Skip to content

Shooting Technique, Workflow and Editing / Archived topic

Updating "old" computers for image editing

Started by adamhanlon ·

  • 52Posts
  • 52Replies

Read-only discussion

Updating "old" computers for image editing

52 posts
  1. I use a 2018 Mac Mini with 32 GB RAM and 2 TB hard disk an external GPU Vega 64 with 8 GB VRAM and two desktop drives plus some SSD for video projects

    My photo library runs at 1.2 TB my video library runs at 2 TB but spans over other 2 TB project disks for a total of 6 TB of video

    In general terms my comments are for underwater photography processing the requirements are basic you process one image at time mostly unless you are doing mass exports. In terms of disk you do not need SSD for photos a pro grade 7200 RPM is all you need. The fusion part of your disk is to boot the OS is not required by your library processing.

    I have recently made two desktop drives using seagate enterprise disks of 16 and 18 TB am not into backing up 3 times or off site this is not business critical and hopefully there won't be a disaster in the house

    For processing noise reduction is where the most intense GPU is required and I have an external GPU with the new mini with neural engine you can skip on that for photos while for video I would not yet trust it

    Honestly the performance requirement of underwater work is so low that as long as you have half decent machine and a good disk I don't see issues in terms of software you can use dng converter for backward compatibility which will not give you some advanced features

    However today I was processing a 600 shots timelapse noise reduction it took half hour during this time the fans of the GPU were at full speed. Without the GPU I would have been waiting 600 minutes.

    For laptops again the requirement for underwater is low more important is to have a decent screen and keep it calibrated

    I built my set up for video when I see discussions about the processing of underwater photos it makes me smile

    Right now I would say a new mac mini 2TB disk and a decent external monitor are a good desktop solution. Take into account that with the neural engine a macbook may have the same power easily but will be throttled more easily if it gets hot. If you run out of disk you just get an external hard drive not SSD it works fast with my library and even plays prores 422 hq 4k

  2. Thanks, Massimo - that's really helpful. I was coming to the conclusion that a 32GB/2TB Mac Mini and a nice screen was the way to go. Very helpful to hear your experience.

    At the moment 16GB is the max the Mac Mini can accommodate but rumour has it a new one should appear later this year - so maybe that will allow for a bit more RAM.

     

    Edited by TimG
  3. Just FYI on this thread in general, if photogrammetry is in your future, you are going to need a ton more horsepower, memory and a good GPU (if you don't want to wait days to build a model).

    I've got a iMac Pro (2017) with an 8-core 3.2 GHz Intel Xeon W, 32G of memory, and a Radeon Pro Vega 56 with 8GB of memory. Believe it or not, when build a model with a large number of photos (> 1000), I really wish I had more horsepower...

    For general photography, it is overkill.

    - brett

  4. I'm not sure I even know what photogrammetry is - but thanks for the warning!

  5. Thanks, brett!

  6. Thanks, Massimo - that's really helpful. I was coming to the conclusion that a 32GB/2TB Mac Mini and a nice screen was the way to go. Very helpful to hear your experience.
    At the moment 16GB is the max the Mac Mini can accommodate but rumour has it a new one should appear later this year - so maybe that will allow for a bit more RAM.
     

    You don’t need 32 GB for pictures
    On the intel architecture there is almost no benefit going from 32 to 64 for video editing but far more important is the GPU
    The new mini with neural engine and 16 GB work just fine for pictures as they also have on board GPU
    When you use the adobe stack lightroom and photoshop are optimised for GPU while bridge isn’t
    This means if you run an export in lightroom or photoshop it is fast. If you export 600 images in bridge it is not.
    Memory is useful for processing say 64 or 300 layers for focus stacking or composition but on a single image with a TIFF 16 bit for 50 megapixel you are looking at 300 MB
    Back in the days when there was no GPU acceleration having loads of RAM was important now not so much so I would not worry on 16 vs 32 on the M1 mini for photos. Video maybe I would


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  7. Oh right, many thanks. Massimo. That's really helpful and puts my mind at rest. I was hoping there'd be a new 27" iMac in the Apple pipeline which has been brilliant but there doesn't look like it - for the moment at least.

  8. 13 minutes ago, TimG said:

    Oh right, many thanks. Massimo. That's really helpful and puts my mind at rest. I was hoping there'd be a new 27" iMac in the Apple pipeline which has been brilliant but there doesn't look like it - for the moment at least.

