Changing computers?

[digitaldog]

I will not be responding to you on this thread.

Perfect!

The cost benefit decision is one only you can make.

One would hope, that includes an Adobe subscription.

[invisibleflash]

I went from an old windows desktop to a new windows desktop in 2019. I agree that writing down all of the steps is needed and will be a big help.

New windows 10/11 desktop? I would do win 10 pro 64 bit.

Desktop case--tower

Motherboard--make sure it has lots of fast ports: USB3.1; USB-C; Thunderbolt 3 or higher; and some slower USB ports too for keyboard and mouse.

Main drive: 1 TB or 2 TB NVMe SSD, preferably Samsung 970 or 980.

Data files: 2 or three HDD drives, each one large, like 12 TB or 18 TB. . Have desktop set up with ribbons so you can add anther drive if needed.

RAM: at least 64 GB, with capacity for more

Video card: Depending on your software you will need a good video card with dedicated RAM. 4 GB minimum, 8 GB Ram is better. Make sure it has the ports needed to support your monitor or monitors.

Microprocessor--best you can afford

Extra fans in the desktop to cool everything

Have your new desktop built by someone like MicroCenter.

 

Plan. Backup all of your image and data files. Two or three copies.

Backup everything in your Downloads folder. Two copies to another external drive.

Look for all of your license serial numbers for each application. Have these in a separate folder

 

New desktop. Install each needed Program to C: drive as a fresh download. This way the process will identify needed drivers, etc.

Launch each program and enter any needed license serial numbers

Once that is all done, copy your new Downloads folder to another drive.

Then start adding your data files by copying them from external hard drives or from the internal drives from your old desktop. (That is one reason why you want a free or open internal drive bay setup.) Copy files to one or more of the new internal HDD drives.

 

That should give you the basic outline.

 

That is what I need...a good computer builder. The stuff in the store won't cut it.

[invisibleflash]

First, the OP clearly states he is running a Windows machine, not a Mac.

 

Second, there is nothing wrong with "Old" software if it has the functions you need and even has the advantage that you are familiar with it. No need to buy more books and manuals.

 

Third, why pay $120 per year for something you do not need. I have been running Lightroom 6 since 2017 and Photoshop CS5 since 2010. If you just count the Lightroom, so far, I have saved $600, less the initial cost of $145. If you start counting from the time I installed Photoshop CS5, I have saved over $1200. That does not count all the books and manuals I would have had to buy. That money does me more good in my pocket that it does me if I put it in Adobe's pocket. ;) So far, I have been able to do everything I want to do. When that is no longer the case, I'll update and start paying, and paying, and paying. :(

 

You got me beat! I got LR 5, LR4 and LR3! I hate subscriptions. Endless $$ pit. I use a DNG converter for my Sony camera to use LR. Not a big deal. LR 3 is on one of my junk computers, it lacks some feature I like in LR5, so not bragging about it...just saying it is still useful...a little.

 

But...this is cause I'm broke.

 

If I had $$ to burn, I'd probably go with subscriptions. But can't say. Sometimes the new is not as good as the old.

 

Right now, just trying to save up for a new system. Nothing urgent, but the writing is on the proverbial wall. I am not a computer builder, so gotta pay for a custom job. My software seems perpetually fine for me.

 

For movies I use cheap Russian Movavi software. Pretty happy with it, except for zoom feature. Looks like they are going to subscriptions as well.

[invisibleflash]

I am still using old graphics software (Photoshop CS5 Extended), but on the fastest old computer on which it will still run.

 

At some point, IMHO, you really need to bite the bullet and upgrade the works - really new hardware (revolutionary as opposed to evolutionary) deserves new software. Over the years I have done this multiple times, and while it's costly, the savings in aggro is really worth it.

 

Of course, the old timers' rule - "Never get version 1.0 of anything" - applies.

 

I was happy with Windows 8. Hate the forced updates with #10. New is not always better. I wish I could go back to #8.

Edited January 1, 2022 by invisibleflash

[invisibleflash]

Ditch everything, buy an iPad Pro and runaway to Santiago (Chile) with someone 1/3 your age.

 

That is above my budget!

[bgelfand]

For movies I use cheap Russian Movavi software. Pretty happy with it, except for zoom feature. Looks like they are going to subscriptions as well.

