• Welcome to the Lightroom Queen Forums! We're a friendly bunch, so please feel free to register and join in the conversation. If you're not familiar with forums, you'll find step by step instructions on how to post your first thread under Help at the bottom of the page. You're also welcome to download our free Lightroom Quick Start eBooks and explore our other FAQ resources.
  • Stop struggling with Lightroom! There's no need to spend hours hunting for the answers to your Lightroom Classic questions. All the information you need is in Adobe Lightroom Classic - The Missing FAQ!

    To help you get started, there's a series of easy tutorials to guide you through a simple workflow. As you grow in confidence, the book switches to a conversational FAQ format, so you can quickly find answers to advanced questions. And better still, the eBooks are updated for every release, so it's always up to date.
  • Dark mode now has a single preference for the whole site! It's a simple toggle switch in the bottom right-hand corner of any page. As it uses a cookie to store your preference, you may need to dismiss the cookie banner before you can see it. Any problems, please let us know!

new updates october 202

Status
Not open for further replies.

PCee

New Member
Joined
May 26, 2017
Messages
10
Lightroom Experience
Intermediate
Lightroom Version
Lightroom Version Number
Lightroom Classic version: 9.4, Adobe Photoshop Version: 21.2.4 20200922.r.323 2020/09/22: 8e8e91e8543 x64
Operating System
  1. macOS 10.13 High Sierra
I have been happily paying photography subscription for a few years. For me it was a dream come true to be able to use full view photoshop and lightroom at an affordable cost. However both my imac and macbookpro are no longer upgradeable from high sierra , despite at the moment functioning quite well. If i had £2000 to spend on a new mac, it would preferably be spent on a new camera, rather than upgrading my ability to change my sky or colour grading. I understand that the limitations are probably due to the graphics cards, so sadly eventually Adobe and I will have to eventually part company,
My question is would the new camera raw update be installable on my machines enabling me to use the lightroom and photoshop that I have to be used with a new camera ?
Many thanks and apologies if this question seems stupid but I would hate to try it and maybe wreck whatI have in the process
 
The reason I outlined this issue is to warn people that non motherboard extra gpu options in laptops may not provide the gpu processing they think they are buying.
Thanks for the insight Gnits. I had been toying with desktop vs laptop for my next major upgrade. Will definitely look for more proof points in the future.
 
Here are some model numbers.
1603584491591.png


The card is Nvidia GTX 1650, which was a purchase option.
 
There are also other variables to consider..... namely.... if using an external monitor and which port is in use (Hdmi or Thunderbolt).

It is past midnight hear and clocks are changing tonight also, so will look at some of the details I submitted to Dell tomorrow.
 
So I have an XPS15 that has a Nvidia GTX 1050 and a Intel HD 630 (this laptop dates from about 2017).

I don't have any Adobe products on it, but I had a astronomy planetarium program that uses the GPU. I set it up, one after the other, as the Nvidia and then Intel, and ran the program, and it switched as directed.

Are you running a Dell version of Windows, i.e. from their media with all that bloatware in it? I always do a clean install from Microsoft, then install only the Dell drivers I need. So besides being slightly different versions I may not be running some Dell crapware you may have?

What happens when you use that option to assign GPU, will it not assign, or does it simply not shift to that GPU?

I wonder what happens if you disable the Intel GPU entirely in the device manager? (That's not a recommendation, I have no idea if it would then no longer work at all).

PS. If you really think this is Adobe specific I could put Photoshop on it?
 
Thanks for the info. I did not even think of doing a clean install of Windows when purchased, but had horrendous difficulties with everything at the start.

I am fairly sure it is not an Adobe issue. Dell told me that Ps and Lr would NOT trigger the Nvidia GPU into action. I tried to assign the GPU to the screen using Nvidia utility, but nothing happens. Also tried to allocate apps to the card, did not work, cannot remember the exact message now, but did not work.

I am not spending anymore time on this. It is going back to Dell. Also, Office apps still hang and my cursor disappears from time to time so it is not fit for purpose. Dell’s reputation in shreds as far as I am concerned.
 
