JeffGreenberg

cut process time ~25% if 100% max window, not 100%...? But???!!!

Recommended Posts

fixed size (~1200pts) for burning-dodging-desaturate tools @100% max window, not 100%, occasional exceptions if needed;

use patch tool at 100% max window, not 100%, occasional exceptions if needed;

 

these two compromises could reduce processing time 25+%!!!; tested somewhat in latest (968) batch going live soon;

back & forth between 100% max window & 100% eliminated, including re-positioning cropped 100% image...

may help my newer monitor 1440x2560...?

 

checking ALL images at 100% for s.a.l.d. & big sky imperfections NOT eliminated!

 

comments?  caveats?  complaints?  comebacks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff,

 

Sorry my friend, but I always work at 100%, just upgraded my desktop to speed things up.  I am also now

doing corporate work and my clients appreciate the quality of the finished images I produce and yes it

is painful working on 7360 by files at 300PPI, but at least I quit doing everything in 16bit......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always work at 100% but have a big monitor.  Small monitors or laptops would slow you down.

 

Jill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

When you view at less than 100% you are not seeing a proper rendering of the image. As Jill says use a large monitor (ideally 27" with resolution around 2500 x 1440 pixels or thereabouts for stills photography). 

 

You are obviously using Photoshop for your processing. Are you are shooting raw or in-camera JPEG?  If you really want to reduce processing time, do yourself a favour and start using Lightroom. If you spend a day or two learning how to use it, you will almost certainly speed up by very significant amounts for several reasons - bulk processing, better tools, better quality images by working primarily on the raw images if shooting raw. But even if working on JPEGs you will speed up a lot.

 

You should be working in Pixels not Points by the way. Points are for printers not photographers.

 

 

Edited by MDM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Novice question:

can decent quality 27" monitor run off of 14" Lenovo P40 Yoga...?

one of the ports is specifically for this purpose...?

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, JeffGreenberg said:

Novice question:

can decent quality 27" monitor run off of 14" Lenovo P40 Yoga...?

one of the ports is specifically for this purpose...?

Thanks.

 

I'm a Mac user but a quick look online suggests that is a pretty decent modern laptop so should run an external monitor without any problem. I'd recommend the BenQ SW2700PT 27 Inch Monitor as a very good value wide gamut monitor. Make sure it is the PT if you are looking - that is the one specially for stills photography. I don't know what it costs in the US but it is £579 here suggesting it would be about $600. Ideally you would need to calibrate it as well so you are looking at another $100-200. But all that is money very well spent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/01/2018 at 01:25, JeffGreenberg said:

fixed size (~1200pts) for burning-dodging-desaturate tools @100% max window, not 100%, occasional exceptions if needed;

use patch tool at 100% max window, not 100%, occasional exceptions if needed;

 

these two compromises could reduce processing time 25+%!!!; tested somewhat in latest (968) batch going live soon;

back & forth between 100% max window & 100% eliminated, including re-positioning cropped 100% image...

may help my newer monitor 1440x2560...?

 

checking ALL images at 100% for s.a.l.d. & big sky imperfections NOT eliminated!

 

comments?  caveats?  complaints?  comebacks?

 

You could always automatically downsize all your images.... This would give you fewer pixels to check/smaller image = faster checking at 100%. LR can do the downsizing for you, PS/PSE also has a batch resize capability. Maybe you can tell from your sales data if all those extra pixels (in max res images) are actually worth the extra inspection effort?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, M.Chapman said:

You could always automatically downsize all your images.... This would give you fewer pixels to check/smaller image = faster checking at 100%.

 

 

Am already downsizing to 27MB -- last step.

You've given good reason to make it earlier step!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now