• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Snow Leopard shipped!

nicolas claris

OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Hello guys
the new OS is arriving… Applestores have started to ship Snow Leopard.

As always, be carefull do a full back-up of your Mac, run permission repair with disk utility.
Unplug ALL external gear before doing the update.
For the ones using their Mac for their work, try the update first on a non essential machine…

We already know that CS3 won't be supported by Adobe (will have to upgrade to CS4…
Source

We also know that Capture One will have to release a new version, compatible (not yet!)…
There are some turn around, See here
but I'll wait!!!

Anyway, this is announced to be a great improvement once we'll have upgraded our apps!

Those who try first are welcome to comment here!
 

Michael Fontana

pro member
Nicolas

I'm not sure that someone has to go on CS-4:

"Nack has now posted an update after investigating the CS3 situation in which he reveals that Adobe and Apple actually did do extensive testing of at least Photoshop CS3 on Snow Leopard and found that it is in fact compatible with the new operating system. "

But okay, you can't ask for support, but for avoiding the following (hardmac) :

"In other words, if it will cost you 30 € to upgrade Mac OS X to Snow Leopard, it will cost you 900 € more to switch from CS3 to CS4."
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Nicolas and Michael,

I'm interested in faster Photoshop. If that's possible with the new cat, it's for me. Otherwise, why bother?

Asher
 

Michael Fontana

pro member
Asher

for that reasons, I'm still on 10.4 on the latest PPC-Quad.
Talking about PPC: 10.6 doen't runs on these.

I don't see any reasons for a speedbumb via the new OS, but I'm sure some tests will be available soon.
PS-CS 4 on mac isn't 64 bit - capable, therefore even the 64 bit of the new OS will not speed up PS.

Basically PS will get faster only, if Adobe would clean PS and get rid of some thousands of pages of unused or old legacy code but that's what they aren't really interested to do.

But for the photographer's daily work, cleaning code would bring a much bigger benefit than a new tool, in nasty language: a gimmick.
 

Daniel Buck

New member
photoshop will be faster on the mac when it's 64 bit. I noticed quite a nice jump from 32 bit to 64 bit in windows, particularly when working with large files and giving photoshop 7 gigs of ram.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
for the photographer's daily work, cleaning code would bring a much bigger benefit than a new tool, in nasty language: a gimmick.

Michael,

Do you think that programs like Aperture which are newer and make use of the graphics card effectively can compete with PS in local editing. I'm thinking that with Nik software's plug in editing tools that we might be approaching a new era. However, selection of objects is still the big barrier to giving up on PS.

Asher
 

Michael Fontana

pro member
Asher

they' re two different beasts, AFAIK the mentioned plugins are not plugins in the Rawpipeline, but after decoding of the linear RAW data. I don't mind PS, but would like to have a PS with °loadable° modules, kinda just beeing assembled for my needs, therefore a smaller and faster app - with fresh code. And finally, after some years of using PS, I admit, that I haven't ever used a quite big amount of its parthes - why should I carry and update it untill the end of my life?

Andrew - our digital dog - might correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks to me - once, I could try PS-1 on a older box - that in PS each version was just build on top of the older one.
While beeing now on version 11, there would be plenty of things to refresh/get rid.

As for the differencies of PS and LR/AA, I'm with Schewe who mentioned, two years ago at LL:

"There's a huge difference between pixel editing (Photoshop) and parametric editing (Lightroom). It ain't an either/or situation."

"Asking the question means you don't understand what parametric editing is...you don't edit pixels, you edit parameters. There is really no room in Lightroom for editing pixels and while Photoshop may try to incorporate more parametric editing at it's core Photoshop is built for edtiting pixels, not parameters..."

"Resources...Photoshop is optimized to contain the entire image in ram (if you have enough-or scratch if ya don't) to run processes (you know, algorithms) to change the pixels in an image...Lightroom only changes the parameters of an image not the pixels so it doesn't been to "open" the image. Lightroom is designed around a database to maintain all the data about those parameters as well as all the other images in the database. That is a very bright line in the sand.

Could somebody put a "module" for pixel editing in Lightroom? Sure but it would still take the ram footprint and require all the processing clicks that Photoshop does. For what? It would still require rasterizing the parameters. In effect, it would still be Photoshop..."
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Could somebody put a "module" for pixel editing in Lightroom? Sure but it would still take the ram footprint and require all the processing clicks that Photoshop does. For what? It would still require rasterizing the parameters. In effect, it would still be Photoshop..."

But, Michael, it would be clean, lean and likely much faster!

Asher
 

Michael Fontana

pro member
But, Michael, it would be clean, lean and likely much faster!

Asher

I'm not to sure, that its a good idea to have just one Super- but Monsterapp for all these tasks; I fear it might do anything, but nothing really good.

Apart from that, I find the full-blooded Rawconverts like C1, RAWDeveloper, etc produce nicer IQ than PS/LR.

Therefore, I'don't mind to have a choice, which would be less with just a huge monster. You might notice that the huge monster will require more ressources than 2 smaller apps...
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Nicolas' link to Ars Techica on snow Leopard proved a major black whole in sucking up time, but I learned the gestalt of it all. Snow Leopard, SL, attempts to catch up the software with the underused computer resources we have and also uses some traffic routing that's smarter.

Bar's link again sucks up time and for that shows that Adobe is shirking it's parenthood responsibility by treating last years CS3 as a legacy software of some forgotten era.

  1. Still it seems that CS3 will work perfectly well in SL.
  2. Snow leopard will likely run most apps a little perhaps 12% to 30% faster
  3. SL is n 32 bit mode unless one boots with 6 and 4 depressed on the keyboard.
  4. Unlike the Windows version, Mac CS4 is 32 BIT
  5. A bunch of potential speedup require 64 BIT
  6. Still, SL is able to use both the Graphic processors and the motherboard CPU as computing units to dispense tasks, perhaps equally in some cases. That seems efficient and promising.

Is there something I have missed that's critical here?

For me, the main question is this for Mac users:

What would we gain in speed and stability if we use instead PS CS4 on the Intel Mac running windows with a PS CS4 windows version?

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Let me repeat, what IMHO, the main question for Intel Mac users:

What would we gain in speed and stability if we use instead PS CS4 on the Intel Mac under windows with PS CS4 windows version?

Asher
 
Let me repeat, what IMHO, the main question for Intel Mac users:

What would we gain in speed and stability if we use instead PS CS4 on the Intel Mac under windows with PS CS4 windows version?

Asher,

Maybe I don't understand your question. Wouldn't that require a Mac user to purchase a Windows CS licence to test? Most Mac users don't seem to be interested much in Windos applications, unless there's no alternative.

I think it's more important to establish that:
1. The Mac version of CS3 / CS4 runs without problems,
2. There are no I/O errors (disk/external storage & display)

It would be a nice bonus if also a Windows licenced CS version runs, even better if it's fast(er), but then there is also other software besides CS that might be important for some.

Bart
 
Top