Digital BW, The Print

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Morse" <willym@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 9:38 AM
Subject: [Digital BW] Photoshop efficiency- was: Re: 4x5 Neg Scan Resolution


> Hi Martin-
>
> That does not really conform with my experience with PS- albeit on a
Mac...
> (but let's not go there! ;^)

Bill,

We certainly don't need a platform war! <G>
>
> With the operations that you feel are slowing down, what does the
> "efficiency" box tell you is going on?  The scratch disk utilization
numbers
> are only numbers- they don't directly tell you whether PS is slowing down
or
> not.

The slow down is that the scratch disk is being used too much rather than
RAM. Obviously if I have 1.5GB of RAM and a 1.6GB file there is no choice.
Even with a 500MB the 1.5GB of RAM is less than Adobe's RAM recommendation
of 5 to 7 times file size.
>
> If the efficiency goes down, then there is a problem, presumably with your
> Windows memory settings.

The problem is that Adobe does not appear to adhere to Window memory
management conventions. Have done some trials setting up multiple Pagefiles
in Windows providing up to 8GB of virtual memory on top of the physical RAM
and PS simply ignores it sending stuff off to the scratch disk for no good
reason. PS appears to be unaware of how much memory Windows is making
available to it.
>
> On a Mac, PS can't use more than 1 Gig anyway, so I use 350 MB of ram as a
> ram scratch disk; makes a big difference with 500 MB files.

I can get PS to use up to 1.5GB under Windows but only if 5 times the file
size or ~300MB fits within that. When I open a file PS takes over RAM
roughly equal to 5 times the file size just to start. Beyond 250 to 300MB PS
will momentarily use all of the available memory and than it is off to the
scratch disk with the data and PS is using less memory with the larger file
than the smaller one. It appears to like to use a maximum of about 1GB even
though more is available. While there is not a strict limit, it seems to
mimic the 1GB Mac limitation.   The RAM disk is an excellent idea however
and makes the new PC mother boards that will take up to 3GB or 4GB of RAM
more interesting. 1.5GB for PS and a 2GB RAM Scratch disk might be a real
screamer. I will try creating a 500MB RAM disk as the primary scratch disk
leaving PS with 800 to 900MB of RAM and see what I get.

Thanks,
Martin

>
> on 9/20/02 11:25 AM, Martin Wesley wrote:
>
> > One of the problems is that PS seems to basically have an antiquated
memory
> > management system that does not mesh well with OS memory management.
Even
> > with 1.5+GB of RAM PS will preferentially spool data out of memory to
disk.
> > It is not uncommon to open a large file and have it all go into RAM but
at
> > the first action PS spools it to disk and only uses a fraction of
available
> > RAM.
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Martin, what does PS say in the "Efficiency" box, when you are experiencing
this slowdown?

