• Log In
  • Sign Up
    • I am ready.....and, I realize a raw file might equate to almost 350mb PER IMAGE. BUT, what sony is getting really good at is not just the MP wars for their sensors but improving the dynamic range.

      Thus, the ability to crop like a mad man and still have magazine -resolution worthy files will be great.....but, certainly used in moderation.

      Kind of like my grandad told me as a kid when I told him I wanted to own a Porsche someday. He said the ability to buy a Porsche is totally do-able, but the cost of living that goes with it is what is expensive.

      So, a camera that has 100mp, probably creates 350mb raw files will require massive storage and a couple more turbo chargers on the PC just to work the files.

    • Multiplying my storage cost by 4 wouldn't be the end of the world but getting a computer that could handle that kinda image at the speeds I need? Do they even make one like that yet? Especially for a large shoot?

      Adobe would need to really harness the GPU and improve Lightroom which still has a some functions that run on a single CPU thread. Honestly I don't really want to go much above my current 24 MP in terms of my workflow with Xeon E5-1650 V2/i7-7700HQ computers it seems to be the sweet spot; and it's more than enough resolution for my clients even with some cropping. For sensor tech better high ISO performance is what I really could use since the vast majority of my work is available light.

    • I don't think the file size would be that big a crunching problem - some of my photoshop layouts top 1.5 to 2 gb and more and my few years old iMac deals with them just fine.

    • Photoshop seems to handle larger files a lot easier. I have some 80 MP images on there with a few layers and they weren't a huge deal even on my older systems. Lightroom just doesn't have that level of performance.

    • So I listened to this ⬇️

      and they said that the real megapixel number depends on the quality of the lense: a 100 megapixel iPhone is not the same as a 100 megapixel DSLR camera and is not the same as a 100 megapixel DSLR with a higher quality lense.

      Am I understanding this correctly?

    • Performance issues are the complaints you hear most often about Lightroom. Over the years some engineers have attributed the cause to the programming language Lua that the Lightroom team inexplicably chose.

      The problem is probably magnified by the fact that Lightroom users tend to process large batches of photos. I'm curious if that is the case with you? Photoshop is usually used to do a lot on one file.

      When I see open letters like this one about Lightroom performance I naturally guess it is from a wedding photographer or some such.

    • Yup there's a ton of photos especially when I'm dealing with performances that have a ton of movement. So the first part of my workflow is pick the preset, click import, and then go leave the computer for a long while.

      They have improved it somewhat over the years but the big strides are in other areas. The other main issue was the Develop module could get choked up if you edited too many photos in one sitting and would have to reboot. That's done with. Things slowed down a bit in LR 5 or 6 IIRC but being able to edit smart previews really helped that is key for larger files/slower systems like my last laptop's i7-2670qm.

      I just hope they can find a way to utilize the GPU to help with imports because right now my laptop has a GTX 1050 Ti which is no slouch and the workstation has a GTX 1080.

    • FWIW...I just got a new box and FINALLY conceded to Lord Adobe and now doing the CC subscription model....Noticeable improvement in LR Classic versus LR 6.0 on my Win7 machine. Even then I create a catalog of images from mixed cameras to include maybe 100's of my Sony 7RII 125mb raw files, I actually have had no problems.

      Like DD, I also end up with comps in PS that are easily 1.5TB and I have not really had any lag or crashing with the new box.

      BUT, AfterFX is and will also be 1000 years too slow to render. hahahaha

    • I have a license for each of these products....I think it was $25ea. Pretty robust program but they don't offer a DAM (digital asset manager) and so it was impossible to get emotionally and creatively engaged. I was a heavy Adobe Bridge user for many years and accused LR users as Instagram Yuppies...LOL But, now, because I have a gillion presets in LR and meta templates and custom watermarks, once again, I am attached at the hip to Adobe.

    • Those presets and knowing the system are what are keeping me with Lightroom. It kinda sucks that I have to wait a bit for the initial processing/preview generation but it's not enough to get me to switch since it's rare that I need to turn around something right then and there.

      And if I did a common solution is to get an additional program just to cull and then load the final selections into Lightroom. Hopefully that band aid won't be needed forever since Adobe has been slowly improving its performance.