Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Photoshop memory and registry

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Photoshop memory and registry

    Background: have been using Ulead PhotoPaint 11 since time immemorial for photo-retouching. This is OK but old and does not accept the Nikon RAW files flavour (NEF). I therefore decided to try out the popular Photoshop (PS)

    To make it quite clear, this was done on a computer with what Adobe claim is minimum RAM, 2 GB, although all other computer specs are well over the minimum. I would expect my problems would have been lessened with more RAM, but certainly not eliminated. The computer runs under Win 7 Pro, 64 bit and is my main office computer with many tens of apps installed, chosen because it has a high quality scanner and the USB cable for my Nikon camera attached.

    NEF files are Nikon's take on quasi-lossless compressed RAW files and need a codec to decompress. The compression ratio varies from about 1.5:1 to 4:1, the latter for shots with large areas of even colour and intensity, averaging about 2:1. The decompression produces true RGB files. Irrelevant here but there are reports that highlights in the decompressed files suffer slightly but I've not been able to confirm it.

    PS comes in 3 flavours, PS, PS Lightroom and PS Essentials.

    Stage 1: I installed the full PS which is a monster bloatware application. I loaded 4 ~5 MB NEF files and started the learning curve. I was impressed with its performance; it did everything I needed +++. Surprisingly, switching back and forth between the files was almost instantaneous, making me realise that all four were in active RAM, not in the virtual RAM scratchdisk and there was no way to free the memory taken. The crunch came when I had added a few layers to the files (I may be wrong, but I had the impression that each retouch operation added a layer to the RGB file, so that the RAW file remained intact!). Anyway, it was not long before the scratchdisk started to take over, making each new operation unacceptably slow; a quick check with system manager showed >95% physical memory was taken. This did not perturb me as it was intended to use it eventually on a different machine, normally used for video work, with 6 GB RAM. What did perturb me was that, when I exited PS, it liberated only a small proportion of the used memory, less than 200 GB (presumably that part needed to run the actual software). The result was that the computer became s-l-o-o-o-o-w, even with just mouse movements. I deemed this behaviour unacceptable, because it meant that in real life, on my video machine, I would not be able to run my video software after a large retouch session without a reboot. However, to confirm my hypothesis, I re-started PS and was able to take up where I left off, even to the extent of performing a long series of Ctrl-Z operations! This confirmed that my RAW files + all the work I had done on them remained in RAM while I was trying to browse the Internet etc. Incidentally, another downside was that PS CC + CC was EUR 856/year, which, alone, was prohibitive.

    Stage 2: I rebooted to clear the RAM of all vestiges of PS and my tests and uninstalled PS.

    Stage 3: I installed PS Lightroom. Exactly the same problems. However, the price was acceptable at EUR 130 for a permanent licence. Probably acceptable to my needs, other than the memory issue.

    Stage 4: I rebooted to clear the RAM of all vestiges of PS and my tests and uninstalled PS Lightroom. It then struck me that if it could keep things in RAM after exiting, it would need to be doing something to keep them there. I did a search for PS and found about 20 folders/files that had not been uninstalled and deleted them. I then did a search in the registry and found 497 lines containing "photoshop" and deleted them. Uninstall PS does not clear the registry! Reboot.

    Stage 5: I installed PS Essentials. Exactly the same problems. However, the price was very acceptable at EUR 60 for a permanent licence. Possibly acceptable to my needs, other than the memory issue.

    Stage 6: I rebooted to clear the RAM of all vestiges of PS and my tests and uninstalled PS Essentials. I did a new search for PS and found about 12 folders/files that had not been uninstalled and deleted them. I then did a search in the registry and found 315 new lines containing "photoshop" and deleted them. Uninstall PS Essentials does not clear the registry! Reboot.

    I then did a search to find out why Adobe did their memory management in such a bizarre way. This is deliberate and they claim that it is to ensure max speed in use. (And to hell for anyone wanting to use other apps after exiting the PS app ) Fair enough, it is their choice to use such a system of memory management and thus to alienate a few potential customers who "try before buy". The forums are full of complaints on the subject, so I found out a posteriori. It is my belief that PS is great for professional photographers who have a dedicated computer for using it, but it is crippling for those, like myself, who use a photo-editing app for one image and then go on to something else.