    I do not know if there will be new iMac however a mini + a laptop is a better set up and you can use a non apple screen which is more cost effective

  9. On 4/20/2022 at 4:18 PM, Interceptor121 said:

    Memory is useful for processing say 64 or 300 layers for focus stacking or composition but on a single image with a TIFF 16 bit for 50 megapixel you are looking at 300 MB
    Back in the days when there was no GPU acceleration having loads of RAM was important now not so much so I would not worry on 16 vs 32 on the M1 mini for photos. Video maybe I would
    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    This may be true for a single image imported in PS  but can quite quickly build up.  I tried opening a 20MP image in PS.  The base memory usage without an image was 110 MB, opening the image as a 16 bit tiff file increased RAM used to 430 MB, a levels layer to 449 MB.  I then opened 3 curves layers using a processed version of the  image itself as luminosity layers and RAM used jumped to 2500MB.  Cloned a few things in the image maybe 20-30 spots worth and memory went up to 2,800MB.  I assume this was from storing history states.  Resizing the image to 1200 px jpg, RAM went to 2,900MB.  I know this is a particular processing scheme, but it's the way I like to work.  This was PS CS6, newer versions may be more efficient with memory.  I use 20 history states on my system.

    Apart from that you might also have other windows open - perhaps windows explorer (40MB), Capture one ((1800MB), your web browser ( mine is 2800 MB with a lot of tabs open).  It quite feasible you would want to have these items or similar open.  Perhaps Lightroom, photoshop, your browser and File explorer might be open.  Then you have the overhead of the operating system and background processes.  In this state I'm using about 14GB.  I know I can close applications to free up memory but it's damn convenient not to have to.

    In Windows you can open up task manager and see which programs are using how much RAM .  Newer operating systems and versions of Photoshop may be more efficient with RAM  of course.  CS-6 had a reputation as a bit of a RAM hog and not managing the RAM very well.  I'm assuming you could probably look at your RAM usage somewhere on your Mac in typical configuration with a couple of images open, some layers and masks etc to see  your current RAM usage. 

  10. This may be true for a single image imported in PS  but can quite quickly build up.  I tried opening a 20MP image in PS.  The base memory usage without an image was 110 MB, opening the image as a 16 bit tiff file increased RAM used to 430 MB, a levels layer to 449 MB.  I then opened 3 curves layers using a processed version of the  image itself as luminosity layers and RAM used jumped to 2500MB.  Cloned a few things in the image maybe 20-30 spots worth and memory went up to 2,800MB.  I assume this was from storing history states.  Resizing the image to 1200 px jpg, RAM went to 2,900MB.  I know this is a particular processing scheme, but it's the way I like to work.  This was PS CS6, newer versions may be more efficient with memory.  I use 20 history states on my system.
    Apart from that you might also have other windows open - perhaps windows explorer (40MB), Capture one ((1800MB), your web browser ( mine is 2800 MB with a lot of tabs open).  It quite feasible you would want to have these items or similar open.  Perhaps Lightroom, photoshop, your browser and File explorer might be open.  Then you have the overhead of the operating system and background processes.  In this state I'm using about 14GB.  I know I can close applications to free up memory but it's damn convenient not to have to.
    In Windows you can open up task manager and see which programs are using how much RAM .  Newer operating systems and versions of Photoshop may be more efficient with RAM  of course.  CS-6 had a reputation as a bit of a RAM hog and not managing the RAM very well.  I'm assuming you could probably look at your RAM usage somewhere on your Mac in typical configuration with a couple of images open, some layers and masks etc to see  your current RAM usage. 

    The system uses the disk to save what you are not working on is not an in memory system
    Plus windows is terrible at managing resources


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  11. 6 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:


    The system uses the disk to save what you are not working on is not an in memory system
    Plus windows is terrible at managing resources


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    Yeah but the memory is reserved if it's reported in task manager and writing to scratch disk is using resources and slowing things down.  I know it's not great with resources - but the point is you can look in task manager and see what resources are being used in your typical configuration.  I'm assuming Mac has something similar.

  12. Yeah but the memory is reserved if it's reported in task manager and writing to scratch disk is using resources and slowing things down.  I know it's not great with resources - but the point is you can look in task manager and see what resources are being used in your typical configuration.  I'm assuming Mac has something similar.

    I edit photoshop layers with a macbook pro 16 gb I have no issues and it doesn’t have a GPU
    Lots of functionality needs a GPU for processing having more ram does little more
    There are many tests of the M1 for
    Photoshop and others


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  13. I think an M1 mac mini or mac air with 8gb would be more than sufficient for 99% of you here that are simply doing photo editing in lightroom and photoshop. 16gb of ram would be a nice addition, but the new M1 macs are incredibly good at preserving ram, there's almost zero performance gains going from 8gb to 16gb, and 16gb to 32gb is basically something almost no-one needs.

    Suggest watching these two videos if you don't believe me:

     

     

    Base level M1 Macbook Airs ($899) and Mac Minis ($699) are an incredible bargain for most people, and more than sufficient for simple photo workloads.

