PhotoShop needs high speed storage, because it writes everything you do to a scratch disk. I installed a firewire card and firewire drive on my G3 300 Mac, and PhotoShop is now at least twice as fast as it was. Paul
Doug Franklin wrote: > > Hi Bruce, > > On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 20:12:38 -0800 (PST), Bruce Rubenstein wrote: > > > You need more memory and a faster CPU. > > Well, I surely agree with more memory. I should receive the upgrade to > 512MB tomorrow. Time will tell if 1 GB or more would be useful. I > figure that 512MB will allow me to give Photoshop enough memory for at > three full-resolution layers. That should be enough for a while. :-) > > As to the CPU, I'm not so sure. In general, in Photoshop I spend a lot > more time waiting for data to move between the memory and disk than I > do waiting for the CPU. I rarely use the more esoteric filters, and > the USM filter runs about 15 to 20 seconds on a full resolution (125 > MB) image. Personally, I find that quite tolerable in the midst of the > other wait times in the process. Saving one of these images takes > about 3-4X as long as cropping or USM. > > > I wouldn't bother with SCSI HDs. I would get a SCSI > > interface card for the scanner. > > Well, if I'm going to get and install a SCSI controller, I might as > well get a really fast SCSI drive to go with it. :-) Any excuse for > more speed! [grunt-grunt-grunt] Besides, I'm a big fan of SCSI. The > only reason this computer doesn't have it is cost. My other computer > doesn't have an IDE bone in its body, but it's a Pentium 166 MHz. > > > Grain and sharpening: Go into channels [...] > > This is my standard policy. For most of my photos, I find that the > "best" approach is usually to move to the CIE*Lab color model, and do > my sharpening on the "Lightness" channel. But every image is > different, and I experiment freely with them. > > > It'm much more important to have the scanner on a solid base than the printer. > > Well, that makes sense, up to a point. In my case, the scanner is > trying to resolve 4,000 ppi while the printer is only trying to do > 2,880 dpi. But it seems to me that 2,880 dpi is still pretty small, > and the half-assed stereo rack holding my printers, flailing away like > a pennant in a gale, can't be doing my results any good. :-) > > > Try throwing a bean bag on top of the scanner and see if it makes a difference. > > Well, it's not that I've noticed a problem. In fact, the scanner pulls > native sharpness out of the negatives that didn't make the translation > to prints (the only thing I've scanned before). I'm just kinda anal > retentive about stuff like that, and I've seen the effects of > mechanical dampening (damping?) on my attempts at frame-filling moon > shots. > > I just wish it was as easy to drop a couple of pounds of ballast on the > printer. > > TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
