The Amazing Sony A1/A7/A9/APS-C & Anything else welcome Mega Thread!

snerkler said:
Hmmm I wonder if that’s why I find LR slower than it used to be then? I remember on my old MBP when I swapped out the 8GB RAM for 16GB RAM it got hot much quicker. I’d never heard the fans go supersonic prior to this but they did it every time I used LR (or logic etc) after this.
Click to expand...

Just like I found with my Dell, you'll probably get better performance if you refresh the thermal paste under the heatsinks (I can still barely believe it made so much difference). It was showing the same symptoms as your - fans whistling, throttling, like it was working flat out but just couldn't keep up. Only thing is that on a Mac it's a lot more work than my XPS, and you'll probably need to remove the Mobo first.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
Extra ram shouldn't cause premature ramping, LR loves to use a ton of cpu though so I'm not surprised your laptop was under strain, isn't it more a case of larger raws, they use much more processing power.
Click to expand...
Not so sure as it’d do it with the Olympus files too.
ancient_mariner said:
Just like I found with my Dell, you'll probably get better performance if you refresh the thermal paste under the heatsinks (I can still barely believe it made so much difference). It was showing the same symptoms as your - fans whistling, throttling, like it was working flat out but just couldn't keep up. Only thing is that on a Mac it's a lot more work than my XPS, and you'll probably need to remove the Mobo first.
Click to expand...
If I knew what you were talking about I might give it go :LOL:
 
snerkler said:
Not so sure as it’d do it with the Olympus files too.

If I knew what you were talking about I might give it go :LOL:
Click to expand...

Computers bore me no end these days. I just can't be bothered to take any interest in them at all. The best solution is to find someone in the family who's 12 and still thinks computers are interesting and leave it all to them :D
 
Last edited:
The rumor site has a link to a Fred Miranda thread on the Sony 12-24mm f2.8.

Here's a direct link...

Sony FE 12-24mm f/2.8 GM Review

[news]Sony just started shipping their new FE 12-24mm f/2.8 GM, securing top spot for the fastest ultra wide zoom in the world!It's also a GM lens...
www.fredmiranda.com

He says " Currently we don’t have a set of prime lenses that outperform the Sony FE 12-24mm f/2.8 GM."

I think I want one.
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
Not so sure as it’d do it with the Olympus files too.

If I knew what you were talking about I might give it go :LOL:
Click to expand...

Then it's time to stop pretending ignorance!

Your processor overheats because the original system for cooling the processor, coupling it to the heat sink etc, has degraded and doesn't work effectively. Replacing the material that ensures heat flows quickly between processor and heatsink can transform a computer and restore the performance you used to enjoy.

If you've no ability with hardware then ask someone who specialises in computer repair (pref a shop with insurance) to replace the heat sink compound for you.
 
woof woof said:
Computers bore me no end these days. I just can't be bothered to take any interest in them at all. The best solution is to find someone in the family who's 12 and still thinks computers are interesting and leave it all to them :D
Click to expand...
Tbh I’m the most au fair with computers out of everyone I know :LOL:

TBH I’m not that bad and can usually sort out most faults and errors with computers, but when it comes to the technical knowledge of hardware I’ve been left behind.
 
f/2.8 said:
I have just started processing a Brenzier from todays wedding. It's about 3 quarters through rendering and my scratch disk is showing the temporary file at 640gb. So no 256gb isn't anywhere near big enough for me. The scratch disk is were the temporary file is generated it has nothing to do with ram at all. Allowing lightroom to use the normal hard drive for this would take forever and a day.
Click to expand...
That’s a pretty large temporary file :eek:

Is there a way to check what’s being used in LR so that I could see if a scratch disk would be useful for me before shelling out for one?
 
ancient_mariner said:
Then it's time to stop pretending ignorance!

Your processor overheats because the original system for cooling the processor, coupling it to the heat sink etc, has degraded and doesn't work effectively. Replacing the material that ensures heat flows quickly between processor and heatsink can transform a computer and restore the performance you used to enjoy.

If you've no ability with hardware then ask someone who specialises in computer repair (pref a shop with insurance) to replace the heat sink compound for you.
Click to expand...
Ahh right, thanks. Might be worth looking into, but I’ll need to check whether it’s still under warranty or not first.