     

  14. Woah, good to know! Thanks!

  15. As i have just stumbled upon a pretty decent resource page about a Hackintosh, here it is:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/hackintosh/

     

    On the right of the page, sections "What is a Hackintosh" and"Useful links" for starters.

    You know you want to be on the dark side ;)

  16. 2 hours ago, makar0n said:

    You know you want to be on the dark side

    Ha! Yeah, right...... :music:

    Hey, some more advice please, oh IT gurus?

    Disk storage space: at present I have a 3TB fusion drive in my iMac. In addition to the usual applications, it holds my approx 1.2TB image collection which I access through LR. I also have a NAS as a Time Machine backup and, for paranoia reasons, I have a G-Tech 4GB RAID system.  I have lots of backups.

    I see with the Mac Mini and the Mac Studio that 2TB internal drives are the max. It makes me ask the question as to whether with the "new" technology I really don't need to pump up the internal drives but can use externals. I really want to be able to access my images through LR at any time without having to wait for downloads, pregnant pauses or whatever. With the Fusion drive I can do this. Is there a way of achieving the same thing using an external drive? 

    The reason for asking is, I guess, that Apple (there, makar0n, I've said it), bless them, charge $600 extra for a 2TB SSD in the Mini or Studio. Seems an awful lot.

    Despite what I appreciate is very well intentioned advice from you guys, I'm not going to return to Windows. I sold my soul to the devil (take a bow Jobs/Ives) years ago and have so much invested in Apple goodies that there is no way I could Go Back. Beside, I now have no clue how to use Windows.

    So external hard drives, can they work seamlessly enough to appear as internals?

    Idiot boy question maybe?

  17. 4 hours ago, TimG said:

    Ha! Yeah, right...... :music:

    Hey, some more advice please, oh IT gurus?

    Disk storage space: at present I have a 3TB fusion drive in my iMac. In addition to the usual applications, it holds my approx 1.2TB image collection which I access through LR. I also have a NAS as a Time Machine backup and, for paranoia reasons, I have a G-Tech 4GB RAID system.  I have lots of backups.

    I see with the Mac Mini and the Mac Studio that 2TB internal drives are the max. It makes me ask the question as to whether with the "new" technology I really don't need to pump up the internal drives but can use externals. I really want to be able to access my images through LR at any time without having to wait for downloads, pregnant pauses or whatever. With the Fusion drive I can do this. Is there a way of achieving the same thing using an external drive? 

    The reason for asking is, I guess, that Apple (there, makar0n, I've said it), bless them, charge $600 extra for a 2TB SSD in the Mini or Studio. Seems an awful lot.

    Despite what I appreciate is very well intentioned advice from you guys, I'm not going to return to Windows. I sold my soul to the devil (take a bow Jobs/Ives) years ago and have so much invested in Apple goodies that there is no way I could Go Back. Beside, I now have no clue how to use Windows.

    So external hard drives, can they work seamlessly enough to appear as internals?

    Idiot boy question maybe?

    Hehe 600$ for 2TB SSD...best summary of Apple i've seen lately, short of the 999 USD monitor stand :D
    Anyways, TL:DR - easiest/cheapest/fastest - get external USB-C (or better USB 4) based SSD/NVME drive.



    Long wall of text:


    To give you an idea: 2TB SSD's cost about 100-200 Euro (ie lower priced are SSDs , higher, NVMe drives). 4TB ones are starting to show up at 300-400+.  And for you would be even cheaper since you can probably get things easy from US, or at the very least order in EU then export (claim VAT back).

    Also, don't know Fusion drive first hand, but google tells me it is actually SSHD - so basically sort of a hybrid drive, where bulk of the data is stored on a slow HDD, and only frequently accessed data is on SSD "cache". Overall solution might be faster than normal HDD but definitely slower (especially with lots of small files) than real SSD/NVMe. And more prone to issues due to HDD part being mechanical.

    Now as for external drives - thanks to USB-C one can have very fast access, almost like drive being mounted inside. (sans maybe PCIe 3/4 NVMe but i do not think you need 6000MB/s read/write :). So, you could get "ready out of the box ones" ones, like Samsung T7, Crucial X6, Sandisk Extreme Pro, OR, you can get any "normal" ssd (Samsung 980 Pro, Sabrent Rocket etc), either in 2.5" or M.2/NVMe format, and just buy external USB enclosure for it. The first solution is perhaps easier, 2nd one is more versatile - i.e if in the future you want to upgrade the SSD inside, you can just change that and keep the enclosure. Also you have much bigger choice of storage drives. That is my preference at least - for example i keep a single 2TB SSD in enclosure as a working medium for gf, which is later often copied/synced to NAS (she often carries things between home and work), and i keep two 512GB drives in pen drive format enclosures, one as my local carry/transfer on, and 2nd a WindowsUSB install for random testing/benching.