    Does anyone know of a photo-editor that is reasonable in price, can accept NEF files, has a good number of features, is stable and has better memory management? Thanks!
    Brian (the devil incarnate)

  • #2
    I've been using an old version of Photoshop Elements (5 or 6), which continues to work fine, even on Windows 8.

    While I cannot tell you about how the memory management differs in modern versions of Photoshop, there are quite a few options that you can configure to change the memory management behaviour in my version of Photoshop Elements. Have you tried looking for settings to adjust in the application preferences?
    Last edited by dZeus; 14 March 2014, 02:04.

    Comment


    • #3
      Thanks, DZ. I did try with the big PS and got nowhere. I assumed the smaller brethren were the same. At the moment, I'm trying Smart Photo Editor, which seems quite good at first sight, accepts NEF files, and certainly has better memory management for the way I work -- and is only $29.95! Will try it more tomorrow.
      Brian (the devil incarnate)

      Comment


      • #4
        Paint.NET is good and free. Doesn't hog a lot of resources either.

        Paint.NET is free image and photo editing software for computers that run Windows.


        You'll need to use the RawLoad plugin to get NEF files working. See this thread, esp. post #6.

        2/7/2010 Made changes to the code to supprot better error handling and changed the amount of supported formats. Going to post in the publishing section This is the first plugin that i launch to the public in general hope that it helps sony users that use paint.net to do postprocessing. Please let...


        There is also Gimp for Windows. Though I haven't used it in years.

        The official download page for all things GIMP! Please only use the official binaries provided here unless you really, really know what you’re doing (it’s the only way to be safe). We try to provide binaries in-time with regular releases, but may occasionally be delayed as the packagers …


        Then install UFRaw.

        “Inside every sane person there’s a madman struggling to get out”
        –The Light Fantastic, Terry Pratchett

        Comment


        • #5
          I'm getting increasingly confused but also the opposite. I tried the two suggestions from JR. In Paint.net, I was not too impressed, so I tried Gimp. This pleased me more so I tried the UFRaw plug-in. This was not helped by the author's negativity re RAW files in Windows. A couple of hours struggling and I still couldn't get it working, so I asked on the forum for help. The following answer upset the applecart:

          For the time being, forget it, it's not worth it. Gimp only works in 8-bit, and if you use NEF (12 or 14 bits/channel) you have to do all the color and level processing before you edit in Gimp if you really want to benefit form the higher bit depth of NEF.

          So, do your RAW processing with whatever software you have at hand (Nikon Capture or else), save as high quality JPEG (or TIFF/PNG if you are paranoid about compression losses) and do your "local" editing in Gimp.
          This led me to research, initially chez Nikon, what it was all about. My cam can produce 12 or 14 bit NEF files, depending on the settings. A 12 bit/channel in αRGB can theoretically produce 28 billion colours, against an 8 bit RGB 16 million, which the trained eye (or a computer screen!) cannot see (reproduce), so why go higher than 8 bit? Well, the answer is that the cam offers only NEF and JPEG, the latter in three flavours, Fine, Normal and Basic. These are all compressed 8 bit with different levels of compression. My problem is that if I render a compressed image, while doing several hefty manipulations, I start getting visible artefacts. Straight from the cam, a fine JPEG looks good until I start editing, so, most of the time, I have no need to do anything other than a single manipulation like rotating, cropping or straightening and that is fair enough with one re-render. With retouches involving new layers or just a few re-renders, even the fine JPEG is not good enough, which is why I like RAW files (or other uncompressed formats).

