anthony_bez

<p>Eric,<br> Yes I intend fitting a PCI-e SSD controller card for the two 240GB SSD's.</p> <p>Your system is over-clocked and water-cooled..... but you call my standard workstation complicated?</p> <p>Cheers</p>

<p>Wouter,<br> The second CPU is fitted (riser card) so I have no choice to make..... 36MB is the recommended configuration for 4GB moduals (9 slots) and I have purchased and fitted the RAM.</p> <p>I do agree the GPU is marginal, I will probably swap it for the Quadro 2000 fitted to my other workstation. But my present editing needs do not make much use of the GPU memory. If I do migrate to CC and GPU performance becomes a bigger factor I can upgrade then.</p> <p>Cheers</p>

<p>Eric,<br> I respect your opinion, and you have pushed me to go for a 240GB SSD for OS and Software. I will fit another 240GB SSD as a scratch disc.<br> For image storage I will run two 3000GB 7200rpm spinners in RAID 0 configuration.<br> I will fit more storage drives if needed.</p> <p>But it does seem strange that there is no conclusive answer to the performance of SSD's with photoshop. </p> <p>Cheers</p>

<p>Ellis,<br> Yes you are right it really should not matter..... but my present OS and software is around 120GB total, so 240GB seems plenty.<br> I will be fitting four internal disks, I could fit six if needed. Perhaps one of those would be more useful to me as a 480GB SSD.</p> <p>The question still is are Adobe right that SSD's do not improve the performance of Photoshop, except for initial start up?</p> <p>Cheers</p>

<p>Thank you for the valuable information everybody!</p> <p>The biggest files I process are TIFF's from a H5D-50 and D800. I do stitch images, and have a project that will require focus stacking (hopefully only 5 or 6 stacks).<br> My other workstation is Maxed out with 24GB of RAM, and on occasion has to catch it's breath. I settled on 36MB for this build as a cost effective upgrade. The older workstation has two fast 250MB spinners in RAID 0 configuration as a dedicated scratch drive. I am hoping, and expect 36MB RAM, to avoid demanding use of a scratch disk.<br> The FX580 came fitted, I don't think my editing makes much use of the GPU so I am hoping that will be okay. The workstation will only be used for still photography editing.</p> <p>I am beginning to believe Adobe that SSD's do not help photoshop performance. I rarely shut down, as I normally walk away leaving it performing a batch process. So initial start speed is not an issue.<br> I want to avoid going bigger than a 240GB SSD because of cost. I may try a 240GB SSD as a scratch disK, and put my current work on there to see if it speed's up processing.<br> As an experiment I may leave the OS and software on a spinner, and fit another 240GB SSD later if needed.<br> If anyone can say for sure image processing will be faster, then I would fit one now.</p> <p>Cheers</p>

<p>Hello,</p> <p>I am setting up a workstation.... 2 x Intel Xeon E5540 Quad-Core, 36GB RAM, Nvidia Quadro FX 580 512MB.<br /> I will be running Windows 7 with NX-2, CS6, NIK collection.<br /> It has two WD 1000GB 7200RPM spinning drives fitted, but I intend to have four internal drives.</p> <p>My first thought was to add a 240gb SSD just for Windows, editing software, and a 120gb SSD scratch disk. Then change the two 1000GB spinners to 3000GB 7200RPM versions for image storage.<br /> But looking on Adobe's website they state "SSD's only affect start up time for photoshop, the best benefit of SSD's is for a scratch disK". But they go on to say if you have enough RAM you will not gain much benefit.</p> <p>So my question..... for photo editing is it worth fitting SSD's? or should I save money and just keep the original 1000GB spinners. One for OS and software, and the other as a scratch disK.<br /> Then add the two 3000GB drives for image storage.</p> <p>Cheers</p>

<p>Yes I feel your "Joy" I was over a thousand images into my colour scanning. Before I realised the scanner was reverting to 8-bit after scanning the first frame of the strip. I had to rescan them all, so I did not want a repeat with the black and white transparency's.</p> <p>This does seem to be a quirk with NikonScan software. It would be simpler to batch scan if the base settings could be changed. Instead of constantly having to select a preset for a strip of images.</p> <p>Cheers</p>

<p>Brooks,<br> Thank you for the information!<br> The strange thing is my ctrl>click action worked for batch scanning the colour negatives. I expect it is because colour is the default setting?<br> <br />Cheers</p>

<p>Hello,<br /> I am using NikonScan software with my Coolscan IV ED. I have recently completed a scanning marathon on over 5,000 colour negative images.</p> <p>I now want to scan many thousands of Black and White transparency's.</p> <p>I saved a preset..... neg(Mono)... Greyscale... AnalogGain: Neutral... ROC: Neutral... GEM: Neutral... ICE: Off... Bit Depth: 12. I highlighted the strip of thumbnails with ctrl>click. Then selected the setting I saved, but when scanned the first image is 23.7mb and the subsequent one's are 35.7mb. The 35.7mb images have a sepia tone so it looks like the greyscale setting is changing after the first scan.<br /> How do I keep the desired settings consistent throughout the batch scan?<br /> Are these the best base settings for Black and White transparency's?</p> <p>Any help would be appreciated, my brain is already numb from the 5,000+ colour scans.</p> <p>Cheers</p>