Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Photoshop CC Slow  (Read 6653 times)
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5255


WWW
« Reply #20 on: June 27, 2013, 06:43:25 PM »
ReplyReply

After installing PSCC trial my system showed I had only 6 gigs of ram...weird....my cursors stopped having the ability to change size and hardness by dragging the mouse as in CS6 and I couldn't type anymore....restarted my computer and those things were restored for a while and then later in the day they stopped working again so I became frustrated and uninstalled and went back to CS6 which is great and my system showed I have 8 gigs of ram again.

So, exactly how did you get 10.7.x (you haven't indicated the exact version you are running) onto your system? Was it a fresh install or an upgrade from 10.6.8? I've heard of some issues with older non-64bit MacIntel systems having certain issues with 10.7.x. The fact that after installing Photoshop CC your system is reporting less than the full installed ram is troubling...installing an app should not have any impact on what your system is reporting. I suspect you have some low level system issues that might be something to work on and troubleshoot...
Logged
AFairley
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1100



« Reply #21 on: June 27, 2013, 06:45:01 PM »
ReplyReply

So, what was the use of Bernard posting: "Is CC in fact just a very expensive... and addictive... virus?"

Ummm.  Bernard did put a smiley after the comment, and I, for one thought it was pretty funny (but then my wife says I have a wierd sense of humor).  Are we having a bad day at the office or something?
Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7523



WWW
« Reply #22 on: June 27, 2013, 06:49:53 PM »
ReplyReply

A joke with an agenda is not simply a joke...you chose to bring the whole CC subscription/perpetual license controversy into a topic about Photoshop CC performance.

No Jeff, you are the one doing just that by reacting the way you are reacting.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Wolfman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 165


« Reply #23 on: June 27, 2013, 09:26:37 PM »
ReplyReply

So, exactly how did you get 10.7.x (you haven't indicated the exact version you are running) onto your system? Was it a fresh install or an upgrade from 10.6.8? I've heard of some issues with older non-64bit MacIntel systems having certain issues with 10.7.x. The fact that after installing Photoshop CC your system is reporting less than the full installed ram is troubling...installing an app should not have any impact on what your system is reporting. I suspect you have some low level system issues that might be something to work on and troubleshoot...

It was a fresh install of 10.7.5 that I downloaded from the App. Store.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5255


WWW
« Reply #24 on: June 27, 2013, 10:59:53 PM »
ReplyReply

It was a fresh install of 10.7.5 that I downloaded from the App. Store.

What sort of graphics card do you have? Do you have more than one card? Are they matched? Did you try checking your Preferences for Graphic Processor Settings in the Photoshop CC Performance preferences? The reason I ask is that that Photoshop CC has extended the use of GPU in a lot of areas...one are is in Image Size and in Smart Sharpen. As far as I know, the GPU is used to speed the results if the card supports it. In a 2006 MacPro, that card is ancient by comparison with more recent computers...It would be useful to compare the GPU settings between Photoshop CS6 (which is less reliant on GPU) to the settings in Photoshop CC.

I'm running Photoshop CS6 and CC on a 2009 MacPro with a pair of matched NVIDEA GeForce GT 120 cards (not very powerful by today's standards) and I'm running the GPU with set to "Normal" in both CC and CS6, I'm getting the same sort of speed between CC & CS6.

in fact, it would be useful to make sure ALL the prefs between CS6 and CC were set the same. 8 gigs of ram isn't a lot and you should think about increasing the ram. Also, where is the scratch disk set to in CS6 and CC? By default CC would be using your boot drive unless you changed it after the install.

But none of this would explain why your system was reporting less installed ram after you installed Photoshop CC–which should have no impact on the system's installed ram.
Logged
Jim Kasson
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 535


WWW
« Reply #25 on: June 27, 2013, 11:14:50 PM »
ReplyReply

...Photoshop CC has extended the use of GPU in a lot of areas...one are is in Image Size and in Smart Sharpen. As far as I know, the GPU is used to speed the results if the card supports it.