 

For movies, I started to learn DaVinci Resolve from Black Magic:

 

LINK: DaVinci Resolve 17 | Blackmagic Design

 

Scroll down to "Software" and you will see the two options - Free or the perpetual license of $295. The free version is more than enough for anyone except professional video editors. If you go to the Support tab, there are free training courses, including practice professional videos. The course walks you through editing your own (Australian) TV Cooking show, step by step (my wife wanted the recipe :) ). However, the learning curve is steep, perhaps steeper than full Photoshop. No, you do not need the $30,000 consoles to use the software, a mouse suffices.

 

It kept me busy for most of the COVID lockdown in 2020. Now all I need to do is find something to shoot a video of, with my D750. I am afraid I am 99% a still photographer, and an amateur at that. But at Free, the price is right and the learning fun.

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

I agree with the idea of putting most of your photos on external drives. It seems a bit of a waste of resources to try to keep them all in the main drive/s of your system. Plus a vacation with Ludmilla in Santiago could be quite fun:) OP can decide for himself, whether to subscriber or whatever. But I will say as a user of the subscription, there is little comparison of the capabilities of current Photoshop and LR CC versions and older versions I've used since 2004 or so. And it's not just on the Camera Raw parts, or the esoteric features that only "professionals" need, probably in the color modules, which I am not great at. The main benefit, at least for me, is in the selection tools. For quick work, the new LR and PS selection tools are head and shoulders above previous versions. If you haven't used them, then you really don't know what they can do so you are speaking in a vacuum. Edited January 3, 2022 by http://www.photo.net/barryfisher

[david_henderson]

Barry. Can I please probe a bit on the "keep images on external drives" issue. I'd like to know more about why you feel that's the way to go. I'd thought about it a little, sort of decided that it doesn't make a lot of difference cost-wise to store the images on the machine or externally; wondered what else I have to occupy an onboard HDD that is probably going to come with an off-the-shelf Dell with a bit of configuration that won't fit on a 500GB SSD C drive as it does on the current computer; and I look at the small pile of external drives I have on my desk currently for backups and thought I could do without making that three into five. Fitting extra HDD into the computer doesn't seem hard ( in fact its not at all hard for me since I'll get someone else to do it!). I do wonder whether external drives are any more ( or less) reliable than internal drives & simply concluded that they're probably about the same and at the individual drive level, unpredictable. It does decouple changing computers from changing storage ( though that doesn't necessarily mean I'd have to buy fewer drives & transfer stuff onto them less frequently in the long run).

 

So please- what am I missing? Nothing cast in stone yet, nothing on order, and I am absolutely convinced that I don't know much about this stuff! Thanks

[paddler4]

Internal vs. external drive isn't an either-or decision. One of the nice features of Lightroom is that you can move any part of a catalog and its photos to another location fairly easily. I do this often when I travel with a laptop. When I get back, I select in Lightroom the photos I want to keep and export them as a catalog. I then go to my main computer and import them as a catalog. The way I do it, I end up having to move the folders to where I really want them, but that takes perhaps a minute.

 

So you can comfortably keep your working photos on an internal drive, use a laptop or external drive while you're away, and combine everything when you get back.

 

BTW, I agree with Barry that the current versions of LR and Photoshop are much better than the versions from the pre-subscription era. To take just one example, the selection and masking functions in the newest versions of Lightroom are light years better than anything the program had in the past.

[digitaldog]

+1 both Process Version 5 and the new masking and selection tools in PS/ACR and LR are massive new and useful functionality.

But those who have never tried it have no basis to comment.

[digitaldog]

David, for me, dedicating a big external HD only for all images, LR related documents including all presets, previews, one catalog makes backup and cloning super effective. I can rotate drives easily so one is on the desktop, one in a fireproof safe, one for location work. Any other computer with LR, plug in any of those up to date clones, I have access to all my work. The preference to “Store presets with Catalog” is key. You just need a good backup/clone software program.

Mine does this automatically every night while I'm sleeping. Backblaze does the same to a cloud.

[samstevens]

have no basis to comment.

As far as I’m concerned, this kind of thinking contributes to the social schisms of today’s world. Those who don’t have my experience have no basis for commenting. What hogwash. Others’ basis for commenting here are their experience. It’s possible that others aren’t looking for or needing a better masking process and they have different priorities.

 

My friend, the poet, still likes composing his poems with a pen and paper. A computer would enable him to work faster, have safe backups, and cut and paste. Nevertheless, his comments on the subject are of value and they have a sound basis.

