom (currently 3.6) is the most resource-hungry thing that I run. It's a drag on my Athlon 64 X2 4000+ with 4GB RAM. I run Windows 7 64-bit. |
if you're running 64 bit why not add more ram? prob cheaper then the cpu and more bang for your buck imo |
It's a good idea, but it gets down to how much more do I want to invest in my current rig. I think my slots are full, so I'd be purchasing two 4GB or 8GB (if my board supports it). I wonder how much more life the chip and board have.
Message edited by author 2012-12-30 15:01:19. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/10/2025 06:12:52 PM EDT.