Just in the FWIW department, I've been buying Dell laptops (for myself and companies I managed) for decades. Their hardware tends to be good, their software is awful. Wiping and doing a clean install from a Microsoft provided kit (they are free to download and put on a thumb drive, microsoft media creation tool does it) is what I always do. Dell used to complain it was not an official Dell install if you ask for support, but I have not heard them say that in years. Of course, I never call them for software support, so take that as a caveat.

This presumes of course you are comfortable doing such an install, which not everyone is.

This is not a Dell specific problem ... every vendor of laptops fills the factory image with their own bloatware -- trial copies, "easier" versions they author than the manufacturer setup for network, etc., branded replacements just so the logos show up, spyware (lenovo is well known for it if I recall), adware, tracking software... it's just a mess you cannot get away from by changing vendors. But you generally can by immediately erasing it and starting clean. Well, as much as a "clean" Microsoft install is free of bloatware, but at least it's just theirs.
 
I deployed massive numbers of Dell laptops and desktops in several large corporate environments. We used our own image for each project, so worked well. I asked Dell to tender for an enterprise datacentre solution, which was a total shambles. So mixed experiences with Dell.

I will think about doing a clean install before sending it back. I am comfortable in that world, but do not want risk losing my warranty return or wasting too much time on this. No pressure to have a laptop in the current climate, will not be doing a lot of travelling for a while, so not under pressure.

Building a high spec desktop rig will be my next priority, delayed by 6 months because I got waylaid by the whole Dell laptop experience. My MacAir died, needed a laptop and was keen to see if a laptop would replace my desktop.

Thanks for all your feedback.
 
The above comments by Gnits on limitations imposed by Dell make my original quote from a Product Manager about the "certification matrix of death" seem trivial now. How is a consumer suppose to know if they will get the most out of their software products even when the specs on the hardware match?
 
I am not spending anymore time on this. It is going back to Dell. Also, Office apps still hang and my cursor disappears from time to time so it is not fit for purpose. Dell’s reputation in shreds as far as I am concerned.
I think Linwood is on target with his suggestion od a clean, bare Windows install. I have never been in favor of the bloatware that most Mfgs. ship with their machines. Removing it was always my first approach to a new off the shelf Windows machine. Dell is a local company here in Texas. Over the years, I have seen a lot of their machines from the inside when I was not retired, since they can almost always out bid everyone else on corporate purchases. Everything inside a Dell is off the shelf components that you could buy anywhere (I don' know about today's MBs as I have not looked at Dell in 12 years). The nice thing about Dell is that all of the hardware components have been matched and tested to run together well. The problem with Windows in general is that there are so many permutations and combinations of hardware /drivers that it is very easy to assemble a combination of components that have conflicts. This is something to consider before shipping that Dell back and starting over with a different combination of components.
 
I will think about doing a clean install before sending it back. I am comfortable in that world, but do not want risk losing my warranty return or wasting too much time on this.
I always figured at worst I can get Dell's recovery image and put it back on the system if they give me grief over warranty service, or if I need to return.

But "wasting too much time" ... it's a computer. Their entire design goal is to waste your time. You may THINK they are to save us time, and for things like computing the at-bat statistics of each red headed, left handed player on a rainy tuesday in baseball they do. But for most people they save time like they also provided the "paperless office".
 
I have never been in favor of the bloatware that most Mfgs. ship with their machines. Removing it was always my first approach to a new off the shelf Windows machine.
That's funny because that's the way I feel about Windows 10 in general; lots of bloatware regardless of mfg or native MS. I use the Windows10Debloater on all the family machines I take care of.
 
Sorry to hear this. I've just upgraded from a Dell XPS 15 9550 (purchased in 2015). Except for the first 6 months of constant driver problems (Dell Hell) it's been a great machine and has consistently run LR on the Nvidia GPU without fail. The XPS 17 that replaced it also runs LRC and PS on its RTX 2060 GPU without problems. The performance difference is significant.
 
Just adding that my XPS 15 did get a clean windows install right out of the box, not sure if that influenced LR running on the GPU. I'm probably not going to do the same with the XPS 17. It is running well after uninstalling the Dell/McAfee crap.
 