 

Trivializing the views of others because they lack your experience doesn’t diminish your expertise by any means, but it does diminish your humanity and esteem.

[digitaldog]

;)Accurate and useful facts about about technology requires answers based on understanding and having experience with that technology.

Asking someone about recommending EVs when the last car they bought and drove was a 1989 Chevrolet is going to generate a pretty worthless answer. But an opinion none the less. Remember that old saying about opinions....

 

"Experience without theory is blind, but theory without experience is mere intellectual play."-Immanuel Kant

 

I wonder if Sam or maybe others here will admit that prior to a purchase of a computer, a display, a digital camera, a printer, a cell phone, a HDTV etc, they take advise from reviewers (or peers) who've never used or tested the products they are reviewing or recommending, but that's fine with software?

 

I'm sorry if I offended you with my experience, expertise and common sense.

Edited January 3, 2022 by digitaldog

[samstevens]

As I said, I think there are advantages to newer software. And, yes, I do seek expertise when making purchases I don't feel expert enough to fully determine. All that has nothing to do with telling someone else they have no basis to comment. There are plenty of wise people who prefer not to upgrade for as long as they can get away with it. If this bothers you, as an expert, to the point where you would tell them they have no basis to comment, then it's a testament to your own lack of confidence in your own way of doing things. As if getting others to do it your way somehow validates you.

 

As for clever quotes, here's a clever one from one of the cleverest of fellows who could turn a phrase much better than Immanuel Kant, by the way ...

 

"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."

—Oscar Wilde

 

[And, yes, I'm well aware that I've used a quote to make my point. Ironic, isn't it!]

[samstevens]

I'm sorry if I offended you with my experience, expertise and common sense.

Not at all. Though you have expertise in many things photographic and software related, your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired. Reread my post and try to pinpoint where I was offended by your expertise, common sense, or experience. You won't find it. What you will find is that I acknowledged your expertise and took you to task for telling others they had no basis to comment in this thread. Two completely different matters, though I understand why you would intentionally conflate the two as a means of deflection.

[digitaldog]

If this bothers you, as an expert, to the point where you would tell them they have no basis to comment, then it's a testament to your own lack of confidence in your own way of doing things. As if getting others to do it your way somehow validates you.

Another false narrative and massive assumption. It doesn't bother me as an expert, I could care less what other people buy or use.

I've not suggested anyone do anything I want for validation or otherwise.

What I pointed out that you can't dismiss is about and those making comments about not upgrading to software they have never used. It is an opinion devoid of fact and experience, nothing more:

 

"There is nothing in the world so easy as giving an opinion; consequently, in general, there are few things so utterly valueless" -CHARLES WILLIAM DAY

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

I think the point is you can't really form a meaningful opinion about a tool being better than an older tool if you've never seen or used the older and the newer tool. For example: An old VW bug is cool, and may be the only car you need, but you would have no foundation to discuss how it rides compared to a modern car if you've never ridden in a modern car. I understand the right to express an opinion on anything and any facet in this case about software, and opinions on whether upgrading or subscription services are the way to go. That's all personal choice. But it's meaningless to tell someone they don't need to upgrade because an older version of software does everything they need to do, if they don't even know what the new version can do.

 

If someone commented, I've used the newer version or have seen it in action and I didn't think it was worth the upgrade or something like that then I would think that person was qualified to make that opinion. Otherwise the value of upgrading based on an uninformed opinion of the software is useless.

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

Barry. Can I please probe a bit on the "keep images on external drives" issue. I'd like to know more about why you feel that's the way to go. I'd thought about it a little, sort of decided that it doesn't make a lot of difference cost-wise to store the images on the machine or externally; wondered what else I have to occupy an onboard HDD that is probably going to come with an off-the-shelf Dell with a bit of configuration that won't fit on a 500GB SSD C drive as it does on the current computer; and I look at the small pile of external drives I have on my desk currently for backups and thought I could do without making that three into five. Fitting extra HDD into the computer doesn't seem hard ( in fact its not at all hard for me since I'll get someone else to do it!). I do wonder whether external drives are any more ( or less) reliable than internal drives & simply concluded that they're probably about the same and at the individual drive level, unpredictable. It does decouple changing computers from changing storage ( though that doesn't necessarily mean I'd have to buy fewer drives & transfer stuff onto them less frequently in the long run).