    Stay away from external HDD drives - heavy, bulky, requires more power (important when working on battery, also usually only 5400 rpm can be powered via USB, 7200 needs external PSU), prone to damage traveling (mechanical system). If you really require huge storage space (i.e. beyond 4TB)  setting up local NAS with say RAID 5 makes more sense.

    There is no need to get any "Apple" branded external drive, it is a total nonsense. As long as Mac has USB-C (Thunderbolt is usually compatible too), anything will work. You can also format it in exFAT so that drive is compatible both with Mac and Windows. As an extra bonus of USB C drives, you can also plug it into the phone directly (that is if your phone does not suffer from having Light something something connection). Only thing i am not sure if what kind of an encryption can be done under Mac (like Bitlocker in Windows). NEVER EVER HAVE UNENCRYPTED EXTERNAL DRIVES.

    Depending on the Mac you have, you might be able to upgrade the drive yourself - I think older ones used the same components as PC, so its a simple swap (maybe with drive clone). With never ones, as far as i understand, this is no longer possible, as Asshole company used proprietary interface and locked it down so one cannot even reuse a drive from another Mac.
    Another plus for external drive - you can reuse or sell later if not needed anymore. With locked down internal one, unless you sell the whole Mac, you are stuck.

    Suggestion wise, depends on your preferences of course, but having gazillion of external HDDs i would not recommend. They do break. Plus organizing these, keeping track of backups etc is rather a chore. But having at least a single external SSD is pretty useful, with speeds around 1GB/s via USB-C you should be good for LR. Or you go the separate SSD/enclosure route, and you might get 2GB/s+. Seems slowly USB 4 enclosures are starting to show up, and they up the speed from 10Gbps to 40Gbps.

     

    And in general, maybe some more optimized setup:

    a) NAS (real one, not G-Tech RAID...ready made or DYI, very easy to build with even 10 year old parts, running OMV/Freenas including encryption etc) as the heart of your storage. Keeping all there, with addition of say copy of the  photos you working on an external SSD for speed reason. Having all on NAS means it can be accessed from any other device in your home network, no need for more external drives, and that includes TVs etc where you want to play things. External access is also easy via VPN, so you can remote in to home from wherever in case you remember you just need that one file in the middle of Indonesia.
    In addition one backup on an external drive (with proper backup tool that can dedup/run incremental/encrypt) stored locally and one stored offsite - best on servers like Backblaze (costs unfortunately) but even additional HDD stored at your friends also does the job, if let's say a meteorite strikes your home.
    Easy, centralized, no gazillion of copies, easy to sync, access and backup.

     

    b) Modification of the above, real life example from my friend - insane photo maniac who's hobby is to restore 100 year old cameras and develop things in his own dark room, because that is what Belgians do apparently. Regularly deals with photos (often scans) of few GBs size for a single picture.

    Like a) but he has skipped the external drives. Instead set up NAS with NVMe class drives allowing 5000 MB/s read/write, then hooked all up to 10Gbps LAN. So all he does is just plugs his PC/Laptop to LAN and effectively works on anything stored on NAS like it would be stored locally on his computer (i.e speed wise, thanks to both fast NAS as well as 10Gbps network).
    Definitely a bit more expensive setup which also requires 10Gbps network equipment.

     

     

     

    Edited by makar0n — FFS - Fat Finger Syndrome
  18. Brilliant! Thanks makar0n - that's just what I needed.

    I will have to read it about 10 times of course.......

    :good:

  19. I would just add that IMO you don't need RAID, it doesn't actually provide additional security.  If you have windowed RAID for example, it just creates two copies of the file that just got corrupted and you certainly don't want RAID 5.  My understanding is that RAID is more about quick recovery rather than additional redundancy.  and if something goes wrong you can easily end up with the RAID copies unreadable.  My thinking is the backup should be readable by anything - you don't want anything proprietary, what happens when they go out of business?

    For backups to work IMO they need to be separate, something you turn on, do the back up and turn off, some people even keep one copy off site.    If they are on all the time things like a file becoming corrupt can easily propagate and a power surge can take out everything.  Sure that can happen hen you are backing up, but that might be 1-2hours/month rather than all the time so less likelihood.  And if you have two external backups then only one is in use at a time.

    You can get a 4TB SSD from Samsung and stick it in an enclosure and have a high speed backup device.  Keep a second one if you want as a mechanical hard drive.  Only power them up when you back up.

Sea & Sea

Account

Navigation

Search

Search

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.