I know fiddling with components is pretty awkward on MBPs these days as everything is integrated into the logic board :(
 
snerkler said:
Tbh I’m the most au fair with computers out of everyone I know :LOL:

TBH I’m not that bad and can usually sort out most faults and errors with computers, but when it comes to the technical knowledge of hardware I’ve been left behind.
Click to expand...

I worked in the repair dept of a computer manufacturer (Systime) before moving into 3rd party maintenance for about 12 years. After that I still worked with tech in one way or another and now I'm just sick of the sight of it. Interested? Not :D
 
I'd drop it off at your local repair shop, get on with more important things and pick it up again later.
 
snerkler said:
That’s a pretty large temporary file :eek:

Is there a way to check what’s being used in LR so that I could see if a scratch disk would be useful for me before shelling out for one?
Click to expand...

To be fair its over 200 odd images.

If you build a pano and its slow or gives any sort of error messages a scratch disk will help.

I got one as the ssd I use for programs didn't have enough storage to set up a a big enough partition and using one of my ordinary drives was too slow.
 
woof woof said:
But they're all slightly different and that would be a very valid answer to the question of "Why a 35 and a 32mm."

I suppose I could read 3mm less as being slightly different. I just thought the Zeiss may be more compact or has different rendering or maybe it makes the tea or does the ironing or something.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn’t the Zeiss be different to the Sony? You have already acknowledged that you collection of lenses are different from each other!!

I have the Zeiss 32mm for the Fuji-X and I prefer it to the Fuji 35mm F1.4, it renders differently, colours have more contrast, but it doesn’t have that full Zeiss pop. The tactile feel of the lens really suits me, it’s a joy to use, and for me helps make a meh focal length (I prefer 28/35 equiv) an enjoyable thing to shoot.
 
imattersuk said:
Had a little play with a Sigma 300mm f/2.8 (Canon EF adapted) today courtesy of @addicknchips

Very impressive piece of glass, works flawlessly on the A73 and gives your arms a good workout !!!

Bun-1 by Pete Downham Photography, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Lovely isn't. Was good to catch up mate and have a beer afterwards. The club have been on the phone already wondering about your availability for the rest of the season. said youre the best ball boy they had for years!
 
Mr Perceptive said:
Why wouldn’t the Zeiss be different to the Sony? You have already acknowledged that you collection of lenses are different from each other!!

I have the Zeiss 32mm for the Fuji-X and I prefer it to the Fuji 35mm F1.4, it renders differently, colours have more contrast, but it doesn’t have that full Zeiss pop. The tactile feel of the lens really suits me, it’s a joy to use, and for me helps make a meh focal length (I prefer 28/35 equiv) an enjoyable thing to shoot.
Click to expand...

Amazingly, it was a genuine question all I was looking for was an answer. "It's different" would have sufficed and I would understand that completely and that simple little two word answer would have the added advantage of not dragging you in here. Isn't there another thread you could be haunting?
 
woof woof said:
Amazingly, it was a genuine question all I was looking for was an answer. "It's different" would have sufficed and I would understand that completely and that simple little two word answer would have the added advantage of not dragging you in here. Isn't there another thread you could be haunting?
Click to expand...

Yeah sorry to have troubled you, the fact that I own a Sony Camera and have a copy of the lens being discussed, of course means that I should stay out of this thread..........
 
Mr Perceptive said:
Yeah sorry to have troubled you, the fact that I own a Sony Camera and have a copy of the lens being discussed, of course means that I should stay out of this thread..........
Click to expand...

I don't care about your kit, more the fact that in the past you've been a repeatedly toxic troll like unfunny disruptive PITA with minimal positive input to this thread. Behave and I'll like you a hundred times a day but past behaviour doesn't seem to fill me with hope so I'll let my finger hover over the ignore button for a while.
 
addicknchips said:
Lovely isn't. Was good to catch up mate and have a beer afterwards. The club have been on the phone already wondering about your availability for the rest of the season. said youre the best ball boy they had for years!
Click to expand...
Hahahaha I enjoyed the workout running 50 yards with a Sigma 300mm in my hand, I lost 2 stone yesterday
 
woof woof said:
I don't care about your kit, more the fact that in the past you've been a repeatedly toxic troll like unfunny disruptive PITA with minimal positive input to this thread. Behave and I'll like you a hundred times a day but past behaviour doesn't seem to fill me with hope so I'll let my finger hover over the ignore button for a while.
Click to expand...