Bill

on 9/20/02 1:36 PM, Martin Wesley wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Morse" <willym@...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 9:38 AM
> Subject: [Digital BW] Photoshop efficiency- was: Re: 4x5 Neg Scan Resolution
> 
> 
>> Hi Martin-
>> 
>> That does not really conform with my experience with PS- albeit on a
> Mac...
>> (but let's not go there! ;^)
> 
> Bill,
> 
> We certainly don't need a platform war! <G>
>> 
>> With the operations that you feel are slowing down, what does the
>> "efficiency" box tell you is going on?  The scratch disk utilization
> numbers
>> are only numbers- they don't directly tell you whether PS is slowing down
> or
>> not.
> 
> The slow down is that the scratch disk is being used too much rather than
> RAM. Obviously if I have 1.5GB of RAM and a 1.6GB file there is no choice.
> Even with a 500MB the 1.5GB of RAM is less than Adobe's RAM recommendation
> of 5 to 7 times file size.
>> 
>> If the efficiency goes down, then there is a problem, presumably with your
>> Windows memory settings.
> 
> The problem is that Adobe does not appear to adhere to Window memory
> management conventions. Have done some trials setting up multiple Pagefiles
> in Windows providing up to 8GB of virtual memory on top of the physical RAM
> and PS simply ignores it sending stuff off to the scratch disk for no good
> reason. PS appears to be unaware of how much memory Windows is making
> available to it.
>> 
>> On a Mac, PS can't use more than 1 Gig anyway, so I use 350 MB of ram as a
>> ram scratch disk; makes a big difference with 500 MB files.
> 
> I can get PS to use up to 1.5GB under Windows but only if 5 times the file
> size or ~300MB fits within that. When I open a file PS takes over RAM
> roughly equal to 5 times the file size just to start. Beyond 250 to 300MB PS
> will momentarily use all of the available memory and than it is off to the
> scratch disk with the data and PS is using less memory with the larger file
> than the smaller one. It appears to like to use a maximum of about 1GB even
> though more is available. While there is not a strict limit, it seems to
> mimic the 1GB Mac limitation.   The RAM disk is an excellent idea however
> and makes the new PC mother boards that will take up to 3GB or 4GB of RAM
> more interesting. 1.5GB for PS and a 2GB RAM Scratch disk might be a real
> screamer. I will try creating a 500MB RAM disk as the primary scratch disk
> leaving PS with 800 to 900MB of RAM and see what I get.
> 
> Thanks,
> Martin
> 
>> 
>> on 9/20/02 11:25 AM, Martin Wesley wrote:
>> 
>>> One of the problems is that PS seems to basically have an antiquated
> memory
>>> management system that does not mesh well with OS memory management.
> Even
>>> with 1.5+GB of RAM PS will preferentially spool data out of memory to
> disk.
>>> It is not uncommon to open a large file and have it all go into RAM but
> at
>>> the first action PS spools it to disk and only uses a fraction of
> available
>>> RAM.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
> other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>> 
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>> 
>> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
>> 
>> Please follow these basic guidelines:
>> - Include your full name with your message.
>> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
>> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
>> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
>> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
>> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
>> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
>

Bill,

Had to check the manual to find that readout. The number never seems to
change during an action but will revise itself after the action is finished
sometimes. With a 1.6GB file open it reads 28%. After doing a lasso action
it goes up to 30% and after feathering the selection it goes up to 71%. At
the same time the RAM usage is falling from 1.4GB to 500MB. Doing a mode
change brings the Efficiency up to 100% and the RAM usage up to 1.3MB but
there is intense drive action going on and CPU usage is down below 10% at
the end of the mode change Efficiency reads 40%.

Working with a 560MB file Eff. stays at 100% during an Unsharp Mask action
but at the end drops to 71%. Memory usage climes from 700MB to 1.3GB. A mode
change drops Eff to 35% and memory usage stays constant.

 PS and Wind 2000 memory management just don't seem to talk to each other
very well and I suspect that the Efficiency values may not mean anything.

I should do some research on maximizing Win 2000's memory management.

Martin Wesley

http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html



----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Morse" <willym@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 1:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Photoshop efficiency