Thanks for the insight Gnits. I had been toying with desktop vs laptop for my next major upgrade. Will definitely look for more proof points in the future.
I'm in that same boat. A Dell XPS desktop that's getting rather long in the tooth, but continues to run LR/PS 'adequately'. No speed demon by any stretch, but gets the job done w/o me feeling like any workflow slow downs are machine related rather than the nut behind the wheel.

So, I've also started eyeing current offerings to start getting a bead on which direction I might head when this thing cries uncle. Historically, I've been staunchly set on having a desktop pc with as fast a processor, as much RAM, and the best gpu I can afford for a photo editing machine. In general, that has meant my eventual purchases were never 'bleeding edge', but a step or two below.

But I'm wondering if I need to stick to the 'desktop or bust' mentality at this point. I do have a small, but much newer laptop that I use mainly to have some editing capabilities when traveling. And it seems to handle LR/PS fine.

Lately, I've begun to wonder if even the concept of a 'desktop' pc (tower or otherwise) is one that has a rather limited future. That idea was reinforced last week when I had occasion to visit Best Buy for other reasons, but can't help but making a pass through the computer area whenever there. And was a bit surprised at how slim their 'desktop' pc offerings were. They had what appeared to be a nice gaming pc or two, but the only other desktop options were 2-3 fairly low end fare that weren't even displayed in the main 'computer room'. They were in an aisle outside that area that seemed almost an after thought.

Now, I realize Best Buy is looking to move volume and not be a full service 'computer store' these days, but the fact that desktops apparently aren't selling in sufficient volume for BB to have more than a slim selection was a bit surprising and made me wonder if that doesn't say something about the general future of such devices. I would have to believe 'specialty' computer builders will lengthen the plank that desktop pc's may be walking to a significant degree, but that I would guess also means increasing expense as those willing to build them becomes fewer and fewer.

All in all, I've decided to not totally ignore the possibility of moving to a laptop as my next photo editing machine. My biggest need is the ability to run multiple monitors...which laptops seem to have no problem accomplishing...at least no more so than a desktop.
 
All in all, I've decided to not totally ignore the possibility of moving to a laptop as my next photo editing machine. My biggest need is the ability to run multiple monitors...which laptops seem to have no problem accomplishing...at least no more so than a desktop.
This subject came up in an astro photo processing thread also. My 2 cents for the Windows crowd (I don't understand the Mac ecosystem enough to have an opinion):

I think most people who do serious work on a computer, e.g. spend a lot of time photo processing, ought to have both.

I think you need a capable but small, light, portable laptop you can use in the field when needed. All the things that make it more convenient today to travel with tend to work against serious, long-hour use - smallish keyboard, touchpad, smaller monitor optimized for movies (i.e. hard to calibrate), power management giving longer battery life by also giving slower processing at times.

Then you need a desktop (or my recommendation is an under-desk tower) - great big, color accurate monitor(s), comfortable mouse and keyboard to best survive hours abusing your body by unnatural positions, added horsepower that often requires added cooling and benefits from big roomy towers not tiny cramped cases, added reliability by redundant disks (if you are so inclined, now you have room).

Big roomy tower systems, especially home builts, run much cooler (which means they are more reliable -- electronics hate heat), have room to work on if you want to add disks or memory or a faster CPU in a year or three, can have big low noise fans that cool better without keeping you awake (if you happen to have it near where you nap or sleep). And in a tower/desktop computer $X almost always buys you more horsepower.

Personally I think the laptop/desktop choice is a bad question. Most serious photographers are spending thousands on lenses and cameras, the added cost for an inexpensive laptop for when you really need it, and a really good desktop that's pleasant to spend hours on editing, gets lost in the noise over its lifetime. Doing that will let you spend less total time editing and more shooting, less time over weird errors because good desktops are more reliable than good laptops, plus the time you spend will be more pleasant.
 