Alan, you are out of order here, I heeded your previous (past) comments, and actually posted a genuine answer to a genuine question, if you choose now to put me on ignore for actions in the now distant past, then that’s your choice.
 
As some know I had most of the Fuji kit, and now wanting a change because of lockdown I sold it all and came to Sony ( kept the 100V) as wanted to try try Full frame. I had both Fuji 35mms but I did want to try the Zeiss 32mm and glad I did, I think it`s a nice lens now it`s on the A6400 so it can stay on that. Today I might give the 100V a go.
 
Last edited:
Yesterday we went to the Quantocks. I have been a few times before but I've never been overly impressed to be honest. Missus wanted to see all of the late summer gorse and heather colours though so..... Good to cover a few miles though once again.
 
Stephen L said:
Just found out that after a couple of malts last night I’ve got 3 lenses coming today. And Mrs. L has a bag of powdered strawberries. :oops: :$:rolleyes: (In mitigation, she was on the Gin)
Click to expand...

Stephen L said:
A trio of Sigmas. F1.4 16mm, 30mm, and 56mm.
Click to expand...

That sounds like a positive "RESULT" in my book Stephen, "ENJOY".

George.
 
f/2.8 said:
I have just started processing a Brenzier from todays wedding. It's about 3 quarters through rendering and my scratch disk is showing the temporary file at 640gb. So no 256gb isn't anywhere near big enough for me. The scratch disk is were the temporary file is generated it has nothing to do with ram at all. Allowing lightroom to use the normal hard drive for this would take forever and a day.
Click to expand...

While I agree Photoshop usage cases vary, and as I said, many spend large amounts on a scratch disk that is never even used which is why I said plenty of people, not all people.

You are incorrect in regards to the scratch disk, it is only used when Adobe Photoshop doesn't have enough ram for the task at hand. the Official Adobe link I posted to Snerkler and again below confirms this.. I see from your later reply that you are stitching 200 photos together so I would suggest probably a task beyond the average user daily use case for most. Should a system be capable of running 1.5TB Ram as per the latest Mac Pro it would compete your specific task without the need for a 640GB temp file on a scratch disk or even if you had say 256GB ram it would still be faster than if you had 64GB as both cases would need to use the slower scratch disk, the lower ram system paging to it first.

The system Ram is also far faster than any consumer NVMe SSD, even if those SSD run in Raid 0. Any user that has 8-16GB ram and experiencing slowness in Photoshop should check the efficiency monitor as should this drop below 100% they are out of Ram and using the slow scratch disk which may be the source of the slowness, should it say 100, then it’s a different source of slowness than Ram, perhaps a slow mechanical HDD, CPU or a combination of all. If the efficiency indicator is above 95% a scratch disk will be of little performance benefit.

The second link provides tips for optimising photoshop performance and explains what each setting does, particularly useful information around cache levels, layers and history states.

https://helpx.adobe.com/uk/photoshop/using/scratch-disks-preferences.html

Optimize performance Photoshop

Tweak your operating system, hardware, and application settings to help your computer run Photoshop stably at the optimum speed. If Photoshop is running slower than expected on your computer, or if you're experiencing system freezes, lags, or delays while using Photoshop, try the tips and...
helpx.adobe.com helpx.adobe.com

Im not trying to pick an argument With anyone. I just seen that somebody recommended Snerkler, albeit with good intentions to help; an expensive External SSD that I believe wouldn’t solve his issue and without getting him to check that he did indeed need a scratch disk via the efficiency monitor and lead to him potentially wasting money.
 
snerkler said:
That’s a pretty large temporary file :eek:

Is there a way to check what’s being used in LR so that I could see if a scratch disk would be useful for me before shelling out for one?
Click to expand...

Use the efficiency tool, its located at the bottom of the window, just in a drop down menu next to the document size. If the value in the indicator is below 100%, Photoshop has used all available RAM and is using the scratch disk, which slows performance. If the efficiency is less than 90%, allocate more RAM to Photoshop in Performance preferences if possible. Or, typically add more RAM to your system But you are already at the max level.