> Martin, what does PS say in the "Efficiency" box, when you are
experiencing
> this slowdown?
>
> Bill
>
> on 9/20/02 1:36 PM, Martin Wesley wrote:
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Bill Morse" <willym@...>
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 9:38 AM
> > Subject: [Digital BW] Photoshop efficiency- was: Re: 4x5 Neg Scan
Resolution
> >
> >
> >> Hi Martin-
> >>
> >> That does not really conform with my experience with PS- albeit on a
> > Mac...
> >> (but let's not go there! ;^)
> >
> > Bill,
> >
> > We certainly don't need a platform war! <G>
> >>
> >> With the operations that you feel are slowing down, what does the
> >> "efficiency" box tell you is going on?  The scratch disk utilization
> > numbers
> >> are only numbers- they don't directly tell you whether PS is slowing
down
> > or
> >> not.
> >
> > The slow down is that the scratch disk is being used too much rather
than
> > RAM. Obviously if I have 1.5GB of RAM and a 1.6GB file there is no
choice.
> > Even with a 500MB the 1.5GB of RAM is less than Adobe's RAM
recommendation
> > of 5 to 7 times file size.
> >>
> >> If the efficiency goes down, then there is a problem, presumably with
your
> >> Windows memory settings.
> >
> > The problem is that Adobe does not appear to adhere to Window memory
> > management conventions. Have done some trials setting up multiple
Pagefiles
> > in Windows providing up to 8GB of virtual memory on top of the physical
RAM
> > and PS simply ignores it sending stuff off to the scratch disk for no
good
> > reason. PS appears to be unaware of how much memory Windows is making
> > available to it.
> >>
> >> On a Mac, PS can't use more than 1 Gig anyway, so I use 350 MB of ram
as a
> >> ram scratch disk; makes a big difference with 500 MB files.
> >
> > I can get PS to use up to 1.5GB under Windows but only if 5 times the
file
> > size or ~300MB fits within that. When I open a file PS takes over RAM
> > roughly equal to 5 times the file size just to start. Beyond 250 to
300MB PS
> > will momentarily use all of the available memory and than it is off to
the
> > scratch disk with the data and PS is using less memory with the larger
file
> > than the smaller one. It appears to like to use a maximum of about 1GB
even
> > though more is available. While there is not a strict limit, it seems to
> > mimic the 1GB Mac limitation.   The RAM disk is an excellent idea
however
> > and makes the new PC mother boards that will take up to 3GB or 4GB of
RAM
> > more interesting. 1.5GB for PS and a 2GB RAM Scratch disk might be a
real
> > screamer. I will try creating a 500MB RAM disk as the primary scratch
disk
> > leaving PS with 800 to 900MB of RAM and see what I get.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Martin
> >
> >>
> >> on 9/20/02 11:25 AM, Martin Wesley wrote:
> >>
> >>> One of the problems is that PS seems to basically have an antiquated
> > memory
> >>> management system that does not mesh well with OS memory management.
> > Even
> >>> with 1.5+GB of RAM PS will preferentially spool data out of memory to
> > disk.
> >>> It is not uncommon to open a large file and have it all go into RAM
but
> > at
> >>> the first action PS spools it to disk and only uses a fraction of
> > available
> >>> RAM.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls
and
> > other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> >>
> >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> >>
> >> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> > unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this
same
> > page.
> >>
> >> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> >> - Include your full name with your message.
> >> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> >> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
keep
> > them short.
> >> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
header.
> >> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> > &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> >> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> >> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the
various
> > resources on the homepage.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other
> > resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> >
> > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> > unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this
same
> > page.
> >
> > Please follow these basic guidelines:
> > - Include your full name with your message.
> > - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
keep
> > them short.
> > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
header.
> > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> > &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> > - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> > resources on the homepage.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Martin Wesley wrote:

> PS and Wind 2000 memory management just don't seem to talk to each other
>very well and I suspect that the Efficiency values may not mean anything.
>
>I should do some research on maximizing Win 2000's memory management.
>
>
>  
>
Check my link Registry tweaks...

also...

This will help understand SERVICES you can kill in Win2k and XP..

As well as some you might definitely want to kill.. Like services that 
send info back to M$ without your permission, services prone to easy 
hacking, or services that track the serial #'s of MP3 players hooked up 
to the machine, etc..


http://www.blackviper.com/WinXP/servicecfg.htm

Keith
 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Keith writes:

> Check my link Registry tweaks...

Photographers generally have better things to do than tweak the Registry,
and tweaking the Registry is unwise for anyone who doesn't tweak such things
for a living.

> This will help understand SERVICES you can kill
> in Win2k and XP..
>
> As well as some you might definitely want to kill..
> Like services that send info back to M$ without your
> permission, services prone to easy hacking, or
> services that track the serial #'s of MP3 players
> hooked up to the machine, etc..

None of this is relevant to the photographer's task.

If a photographer finds that his computer runs too slowly for his needs, the
simplest solution is to buy a larger computer.  It won't be the cheapest in
terms of capital investment, but it will certainly be the cheapest in terms
of time gained, and his time is more valuable than the computer hardware he
is using.

Anthony Atkielski wrote:

>If a photographer finds that his computer runs too slowly for his needs, the
>simplest solution is to buy a larger computer. 
>
Talk about a statement that means virtually nothing.. "larger"?

In what sense?

RAID?

Hard drives?

SCSI over IDE?

what memory architecture?

how MUCH RAM?

what CPUs...?

What video...?

