Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #79434

Re: A.T.A. drive or Fusion drive?

Show all headers | View raw

On 2015-09-02 01:29:58 +0000, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> said:

> On 2015-09-01 19:33:54 +0000, Tom Evans <tomevans9890@yahoo.ca> said:
> 
>> On 2015-08-19 19:09:09 +0000, Savageduck said:
>> 
>>> On 2015-08-19 18:30:59 +0000, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> said:
>>> 
>>>> Some type of work on Photoshop (for instance, the clone stamp to remove
>>>> objects, fix picture) can require a lot of separate clone stamps be
>>>> done, and at one point, you may decide to back out of it because the
>>>> clone stamp artifacts are too visible.
>>> 
>>> With "Content Aware" Fill, and/or Healing artifacts should be minimized 
>>> making clean up simple. If you have obvious artifact issues with the 
>>> Clone Stamp/Brush you should be more selective regarding the clone 
>>> source and use more feathering (a softer brush).
>>> 
>>>> 200 may be a lot though.You can work with adjustment layers to make it
>>>> "smart" editing so you can enable/disable a modification at will. but
>>>> actual pixel editing requires memory to be able to "undo".
>>> 
>>> Yup! 200 History States is waaay to many. In extreme cases I can find 
>>> myself using 8-10 layers (my norm is 3-4 adjustment layers) for various 
>>> purposes, each layer can be isolated, activated, deleted, and if it is 
>>> a "Smart Object/Filter" layer, revisited for readjustment as needed.
>>> 
>>> I am NEVER going to need 200 history States to "undo" anything on any 
>>> single adjustment layer, particularly if I'm working on a Smart Object 
>>> layer. I have a hard time visualizing just how Tom goes about using 
>>> that many History States in his workflow.
>>> 
>>> I have my PS performance preferences set at 50 History states, and PS 
>>> is allocated 10245 MB of my 16 GB RAM. Even 50 History states is many 
>>> more than I need, as I am probably never going to use more than 2 or 3 
>>> "undoes" at any time.
>> 
>> J.F. Menzies is right, though.
>> 
>> There are different levels of image editing, so the folks changing 
>> their images substantially require more steps to fulfill those changes.
> 
> ...and they use layers/adjustment layers and Smart Objects to achive 
> that, not 200 History states.
> 
>> I'm comprehensively editing my images, and often requires hundreds of 
>> steps for each image file.  Occasionally -- for the very difficult 
>> projects -- I've probably made over a thousand steps on a single image 
>> file.  Often I'll reopen a file I've done hundreds of steps on, and 
>> re-edit it with scores or hundreds more steps.
> 
> That is your particular post processing "art". However, it is the most 
> inefficient and impossibly tedious methodology I have ever heard of. I 
> also seems that you are not particularly receptive to learning 
> efficient methods and techniques.
> 
>> I'm often using Photomerge to merge two or more images (up to about 20 
>> images) into one.  Because the Photomerging is imprecise, it requires 
>> much clean-up.
> 
> So?
> It shouldn't need the methodology you are applying. If you use layers 
> life will be so much simpler.
> 
>> I'm doing alterations using the Paint brush tool, Spot Healing brush, 
>> Magic Wand, Eraser brush, Quick Selection tool, Clone tool, Warp tool, 
>> occasionally the Dogde and Burn burshes, Skew or Perspective procedure, 
>> Edit > Fill > Foreground Color, etcetera, and sometimes applying those 
>> procedures with different opacities.
> 
> Again using layers and layer blending modes is going to help you, and 
> it is something you should learn to use.
> 
>> And I'm running 17 or 18 action set steps in precise order, so that if 
>> I later decide I want to slightly expand the image on the left, right, 
>> top or bottom by half an inch or so, and then choose Edit > Fill > 
>> Content Aware, I must use the Brush tool to match the filter effects of 
>> the image into the newly expanded area and to get rid of the unwanted 
>> patterns of obvious duplication of sections of the image that Content 
>> Aware Fill often causes.  Sometimes I adjust the entire picture with 
>> one button, and other times I'm adjusting a few pixels -- or even one 
>> pixel -- at a time because of my high standards of precision and 
>> quality.
>> 
>> So my image adjustments are far more involved than yours, and that 
>> means I can benefit from a History step for every change to the picture.
> 
> You have no idea how involved my post processing image adjustments 
> might be. Don't make assumptions when it is very obvious that you only 
> have a rudimentary knowledge of Photoshop and all of its functions.
> 
>> 
>> It would be impossible for anyone to make the sweeping changes that I 
>> make to my Photoshop images with only 50 steps, even using adjustment 
>> layers and Smart Objects.
> 
> Don't bet on that.
> 
>> (I viewed a video demo of adjustment layers and Smart Objects and 
>> concluded that using those features wouldn't significantly (or at all) 
>> reduce my steps, because they can't replace the above-mentioned steps 
>> I'm doing.)
> 
> Because you have locked yourself into an inefficient workflow, and 
> refuse to accpt that there is a better way to reach your goal.
> 
> You are never going to improve the performance of Photoshop by adding 
> RAM, if you stick to your methodology.

BTW: Why don't you share one of your images with us, so we can see what 
it is you have achieved?

You might also consider exploring alt.photography, or 
rec.photo.digital. There you will find a completely different group of 
folks who can't agree with one another.

-- 
Regards,

Savageduck

Back to comp.sys.mac.system | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: A.T.A. drive or Fusion drive? Tom Evans <tomevans9890@yahoo.ca> - 2015-09-01 12:33 -0700
  Re: A.T.A. drive or Fusion drive? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-01 15:50 -0400
  Re: A.T.A. drive or Fusion drive? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-09-01 18:29 -0700
    Re: A.T.A. drive or Fusion drive? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-09-01 19:31 -0700
      Re: A.T.A. drive or Fusion drive? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-01 22:41 -0400

csiph-web