Optimize performance Photoshop

Tweak your operating system, hardware, and application settings to help your computer run Photoshop stably at the optimum speed. If Photoshop is running slower than expected on your computer, or if you're experiencing system freezes, lags, or delays while using Photoshop, try the tips and...
helpx.adobe.com helpx.adobe.com
 
Tkenny said:
While I agree Photoshop usage cases vary, and as I said, many spend large amounts on a scratch disk that is never even used which is why I said plenty of people, not all people.

You are incorrect in regards to the scratch disk, it is only used when Adobe Photoshop doesn't have enough ram for the task at hand. the Official Adobe link I posted to Snerkler and again below confirms this.. I see from your later reply that you are stitching 200 photos together so I would suggest probably a task beyond the average user daily use case for most. Should a system be capable of running 1.5TB Ram as per the latest Mac Pro it would compete your specific task without the need for a 640GB temp file on a scratch disk or even if you had say 256GB ram it would still be faster than if you had 64GB as both cases would need to use the slower scratch disk, the lower ram system paging to it first.

The system Ram is also far faster than any consumer NVMe SSD, even if those SSD run in Raid 0. Any user that has 8-16GB ram and experiencing slowness in Photoshop should check the efficiency monitor as should this drop below 100% they are out of Ram and using the slow scratch disk which may be the source of the slowness, should it say 100, then it’s a different source of slowness than Ram, perhaps a slow mechanical HDD, CPU or a combination of all. If the efficiency indicator is above 95% a scratch disk will be of little performance benefit.

The second link provides tips for optimising photoshop performance and explains what each setting does, particularly useful information around cache levels, layers and history states.

https://helpx.adobe.com/uk/photoshop/using/scratch-disks-preferences.html

Optimize performance Photoshop

Tweak your operating system, hardware, and application settings to help your computer run Photoshop stably at the optimum speed. If Photoshop is running slower than expected on your computer, or if you're experiencing system freezes, lags, or delays while using Photoshop, try the tips and...
helpx.adobe.com helpx.adobe.com

Im not trying to pick an argument With anyone. I just seen that somebody recommended Snerkler, albeit with good intentions to help; an expensive External SSD that I believe wouldn’t solve his issue and without getting him to check that he did indeed need a scratch disk via the efficiency monitor and lead to him potentially wasting money.
Click to expand...

I never said it was the solution to his problem, it was a recommendation if he was feeling like spending money to get probably the best external scratch disk that's compatible with his mpb. It's not my job to troubleshoot if he needs one or not before he purchases (I'm confident he would've done, knowing him very well).
 
Last edited:
Tkenny said:
Use the efficiency tool, its located at the bottom of the window, just in a drop down menu next to the document size. If the value in the indicator is below 100%, Photoshop has used all available RAM and is using the scratch disk, which slows performance. If the efficiency is less than 90%, allocate more RAM to Photoshop in Performance preferences if possible. Or, typically add more RAM to your system But you are already at the max level.

Optimize performance Photoshop

Tweak your operating system, hardware, and application settings to help your computer run Photoshop stably at the optimum speed. If Photoshop is running slower than expected on your computer, or if you're experiencing system freezes, lags, or delays while using Photoshop, try the tips and...
helpx.adobe.com helpx.adobe.com
Click to expand...
Thanks, TBH it rare that I use photoshop tbh, but useful to know when I do. At the moment efficiency is showing 100% but I'm not processing anything so I assume this will change when processing?

TBH the main trouble I had was that if I sent circa 15 files from LR to PS using the merge in photoshop option, instead of blending them all together in one 'file' it blended 4 in one file, then there was a separate file containing one image and then nothing else. If I converted to jpeg first then it would open up as expected.

Is there a way to check the efficiency of LR as this is what I use most of the time? This is my current performance settings in LR, should I change anything? Do I need to purge cache frequently?
Screenshot 2020-09-06 at 19.03.26.png


As I said previously, when it's 'playing up' if I'm in the develop module and quickly flick from one photo to another (which I do often to decide which of a group of photos I want to edit) it can often freeze for several seconds showing the spinning beachball.
 
twist said:
I never said it was the solution to his problem, it was a recommendation if he was feeling like spending money to get probably the best external scratch disk that's compatible with his mpb. It's not my job to troubleshoot if he needs one or not before he purchases (I'm confident he would've done, knowing him very well).
Click to expand...