What motherboard?

Dual or single cpus?

or do you simply mean laptop users should move to say a laptop to a 
desktop chassis/housing?

> It won't be the cheapest in
>terms of capital investment, 
>
of course you'll need to buy a new one pretty often

>but it will certainly be the cheapest in terms
>of time gained,
>
that is excluding all that time spent on transferring programs and data 
each time one gets a new system..

> and his time is more valuable than the computer hardware he
>is using.
>
>
>  
>
First off, the latter part of that statement may well apply to full-time 
Professionals or others who use the Machine primarily for PShop...  It 
is less likely to be the case for non-professionals whose machines are 
not simple capital investments..

OK...

Then  ignore what I said... Leave your Photoshop and windows memory 
settings to the defaults and simply buy the absolute fastest machine on 
the market...

ANd, shopping for a machine designed with PShop as the target is 
probably a waste of time also...  Just buy the fastest machine with SCSI 
drives from one of the major suppliers..  RAID will confuse you, so 
avoid it, it'll take  up your time..  

Fact is, a mid-speed machine tweaked for PhotoShop will save a LOT of 
processing time.. Just as will the faster machine..  It's your time and 
money...

Wanna know a major "secret" about the PC biz?  Just like with car sales, 
manufacturers make by far the most profit per-unit on high-end products 
and performance benefits are usually less than 10% over units with a 
significantly lower markup...  I for one would prefer not to get soaked 
every time I buy a new machine..

Keith
 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Keith writes:

> Talk about a statement that means virtually nothing..
> "larger"?
>
> In what sense?

More memory, a faster processor or processors, and more disk space.

> or do you simply mean laptop users should move
> to say a laptop to a desktop chassis/housing?

That is an excellent idea, also, if portability is not essential.  Desktop
machines have more bang for the buck, and are less likely to cause problems.

> of course you'll need to buy a new one pretty often

Only if your requirements change.  As long as they do not change, you can
use the same machine indefinitely.

> that is excluding all that time spent on transferring
> programs and data each time one gets a new system..

That is far less time than would be required to try to "tweak" a system to
resolve performance problems, especially when the environment becomes
dependent on the tweaks and they must be transferred or emulated to any new
system.

> First off, the latter part of that statement may
> well apply to full-time Professionals or others who
> use the Machine primarily for PShop...

I assume that there are many such persons subscribed to this mailing list.

> It is less likely to be the case for non-professionals
> whose machines are not simple capital investments..

People who regard computers as ends in themselves are obviously excluded.
But such people rarely the inclination or time for photography.

> Then  ignore what I said... Leave your Photoshop and
> windows memory settings to the defaults and simply buy
> the absolute fastest machine on the market...

Done.

> ANd, shopping for a machine designed with PShop as
> the target is probably a waste of time also...  Just
> buy the fastest machine with SCSI drives from one
> of the major suppliers..

Done.

> RAID will confuse you, so avoid it, it'll take up
> your time..

It would not confuse me, given my IT background, but for someone not already
familiar with it, it probably isn't worth worrying about, unless they have a
friendly and _competent_ geek to help them (one with real professional
experience, not someone who just happens to know a lot about PCs).

> Fact is, a mid-speed machine tweaked for PhotoShop
> will save a LOT of processing time.. Just as will
> the faster machine..

The faster machine is easier and faster to install, however.

> It's your time and money...

And time _is_ money, so wasting it playing with PC parameters is throwing
money out the window.

> Wanna know a major "secret" about the PC biz?

I already know the secrets of the PC biz.

> I for one would prefer not to get soaked
> every time I buy a new machine..

I for one have other things in life that demand my time, and spending 90% of
it playing with a PC for its own sake is not an attractive option to me.

> If a photographer finds that his computer runs too slowly for his needs,
the
> simplest solution is to buy a larger computer.  It won't be the cheapest
in
> terms of capital investment, but it will certainly be the cheapest in
terms
> of time gained, and his time is more valuable than the computer hardware
he
> is using.

Does this advice also apply to female photographers? All the ones I know
also have computers.

Moreno writes:

> Does this advice also apply to female
> photographers?

Uh ... yes.  Why wouldn't it?