 

So please- what am I missing? Nothing cast in stone yet, nothing on order, and I am absolutely convinced that I don't know much about this stuff! Thanks

 

Hi Dave, see Digitaldog's response above, I think it's useful. The other thing that stands out to me is you have a whole boatload of images, and yes you can get several HDs in a desktop computer, but ultimately you are going to fill those up and then what? You still need to store your images and catalogues etc. somewhere off the computer. One good strategy I've seen and used is to have your main drive for all your software, OS, programs,, etc. Then have a second fast drive on board the desktop for the images and other data you are currently working on because the transfer speeds from the internal bus of a desktop, used to be much faster then the read/writes off of external drives. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that has equalized a little more with the recent tech improvements on moving data. Anyways, when you've worked on the images and when the internal drive is getting past the 50% filled, or maybe 2/3rds full, you back it all off to external drives, because it's generally helps the drives function better if they have some headroom space on them. But here's the other issue. If you have images that have value to you, you want to put copies of them in a couple of different places because drives fail over time and backup redundancy is prudent even if it costs a bit of money to do so. There's a diminishment of efficiency if you all your back up drives on the computer itself because you will eventually have to back them up anyways. But also, there's no reason you can't do both. You will still end up having to have an external way to back-up your data. If you have 5 back-up drives in your computer, once they are filled they then become useless for anything other than back-up and you will still need to back those up.

So it's a good time to think through your current strategy for the whole process since you are starting fresh.

Just some thoughts for your consideration.

[samstevens]

An old VW bug is cool, and may be the only car you need, but you would have no foundation to discuss how it rides compared to a modern car if you've never ridden in a modern car.

I agree.

I think the point is you can't really form a meaningful opinion about a tool being better than an older tool if you've never seen or used the older and the newer tool.

And here's where I sense straw men and projection coming into the conversation. Maybe I've read too quickly or not carefully, so can you point to the comments that say older software is better than newer software? Because the gist of what I got was that some were saying they'd like to keep what they've got and don't need something new. For a variety of reasons. I can't find posts here that make the kind of inexperienced comparison you say is going on here.

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

No, I'm saying you can't give anyone meaningful advice as to whether to upgrade or not if you don't know what the new software can do.

Read the first page of the thread, there are comments like, why upgrade if your current version is doing everything you need. The point is, you won't even know if you need something if you haven't bothered to look at it.

 

I didn't think I needed constant upgrades either, but when Adobe made area, subject and sky selections so easy, saving loads of time, I realized I really did need it. Sure, I could do without it, but the half hour it saves on every image I need to mask, is something I do need.

 

Others might not, and they can choose. But you can't tell if you need something if you don't even know what that something is.

[samstevens]

I don't know much about cameras or cars but I do know something about language and logic. I know there are better cars and cameras out there than the ones I have. I know I don't know exactly why they're better than what I've got. I also know I don't need a new car or camera. To me, it's as simple as that and I don't know why it should be made more complicated.

[digitaldog]

I know I don't know exactly why they're better than what I've got.

 

 

“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.” - Daniel J. Boorstin

 

With that, perhaps we can get back on topic for the OP.

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

I don't know much about cameras or cars but I do know something about language and logic. I know there are better cars and cameras out there than the ones I have. I know I don't know exactly why they're better than what I've got. I also know I don't need a new car or camera. To me, it's as simple as that and I don't know why it should be made more complicated.

It's not complicated at all. If you don't know about cameras and cars then don't give advice about them.

[inoneeye]

Always good to have good tools of course. But for the photos i make the digital pp i do did not require upgrading and the old tool was a very good. I did not feel limited by it.... until my computer and software would no longer communicate seamlessly. My m1 made my very old ps, lr & c1 obsolete unfortunately. And if that were not the case i would not upgrade.

Sure there was a speed increase (especially for going to the m1) and some new ps/lr features are very nice with some easier options but nothing i needed. I don't care or need that it is faster, just not an issue for me. I like using the small silent spaces in time to consider options (no clients no deadlines for me) and no new features have lead me to new ways of seeing or opened new doors or allowed me to accomplish something i could not before. And my photos do and would look the same as they do from the new software.

Edited January 4, 2022 by inoneeye

[digitaldog]

It's not complicated at all. If you don't know about cameras and cars then don't give advice about them.

Let him finish the list of topics he doesn't know about and then hopefully we can get back on topic: :D

“Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.” ― Napoléon Bonaparte