jonathan z

<p>That's good feedback! I had assumed that would be true for detailed editing, detailed masks etc. <br>

Do you think windows 8 touch screens are adequate enough for the sort of adjustments done in lightroom? I would assume that the Graduated Filter would work just fine.<br>

I wonder though what kind of control could be achieved with things like the Adjustment Brush and Spot Removal. <br>

I did see an interesting video online (whish I had bookmarked it) that showed someone using a conductive paintbrush to do adjustments. I don't know if it added precision; however, it did appear to deal with the problem of being able to see past your own finger!</p>

<p>I'm considering a new notebook and I'd like to get one that is photo editing capable.</p>

<p>Certainly ones with pens should work (although I'm going to ask an N Trig question too), but I'm wondering how practical it is to just use your finger on a touch screen in Windows 8/8.1.<br /> I would love reports from people who've actually done this.<br /> Thanks!</p>

<p>I'm considering buying a Sony Duo or Flip 13 notebook. Both use N-Trig digitizers.</p>

<p>If anyone has used N-Trig digitizers (with any tablet or laptop) on Windows 8/8.1 with Lightroom or Photoshop, I'd appreciate comments on how well they all work together.<br /> Also, I'd appreciate thoughts on whether the combination is actually a significant improvement over just using a mouse.<br /> Thanks!</p>

<p>Thanks for the input! Anyone else, feel free to add to it!</p>

<p>Thanks for the input! Anyone else, feel free to add to it!</p>

<p>Thanks for the input! Anyone else, feel free to add to it!</p>

<p>Thanks for the response. Is 4-6 shots typical? <br>

That seems quite low but I really have no idea what's normal.<br>

I was thinking 8-10 shots and that I might only show 1 or 2 of the topic areas. <br>

What do you think? </p>

<p>I have an opportunity to show/discuss my work with the curator of a corporate gallery space. If things go well, I will be able to show my work there.<br>

I have primarily concentrated my photography on landscapes, architecture, and travel.<br>

I don't currently have a formal portfolio and want to put something together quickly. I'm also thinking that it may make sense to create separate portfolios for each of the above topic areas.<br>

I'm looking for links to good articles and/or discussion threads on developing a portfolio.<br>

If anyone wants to add their own advice, I welcome that as well.<br>

Thanks!</p>

When you can upgrade at 199 every 18 months, that's roughly 10 a month and no obligation to purchase forever to access your files.

The subscription is nearly twice the price with the requirement for a lifetime commitment.

In my mind, that's MUCH more expensive!

<p>I'm troubled by Adobe's plans.</p>

<p><br /> Pricing is very different, it seems they have no qualms about discontinuing a product, I wonder about being locked into a proprietary file format and a subscription model where they can raise prices and hold images hostage, and I wonder what happens if any of us are traveling and are offline for a period of time. Will the product stop working if someone is offline for a while?</p>

<p><br /> At any rate, this really lowers my trust of Adobe and I agree that considering alternatives now is a good idea.</p>

<p><br /> I just recently purchased Cs6 and if I remember correctly, I have a 30 day return window. Do you think it makes sense to return it now to spend the money on an alternative?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"If you do not mind me saying, your selection is a techie-choice of a PC with overclocking, RAID and so on. It all sounds nice, but most of it yields very small gains, while driving up the price. Real-world, you mildly-overclocked RAID system would be maybe 5-10% faster than everything stock. While producing more heat, wearing out parts faster and adding risk of dataloss in the storage system.And that 10% difference is measured in milliseconds, because everything is so fast, you simply won't notice.<br />Now, I know if you're and enthusiast and into it, you won't care about these costs (and I've been enough enthusiast to know and understand). But if you want a stable, reliable workstation, then let go of the enthusiast things and build something simpler. Simple usually ends up more reliable. And when it comes to a system holding my own personal data, reliable is the key word. YMMV."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hmm, on my existing system I've quite successfully overclocked. Litterally in about 1/2 hour I was able to get a 29% faster CPU clock and it's been stable for years. <br>

I've been assuming that I could also get good results with the current chips. Can you explain why you think otherwise? I don't want to waste time/$ if there are barriers I'm not aware of. <br>

<br />Regarding storage...<br>

On my NAS, I already have a mirroring setup and going to Raid 10 is not difficult, it's redundant, and nearly 2x faster. That said, I understand your point about just getting a larger SSD. My problem is that I already have about 1.3tb of photo images and I don't want to have a system where I'm always manually copying over to the NAS. My thought was to setup high volume storage on the workstation and have fast access for working files via the SRT function and a SSD cache. <br>