Personally I think the laptop/desktop choice is a bad question. Most serious photographers are spending thousands on lenses and cameras, the added cost for an inexpensive laptop for when you really need it, and a really good desktop that's pleasant to spend hours on editing, gets lost in the noise over its lifetime
I would agree Ferguson if funding was not an issue. Like rjwilner I'm going to need to make a decision at some time in the future on one or the other. That's why that the problems Gnits had Dell laptop's are important.
 
I think most people who do serious work on a computer, e.g. spend a lot of time photo processing, ought to have both.
I agree. However, with the mobile versions of Lightroom that can tie back to LrC on the desktop, I find a large tablet to be sufficient to replace any Lightroom functionality that I use when in the field. I replaced my 13" rMBP with a 12.9" iPadPro and it works well.
 
Just to put my situation in perspective.

I had planned to have a custom built high performance (under the desk tower) Pc this autumn . However, the demise of my Macair (when I was due to make a presentation) prompted the purchase of a new laptop. I agonized over what spec laptop to go for. Processing A7R3 images on my MacAir was such a painful experience. I decided to try a laptop with a decent spec, decent screen and dedicated gpu card. The idea was to try this out and more than likely kick procurement of a high spec desktop further down the road (and maybe have a better idea what GPU to buy).

Running into the GPU issues on my laptop was a really big disaster. As I had significantly escalated my issue within the Dell organisation and finally got to someone who had the authority and knowledge to deal with my issue, I was gobsmacked that Dell admitted that the Nvidia Card would be left idle (regardless of how I configured it) for for my Lr and Ps apps.

It may be that no one else in the world will have the same issue, but because I had got confirmation of this by a senior Dell individual, I just wanted to warn people to be aware of the issue.

I am back to square one now in that I need to have my custom rig built and need a new laptop.

(Ps. I agree with Ferguson's comments above re laptop / desktop combo).
 
If I can get ~95% of desktop speed/productivity on a similarly priced docked laptop driving external calibrated monitors then I'm happy. It's definitely subjective, but it feels like we're there now with the higher spec'd laptops. Best of all, I'm not tied to my desk.

These are personal choices. If photography was my profession then my choices would likely be different.
 
If I can get ~95% of desktop speed/productivity on a similarly priced docked laptop driving external calibrated monitors then I'm happy. It's definitely subjective, but it feels like we're there now with the higher spec'd laptops. Best of all, I'm not tied to my desk.
If that's net productivity including human time -- maybe.

If that's processing speed --that's tough, depending on how high you aim for performance. AMD in particular with the threadripper CPU's is really pushing that envelop, and with LR not using the GPU still for many things, CPU speed is still important. Another consideration is that if on the medium term (say 2-4 years) GPU's become more important to LR or whatever tools you use, it's trivial to swap them out in a desktop and very difficult in a laptop. That applies to most components of a desktop though I think that is less important (swapping) since Intel and AMD both change socket requirements too frequently, but GPU's are very easy to swap generally at least in the mid-range (which is high range for photo).
 
If that's net productivity including human time -- maybe.

Yes, I'm talking productivity. I agree with you that a laptop will not be able to compete with a similarly priced desktop on raw speed on, for example, batch processing large numbers of images. A laptop is probably not a good tradeoff for a wedding photog. And agree with you regarding GPU upgrades on a desktop, big advantage.

But for my workflow, and I'm guessing many other hobbyists, I don't think we would see much of a difference in productivity between the XPS 17 (10 gen i7, nvme drives, Nvidia 2060 GPU) and a $2000 Puget Systems desktop. Edits in develop module are near instantaneous on Sony A7R3 files.
 
This subject came up in an astro photo processing thread also. My 2 cents for the Windows crowd (I don't understand the Mac ecosystem enough to have an opinion):

I think most people who do serious work on a computer, e.g. spend a lot of time photo processing, ought to have both.

I think you need a capable but small, light, portable laptop you can use in the field when needed. All the things that make it more convenient today to travel with tend to work against serious, long-hour use - smallish keyboard, touchpad, smaller monitor optimized for movies (i.e. hard to calibrate), power management giving longer battery life by also giving slower processing at times.
.......