          However, I downloaded Nikon ViewNX 2: this allows me to use NEF (12 bits) and, great, do the basic image-destroying edits e.g. WB, contrast, brightness, crop, straighten, rotate etc. in 12 bit "lossless" and then to export in 8 or 16 bit uncompressed TIF format that can then be imported into most editors, at least the 8 bit option. I tried it on PhotoPaint, Smart Photo Editor, Paint.net and GIMP (incidentally, none of these gave any of the memory problems I had with Photoshop!). Only GIMP gave problems; I couldn't do anything with the colours (select, change or whatever), which is rather negative. In fact, this combination of ViewNX 2 and Ulead PhotoPaint gives the latter a new lease of life. I'll retain SPE as it is a champion for selecting (especially odd shapes), compositing and some of many hundred special effects. I think I'll probably discard GIMP, because of the colour problems but I may keep Paint.net after a little bit of its learning curve.

          I'm now resigned to downloading my camera shots in NEF, doing a first edit and then converting to TIFF uncompressed (massive files up to 50 MB) for final editing in whatever app suits what I wish to do. At the end, I can convert to jpg if I need a smaller file.

          Thanks, guys for your help!
          Last edited by Brian Ellis; 16 March 2014, 08:33.
          Brian (the devil incarnate)

          Comment


          • #6
            You may always try some software dedicated for RAW files like Raw Therapee ( http://rawtherapee.com/ ) and DarkTable ( http://www.darktable.org/ ) or Nama5 ( https://nama5.com/en/ ).
            I read that Nama is very fast software.
            A CRAY is the only computer that runs an endless loop in just 4 hours...

            Comment


            • #7
              Thanks, Nicram. I had a look at your 3 suggestions. There is little in any of these that Nikon ViewNX 2 will do, other than accept multiple camera formats, which is irrelevant in my case. Incidentally, DarkTable does not run under Windows.
              Brian (the devil incarnate)

              Comment


              • #8
                I must admit i do not use Nikon ViewNX 2, and never had to But Your RAM problems with Adobe products is something i read about some time ago also. There were some tests made on some Polish website, that shows that 16GB RAM is best solutions for Photoshop He eats RAM like hungry elephant. But the thing is, that clearing RAM after application is closed should be made by operating system, not program itself.
                A CRAY is the only computer that runs an endless loop in just 4 hours...

                Comment


                • #9
                  I thought that a sample may be interesting. I took a NEF file at random and tarted it up a little in ViewNX 2, cropped it to about 1/3 size and then converted it to 800 px wide jpg without any further editing. Result:



                  It would have been better had I stopped down the lens a coupla notches, but the detail (carapace texture, hairy legs etc.) is quite good considering that it is a 1st generation jpg.

                  Edit: As a matter of curiosity, as the camera also takes a jpg image at the same time as a NEF, I took this image, put it into PhotoPaint and did roughly the same operations as the original, rendering after each operation (6 re-renders at high 80% quality). The result is poor:

                  Last edited by Brian Ellis; 17 March 2014, 04:49.
                  Brian (the devil incarnate)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Wow, that's a huge difference in quality.

                    PhotoShop is designed for people with pro-grade editing rigs. Meaning tons of memory and a fast scratch disk. It will eat every bit or RAM it can on purpose, and has for many, many years. If you look at the recommended PS builds these days they put in 32GB RAM, SSDs for swap, and quad-core procs or better. I'm a little surprised the lower-end versions of PS are such resource hogs though.

                    You could always go old school and give Corel PaintShop Pro a go. Native RAW support including NEF, not that expensive, and a couple of versions you can choose from. There is a 30-day trial you can use before you make any purchasing decisions.

                    Unlock new creative options fast with PaintShop Pro 2022. AI-powered Portrait Mode, Background Replacement and Style Transfer simplify complex tasks. Plus, new editing tools and workspace enhancements streamline the photo editing process for photographers of any skill level.

                    Unlock new creative options fast with PaintShop Pro 2022. AI-powered Portrait Mode, Background Replacement and Style Transfer simplify complex tasks. Plus, new editing tools and workspace enhancements streamline the photo editing process for photographers of any skill level.
                    “Inside every sane person there’s a madman struggling to get out”
                    –The Light Fantastic, Terry Pratchett

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I found this discussion thread in an adobe forum about a problem similar to yours. IMHO this person's problem was he had way to much ram allocated to PS (7200 MB) and not enough to Windows (800 MB) and working on HUGE images (raw TIFFs) on a 8 GB (laptop, I think) system. You said your system had 2 GB ram and Win 7-64. I hate to tell you this but wow that's so way not enough. I know what the box specs say. Forget the box specs. If you want to run Windows 7 and any iteration of almost any big Adobe product you need at least 8 GB of ram. For the files this fellow in the adobe thread is working with he'd be better off on a 16 GB workstation.