I definately DO NOT want to tweak for tweaking sake or overinvest just to be an enthusiast. I do need a big improvement but want to spend wisely to get it!</p>

Thanks everyone! Here's what I'm now thinking of for the new PC:

<p>CPU (either Xeon, i5, or i7 (maybe even i7 3770)) with Hyperthreading.<br>

Storage: Local Raid 10 with SSD Cache (intel SRT based). Probably will put os, programs, scratch disk on another SSD. I have the HDDs but not the SSDs<br>

Graphics: <br />- Option 1: I will keep the existing card for now (it does work fine) <br />- Opion 2: use an intel chip with built in graphics for the time being (is this is good/bad idea?)<br>

Memory: 32gb matched set or 2x8gb (16gb) to start with an eye on expanding later. Advice on best choices?<br>

Mobo: This is what I think I need or is important<br />- 6gbps Intel SATA controllers (Intel is supposedly better for certain SSDs) <br />- Enough sata connections for HDD based Raid 10, 2x SSDs, optical drive, other(?) <br />- USB 3 connections for fast interface to external storage <br />- Gigabit ethernet (ideally Intel) <br />- Other?<br>

Cooler: Air cooler, want to overclock CPU but have a stable setup with safe temperatures and safe internal voltages (in other words, not a huge overclock).<br>

I'd appreciate recommendations: which CPU, MOBO, SSD, RAM, Cooler?<br>

Thanks!</p>

<p>I could use some advice on what's the best way to invest to get a high performance PC workstation geared to photo processing. Here are my objectives:</p>

<ul>

<li>QUIET for normal use. It’s OK if the PC gets louder under maximum load (in other words, ok if fans pick up speed during high processing)Fast photo processing workstation (photoshop cs6, lightroom 4, Unified Color Expose 2 (fully multi-threaded app), and DxO Optics 8.</li>

<li>Fast photo processing workstation (photoshop cs6, lightroom 4, Unified Color Expose 2 (fully multi-threaded app), and DxO Optics 8. This is especially important for large files (300mb to 1.7gb) in Photoshop and Lightroom.</li>

<li>QUIET for normal use. It’s OK if the PC gets louder under maximum load (in other words, ok if fans pick up speed during high processing)</li>

<li>Runs dual monitors (photo monitor 1920x1200 (built in hardware LUT) and second standard monitor at 1920x1080)</li>

</ul>

<p>My current PC</p>

<ul>

<li>Core 2 Quad e6420 overclocked from 2.6ghz to 3.3ghz</li>

<li>8 Gig DDR2 Ram, running at 420, 5,5, 5, 18 (I’ve seen the ram nearly fully utilized while processing some files)</li>

<li>Video Card: Radeon HD 4550 1199mhz, 1 gig ram, 64bit bus</li>

<li>Motherboard Asus P5B Delux</li>

<li>Thumbdrive used for Readyboost</li>

<li>1 Terabyte of photos stored on homebuilt NAS PC, connected via Ethernet</li>

</ul>

<p>I plan to upgrade in the next month or so because...</p>

<ul>

<li>I’m now processing large panorama files which can hit 1.7GB (!) and I am very tired of how long it can take the various photo applications to complete certain operations (literally 3-5 minutes for a single operation on a single file!)</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>In my photo processing, I’ve noticed that only the Unified Color Expose 2 application consistently maxes out all 4 cores of the CPU (the developers have told me that it was designed to be fully multi-threaded). All other photo applications that I have don’t consistently leverage the CPU cores even though it can take quite a while for an operation to complete. That may be an application issue, but it may also have to do with other system bottlenecks (writing to/from NAS, etc.).</li>

</ul>

<p>I'd appreciate advice on where it's best to spend funds: CPU, Graphics Card, SSD Cache to HDD for storage, more and faster RAM etc.<br>

For example, is getting a 6 or 8 core AMD processor for photo work more efficient than a 4 core Intel and a good graphics card?<br>

Thanks in advance!</p>

<p>I'm going the first three weeks of October. The first two with my wife and the third will be on my own and far more intensive for photography. <br>

<br />If anyone is local and interested in doing some shooting, please let me know.<br>

<br />Thanks!</p>