very nice and informative... i also think you like to write a lot :D
Building a Lightroom PC
151–160 of 232 posts
Re: Building a Lightroom PC
#152I can't imagine spending $6000 on a computer for editing photos and then saying "It also means I don't plan to buy and meticulously use a color calibration device". My computer might not be half as fast, but at least I know my blues are the shade of blue I think they are.
there's also this gem: "I'm not a professional photographer. I'm merely a hobbyist." o_O
I'm pretty sure a professional would rather buy a dual-socket Xeon based machine (say 2x E5-1650 v4) that has 4x the memory performance for closer to half the price.
Re: Building a Lightroom PC
#153I can't imagine spending $6000 on a computer for editing photos and then saying "It also means I don't plan to buy and meticulously use a color calibration device". My computer might not be half as fast, but at least I know my blues are the shade of blue I think they are.
there's also this gem: "I'm not a professional photographer. I'm merely a hobbyist." o_O
Why should that tip off your BS detector? There's a long, long, long, long history of amateurs lavishing far far more attention on their rigs than pros ever could. It became a trope in Renaissance literature.
Basically, people get rich doing other things and then dive into their hobbies buying all top-of-the-line gear. Whereas the pro started with nothing and learned the basics, so they are able to get much much better results from substandard gear.
Holds across all creative disciplines.
Re: Building a Lightroom PC
#154I use both Lightroom and Darktable regularly. While DT has a bit more bumpy UX, it makes up for that by being more flexible than LR and really fast on Linux with a good GPU with OpenCL support. And there is nothing that LR can do that DT can't. I.e. you don't need to shell out 6k for new box to make LR run fast. Just bite the bullet and learn another RAW editing app. If you have thousands (or ten thousands, in my cas…
The whole article is a bit strange - so much effort into research and putting it all together to have OC monster (which itself is really great read), and on the end simple realization that
- Lightroom is unoptimized piece of shit of an app, it doesn't get fast no matter what hardware you run it on. For gaming-only purposes, this would not be optimal build for given money.
- Maybe, just maybe the whole workflow of his should be addressed more, like selecting only few worthy photos for proper post-process (and thus slashing whole time spent in LR much much more)
Plus at least some parts of LR are truly bad - their panoramas are super slow, and regularly don't stitch things properly where other software performs just fine (Autopano Giga 2, which is also easily 2-3x faster).
Re: Building a Lightroom PC
#155I can't imagine spending $6000 on a computer for editing photos and then saying "It also means I don't plan to buy and meticulously use a color calibration device". My computer might not be half as fast, but at least I know my blues are the shade of blue I think they are.
there's also this gem: "I'm not a professional photographer. I'm merely a hobbyist." o_O
Why so negative? Some people spend a lot more than that on what I'd classify as less important stuff.
I'm not in a position to travel the world with high end photo gear. (I just recently replaced my 10 y.o. desktop pc case)
...but I am in a position to ve happy together with thise who can.
(And I also have rewarding and less expensive hobbies like learning to fix my stuff and coding side projects :-)
Re: Building a Lightroom PC
#156Both me and my wife recently realized something: the JPEG produced by the Pentax cameras we own are 90% of the time better than what we achieve with hours of raw conversion tweaking. Given that I'm not doing retouching most of the time, dealing with raw files becoming more and more a pain, without an actual gain. Had anyone else thought about this?
I usually shoot to JPEG and RAW simultaneously. Most times I never touch the RAW file but in case I ever want they're there. Disk space is cheap nowadays so redundancy isn't a real problem for me anymore. Haven't used a Pentax expect for my trusty K1000 so I don't know if they support that.
The higher end ones can - they even have an option to choose between PEF and DNG for RAW format.
This is what I'm doing as well, but the DNG files take 20-30MB of space, even at pathetically low 16MP (/s, high quality 2MP was enough for A4 prints...) resolution, and disk space is not THAT cheap once you want local and offsite backups as well.
Re: Building a Lightroom PC
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
there's also this gem: "I'm not a professional photographer. I'm merely a hobbyist." o_O
I'm pretty sure a professional would rather buy a dual-socket Xeon based machine (say 2x E5-1650 v4) that has 4x the memory performance for closer to half the price.
A lot of professional photographers don't know much about computers and CPUs. Remember that "professional photographer" crosses a very broad spectrum of photographers, since the bar is basically "I charge for my work".
For better or worse, many professional photographers often rely on the advice of friends and salespeople for "something fast enough for what I need to do".
Re: Building a Lightroom PC
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
For a whole lot more performance than you'll get out of your comparably priced Mac. I guess he did have to... change settings though, so the thousands spent on mac aesthetics are completely worth it.
I guess if your time is free or you enjoy all the labor that goes into research, assembly and maintenance, sure, this is cheaper.
It's really not that hard, and it's a myth that your free time is worth money. I have a child, a wife, and a demanding job. I still somehow find the hour or two it takes to order parts and the hour or two it takes to piece the PC together. I don't know about you, maybe you can just open a laptop and make $500 / hour on demand whenever you like, but I can't. Not sure what maintenance you're referring to either.
Re: Building a Lightroom PC
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is this said in every discussion of high-dpi displays? I've been using high-dpi displays on Windows for longer than Retina was a thing and it's totally fine with only the extremely rare app/dialog not supporting it. My main display right now is 4k@27" with scaling on. Most apps are built properly and Windows now even supports fringe features like multi-monitor setups with different scaling ratios (a feature I was…
I definitely use lots of apps that aren't rebuilt in the last decade which is pretty common in the enterprise (in house stuff). But among the "new" and "widely used" apps on my desktop right now that don't scale well (i.e. bitmap scale) are e.g. Skype, McAffee, Cisco AnyConnect (it seems about 50% of the apps on my desktop are not properly DPI aware, but simply bitmap scaling). That's not the bad part though, I can l…
You may be able to fix this issue by overriding the DPI scaling for this application to System in its program properties dialog.
Re: Building a Lightroom PC
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone who made the same jump, Windows wasn't really a viable platform for non-dotNet developers until that happened. The state of Linux on the desktop is, frankly, a disaster — I spent months on trying to make it work, but wow, it's not worth the time.
Windows has been a viable platform for software development since always. I have been developing Windows software since Windows 3.1 and my first UNIX was Xenix, followed by DG/UX, Aix and many other variants. Windows is perfectly viable developer OS for C++, Delphi, Tcl/TK, Perl, Python, Java and .NET developers. Microsoft did a mistake not following up on Windows NT POSIX support, because that is what many care abou…
Exactly I spent many years with a windows desk top as my pc developing for Solaris and before that Primos (an ITS derived os) and for Unisys A Series mainframes.