Personally I think the laptop/desktop choice is a bad question. Most serious photographers are spending thousands on lenses and cameras, the added cost for an inexpensive laptop for when you really need it, and a really good desktop that's pleasant to spend hours on editing, gets lost in the noise over its lifetime. Doing that will let you spend less total time editing and more shooting, less time over weird errors because good desktops are more reliable than good laptops, plus the time you spend will be more pleasant.

I would agree with your assessment of ideal computing hardware as things stand *today*. My comment was more questioning how long what is available today will continue to be so how far into the future. (?)My crystal ball is beginning to hint that 'desktop' (or under desk towers) may have a shorter future than some would believe. They're obviously not in danger of becoming part of any endangered species list in the few years...beyond that, who knows.

"...spend less total time editing and more shooting, less time over weird errors because good desktops are more reliable than good laptops, plus the time you spend will be more pleasant...."

I hear essentially the same all the time, and don't get it. I have *no* trouble getting in all the shooting I want today. The computer I use to edit is totally irrelevant to me shooting more. There isn't a computer made that would save me sufficient time to allow me to shoot any more than I do currently.

In addition, I'm a little perplexed how that's become such a broadly repeated mantra in the photographic community. When I started in photography shooting film, I spent *WAY* more time developing and printing one 36 shot roll of film than I would processing the 200+ images I captured digitally in a single session.
 
"...spend less total time editing and more shooting, less time over weird errors because good desktops are more reliable than good laptops, plus the time you spend will be more pleasant...."

I hear essentially the same all the time, and don't get it. I have *no* trouble getting in all the shooting I want today. The computer I use to edit is totally irrelevant to me shooting more. There isn't a computer made that would save me sufficient time to allow me to shoot any more than I do currently.

In addition, I'm a little perplexed how that's become such a broadly repeated mantra in the photographic community. When I started in photography shooting film, I spent *WAY* more time developing and printing one 36 shot roll of film than I would processing the 200+ images I captured digitally in a single session.
I think it depends a lot on the type of work you do, but I think it is also a mis-stated way of really saying "spending time waiting on the computer is painful and I want to do it less". Despite having said it, I do not find myself editing instead of shooting. but I frequently find myself editing instead of sleeping (night game, need to cull and process all the shots as fast as I can so people can use them that night and I do not get home until 10pm).

But I also have many friends who shoot little enough that processing speed is bound to be lost in the noise entirely, as it appears to be for you.
 
This subject came up in an astro photo processing thread also. My 2 cents for the Windows crowd (I don't understand the Mac ecosystem enough to have an opinion):

I think most people who do serious work on a computer, e.g. spend a lot of time photo processing, ought to have both.

I think you need a capable but small, light, portable laptop you can use in the field when needed. All the things that make it more convenient today to travel with tend to work against serious, long-hour use - smallish keyboard, touchpad, smaller monitor optimized for movies (i.e. hard to calibrate), power management giving longer battery life by also giving slower processing at times.

Then you need a desktop (or my recommendation is an under-desk tower) - great big, color accurate monitor(s), comfortable mouse and keyboard to best survive hours abusing your body by unnatural positions, added horsepower that often requires added cooling and benefits from big roomy towers not tiny cramped cases, added reliability by redundant disks (if you are so inclined, now you have room).

Big roomy tower systems, especially home builts, run much cooler (which means they are more reliable -- electronics hate heat), have room to work on if you want to add disks or memory or a faster CPU in a year or three, can have big low noise fans that cool better without keeping you awake (if you happen to have it near where you nap or sleep). And in a tower/desktop computer $X almost always buys you more horsepower.

Personally I think the laptop/desktop choice is a bad question. Most serious photographers are spending thousands on lenses and cameras, the added cost for an inexpensive laptop for when you really need it, and a really good desktop that's pleasant to spend hours on editing, gets lost in the noise over its lifetime. Doing that will let you spend less total time editing and more shooting, less time over weird errors because good desktops are more reliable than good laptops, plus the time you spend will be more pleasant.
+1. As usual, Ferguson's observations are spot-on.

Phil
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top