I don't know if a similar situation exists on a Mac, but when I tried to run tests on a Win 7 machine from another using Remote Desktop, Photoshop said:



So, in order for the tests to be fair, they have to be run from a local console.
Logged

Wolfman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 165


« Reply #26 on: June 28, 2013, 12:41:21 AM »
ReplyReply

What sort of graphics card do you have? Do you have more than one card? Are they matched? Did you try checking your Preferences for Graphic Processor Settings in the Photoshop CC Performance preferences? The reason I ask is that that Photoshop CC has extended the use of GPU in a lot of areas...one are is in Image Size and in Smart Sharpen. As far as I know, the GPU is used to speed the results if the card supports it. In a 2006 MacPro, that card is ancient by comparison with more recent computers...It would be useful to compare the GPU settings between Photoshop CS6 (which is less reliant on GPU) to the settings in Photoshop CC.

I'm running Photoshop CS6 and CC on a 2009 MacPro with a pair of matched NVIDEA GeForce GT 120 cards (not very powerful by today's standards) and I'm running the GPU with set to "Normal" in both CC and CS6, I'm getting the same sort of speed between CC & CS6.

in fact, it would be useful to make sure ALL the prefs between CS6 and CC were set the same. 8 gigs of ram isn't a lot and you should think about increasing the ram. Also, where is the scratch disk set to in CS6 and CC? By default CC would be using your boot drive unless you changed it after the install.

But none of this would explain why your system was reporting less installed ram after you installed Photoshop CC–which should have no impact on the system's installed ram.

The card is a NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB and I had the scratch set to my empty 60 gig SSD as I do in CS6. I know I should install more ram even sticking to CS6.

I'm actually anticipating the new Mac Pro if it isn't too expensive.
Logged
Ray McGuinness
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« Reply #27 on: June 28, 2013, 05:25:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Wolfman,

I have a Mac Pro similar to yours. Early 2008 Harpertown, Eight cores, 8mb ram, Radeon HD2600 Graphics card and a Accelsior SSD drive.

My timings using a raw file from a Nikon D7000(16mp).

CS6 Smart Sharpen about 2 seconds
PSCC Smart sharpen 15 seconds
PSCC doubling the size using Bicubic about 1-2 seconds
PSCC Smart sharpen took 60 seconds after doubling the size

It looks like Smart Sharpen is doing a lot more work and the time to process is proportional to the square of the size difference. There doesn't seem to be anything unusual with my RAM usage with CC vs CS. So there might be something fishy with your PSCC installation  and your MacPro. Did you use the system monitor to observe CPU usage during the Smart Sharpen processing? Also probe around in the Performance preferences.
Logged
Wolfman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 165


« Reply #28 on: June 28, 2013, 06:35:59 PM »
ReplyReply

I decided to reinstall PSCC and give it a 2nd try. This time around my system shows I do have 8 gigs of ram. I set everything in performance as Jeff suggested.


5D Mk2 raw:

CS6 Smart Sharpen native size: 11sec
PSCC Smart Sharpen native size 15sec

CS6 enlarge double size bicubic smoother 2.5sec
PSCC enlarge double size preserve details 32sec

CS6 Smart Sharpen double size 50sec
PSCC Smart Sharpen double size 60sec
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5255


WWW
« Reply #29 on: June 28, 2013, 06:41:10 PM »
ReplyReply

CS6 enlarge double size bicubic smoother 2.5sec
PSCC enlarge double size preserve details 32sec

Well, it doesn't surprise me that "preserve details" would take more time because it's more processor intensive...a more accurate apples/apples test would be Bicubic Smoother in both CS6 and CC...I also think that the that the amount of Reduct Noise setting in Preserve Detail would play a role...did you turn that on? If so, that would kick in a different algorithm which would I suspect, add to the processing time.
Logged
Wolfman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 165


« Reply #30 on: June 28, 2013, 09:26:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, it doesn't surprise me that "preserve details" would take more time because it's more processor intensive...a more accurate apples/apples test would be Bicubic Smoother in both CS6 and CC...I also think that the that the amount of Reduct Noise setting in Preserve Detail would play a role...did you turn that on? If so, that would kick in a different algorithm which would I suspect, add to the processing time.

Yes, I turn noise reduction down.