                      Photoshop and Windows work together about as well as two fat guys trying to dance together and both trying to lead. They need a BIG dance floor!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Brian Ellis View Post
                        rendering after each operation (6 re-renders at high 80% quality).
                        In RAW there is no something like render (inside operations), so You made mistake here. The JPEG file is result of invoking image (but instead chemistry You use software).
                        In digital photography RAW is like photographic film frame, and JPEG is like final photo on paper, so what You made is like making photo on paper, and then copy it 6 times, every time from the copy last made.
                        A CRAY is the only computer that runs an endless loop in just 4 hours...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Jammrock View Post
                          Wow, that's a huge difference in quality.

                          You could always go old school and give Corel PaintShop Pro a go. Native RAW support including NEF, not that expensive, and a couple of versions you can choose from. There is a 30-day trial you can use before you make any purchasing decisions.
                          The difference in quality is also partly due to when NEF files are shot, the accompanying jpg files are in the camera's Basic quality, which is adequate for direct quality printing up to ~A5 format but not for editing.

                          When Ulead sold out to Corel, who did the dirty on Media Studio Pro, I swore never to buy a Corel product again. (See the first posts at http://forum.corel.com/EN/viewforum.php?f=5&start=0, which I moderated). To date, 6 years later, even though I used at least 8 Corel softwares at the time, I've kept that promise and used alternative makes. Notwithstanding, I downloaded the freebie trial version you recommended and started learning it. It seems to be a very glorified PhotoImpact and have the following remarks to make after a few hours:

                          The NEF>RAW features are primitive, compared to PS, ViewNX 2 etc. They permit simple colour, WB and brightness/contrast editing bu no more: no cropping, straightening, keystoning etc. Initially, this shook me, until I saw their strategy; the RAW file can be saved/opened as is but it can also be converted into a .pspimage file, which is a 16 bit/4 channels uncompressed format giving 1.845E19 possible "colours"!!! This can be fully edited losslessly with all the software features except a very few that require an 8-bit/channel layer. This makes it versatile at the cost of files approaching (after many-layer editing) the GB size (no problem, even on my weak computer, and all RAM was released on exiting, minimal memory leakage. For my way of working, MUCH better than PS! As a subjective guess, it will do at least 95% (probably more) of what PS can do, but often differently. As a learning exercise, I "glamourised" a NEF snapshot of my daughter (52 y-o) at our dining table and quite successfully took at least 10 years off her age, as well as removing an out-of-focus wine bottle and replacing the clothing hidden behind it, although it took me over 2 hours (needed to consult the on-line 'how-to' a few times!). My wife was surprised at the difference.

                          I must admit I'm sorely tempted to break my vow re Corel! Will have to sleep on it, as the price is right!
                          Brian (the devil incarnate)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by KRSESQ View Post
                            Photoshop and Windows work together about as well as two fat guys trying to dance together and both trying to lead. They need a BIG dance floor!
                            Of course, Adobe were always MAC-oriented, right from the get-go.
                            Brian (the devil incarnate)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Nicram View Post
                              In RAW there is no something like render (inside operations), so You made mistake here. The JPEG file is result of invoking image (but instead chemistry You use software).
                              In digital photography RAW is like photographic film frame, and JPEG is like final photo on paper, so what You made is like making photo on paper, and then copy it 6 times, every time from the copy last made.
                              I think you misunderstood what I wrote: all the re-rendering was done on high-quality jpg files from a mediocre quality original. What I omitted to say was that re-rendering would not normally be necessary after every operation, like I did. Once, instead of 6 times, would probably have been possible, twice at the most. I did it to have a worst-case scenario.
                              Brian (the devil incarnate)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X