Im just following on from that and as I said, you posted with best intentions, everyone is. I agree it’s indeed nobodies place to troubleshoot or handhold for anyone unless specifically asked to do so and to be fair you or other asked him on Thunderbolt, USB 3 as he could end up buying a drive much Faster but be bottlenecked by port speed. I posted the Adobe links to save him some research time as I went through this last year after having enough of Lightroom poor performance.
 
Tkenny said:
Im just following on from that and as I said, you posted with best intentions, everyone is. I agree it’s indeed nobodies place to troubleshoot or handhold for anyone unless specifically asked to do so and to be fair you or other asked him on Thunderbolt, USB 3 as he could end up buying a drive much Faster but be bottlenecked by port speed. I posted the Adobe links to save him some research time as I went through this last year after having enough of Lightroom poor performance.
Click to expand...

I think Adobe needs to do a lot more optimising themselves, its kind of like they have a massive market share and now it all just feels bloated and patched every other day, I come from quark / Adobe days and still use/pay for every app they offer.
 
snerkler said:
Thanks, TBH it rare that I use photoshop tbh, but useful to know when I do. At the moment efficiency is showing 100% but I'm not processing anything so I assume this will change when processing?

TBH the main trouble I had was that if I sent circa 15 files from LR to PS using the merge in photoshop option, instead of blending them all together in one 'file' it blended 4 in one file, then there was a separate file containing one image and then nothing else. If I converted to jpeg first then it would open up as expected.

Is there a way to check the efficiency of LR as this is what I use most of the time? This is my current performance settings in LR, should I change anything? Do I need to purge cache frequently?
View attachment 291855


As I said previously, when it's 'playing up' if I'm in the develop module and quickly flick from one photo to another (which I do often to decide which of a group of photos I want to edit) it can often freeze for several seconds showing the spinning beachball.
Click to expand...

You are correct, it will only drop once being used. Lightroom doesn't have that inbuilt efficiency tool that photoshop has. What you can do is click the System Info option and it will show how much ram is in use. This is my iMac when accessing that from Library preview:

Application architecture: x64
Logical processor count: 4
Processor speed: 3.8 GHz
Built-in memory: 53,248.0 MB
Real memory available to Lightroom: 53,248.0 MB
Real memory used by Lightroom: 2,982.2 MB (5.6%). This goes to 6300MB - 11% just opening a file in Develop, no edits.
Virtual memory used by Lightroom: 11,768.2 MB
Memory cache size: 110.3MB
Internal Camera Raw version: 12.4 [ 555 ]
Maximum thread count used by Camera Raw: 3
Camera Raw SIMD optimization: SSE2,AVX,AVX2
Camera Raw virtual memory: 974MB / 26623MB (3%)
Camera Raw real memory: 987MB / 53248MB (1%)
Displays: 1) 6400x3600


You could try increasing the Camera Raw Cache as what "could" be happening is your previews are larger than this. Check this out by clicking Go To Catalog settings and then File Handling option and see what your Preview Cache Total Size is. As an example; my Camera Raw Cache is 100GB which is used for the develop module and the File Handling preview is using 31GB. If you have hit your 20GB limit, any raw file that hasn't had a preview created in that 20GB will need to be drawn, this could be the slowness. Also check the options for Standard preview size, this should be larger than the horizontal resoutlion size of your monitor. I have a 5K display so I chose 6400px, but 2048 is suitable for 1080p displays. Preview quality is also set to High. Im running from SSD so these settings are ok. If you are on a mechanical HD, lowering them will help.

Before Purge the Cache check the above as you need to manually delete the preview & smart preview files to complete this as the button only does the catalog. Doing this will require Lightroom to rebuild it and it could take ages depending on the size of your catalog and the previews. I wouldn't purge unless I had a reason, as anything you do from zooming in to viewing files in Loupe will need to be redrawn and take time. Typically only purge if you are running out of disk space or getting errors.

The beachball is typical apples "you are out of Ram message and its paging to the HDD"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top