Using bicubic smoother in both and doubling the size of a 5D2 file it is about the same...2sec
Logged
GrahamB3
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


« Reply #31 on: July 27, 2013, 09:44:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Is CC in fact just a very expensive... and addictive... virus?  Grin

Cheers,
Bernard


It's a pity there's not an ignore function here at LL. I agree with JS, you add nothing to the discussion but a continuation of your petulant jibes.

Everyone gets it. You don't like Adobe. There's noting remotely funny bringing it up in every thread.

If you're not happy with Adobe's policies, write letters to the CEO. Picket the annual stockholders meeting. For pity's sake, give it a rest on users forum. We have no say in Adobe policy, and we shouldn't have to suffer your barbs and ill will with every thread.

Graham
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7523



WWW
« Reply #32 on: July 27, 2013, 10:29:45 PM »
ReplyReply

It's a pity there's not an ignore function here at LL. I agree with JS, you add nothing to the discussion but a continuation of your petulant jibes.

Everyone gets it. You don't like Adobe. There's noting remotely funny bringing it up in every thread.

If you're not happy with Adobe's policies, write letters to the CEO. Picket the annual stockholders meeting. For pity's sake, give it a rest on users forum. We have no say in Adobe policy, and we shouldn't have to suffer your barbs and ill will with every thread.

Hello Graham,

There is in fact an ignore function built in most LL readers which consists in moving to the next post.

There is also a "highlight this post an give it most visibility by quoting it one month later" function that you have just used. Wink

By the way, congratulation on your selection as a representative of "everybody"!

And for the record, I do not "not like Adobe". I have spent more money on their products than I have with any other photographic equipment provider but Nikon.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
StephaneB
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


WWW
« Reply #33 on: July 30, 2013, 09:45:11 AM »
ReplyReply

For what it's worth, I have a significant performance gain after upgrading to CC. I use PhotoShop from LR to use the Nik plugins as smart filters. In CS6, saving the file took about 30 seconds. With CC, that is down to a few seconds. I am on Windows.
Logged


Stéphane

My Webpage

Manoli
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 427


« Reply #34 on: July 30, 2013, 10:59:42 AM »
ReplyReply

For what it's worth, I have a significant performance gain after upgrading to CC.... In CS6, saving the file took about 30 seconds. With CC, that is down to a few seconds. I am on Windows.

Out of interest how big is the file ?
Logged
StephaneB
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


WWW
« Reply #35 on: July 30, 2013, 11:20:27 AM »
ReplyReply

I am not at home, but I am talking about D800 files, with the RAW as a smart object.
Logged


Stéphane

My Webpage

JhnMhn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


« Reply #36 on: August 11, 2013, 07:36:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Levity...you should try some sometime.

Totally agree. Maybe Jeff, Doode of doodes, himself King of acerbic hyperbole, just can't tolerate anyone dissing his meal ticket. Really, contributions similar to Bernard's are common on most threads without such emotionally charged, bully responses.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5255


WWW
« Reply #37 on: August 11, 2013, 09:05:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Totally agree. Maybe Jeff, Doode of doodes, himself King of acerbic hyperbole, just can't tolerate anyone dissing his meal ticket. Really, contributions similar to Bernard's are common on most threads without such emotionally charged, bully responses.

And your post adds to the thread how?

Got anything useful about Photoshop CC performance?
Logged
JhnMhn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


« Reply #38 on: August 11, 2013, 10:39:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Bout as much as your over-the-top original response to Bernard, ie: not much that's genuinely useful  Wink
Logged
Tim Lookingbill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1055



WWW
« Reply #39 on: August 11, 2013, 11:36:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Bout as much as your over-the-top original response to Bernard, ie: not much that's genuinely useful  Wink

Where you been all these years Luminous Landscape's been around, JhnMhn, and why are you posting just to this topic now?

10 posts in as a newbie here and you act like you own the place. Learn some manners because you really aren't starting off on a good foot nor are your points on good footing.

Do you actually see your internet personna you've now established here as a reliable source of information to be taken seriously? I don't. You act as if you're a legend in your own mind to quote a line from a Dirty Harry movie.

Use your own name for Christ sake so you can stand behind what you say, you coward.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2013, 11:38:42 PM by Tim Lookingbill » Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad