Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS General Gear Talk Data Storage, Memory Cards & Backup 
Thread started 18 Sep 2017 (Monday) 12:06
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

SSD for editing then move to HDD?

 
benji25
Senior Member
Avatar
970 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 65
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Twin Cities
     
Sep 18, 2017 12:06 |  #1

Do any of you load your images to an SSD while editing for performance and then once the edit is done move them to a slower storage at lower cost? If so how is that working and what SSD do you use?

I am running in to performance issues and I am guessing it is because my photos are on an external HDD (don't remember the RPM off the top of my head)


Website (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
mike_d
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,064 posts
Likes: 365
Joined Aug 2009
     
Sep 18, 2017 12:32 |  #2

benji25 wrote in post #18454954 (external link)
Do any of you load your images to an SSD while editing for performance and then once the edit is done move them to a slower storage at lower cost? If so how is that working and what SSD do you use?

I am running in to performance issues and I am guessing it is because my photos are on an external HDD (don't remember the RPM off the top of my head)

What editing software are you using? I've done what you suggest with Lightroom and it made a little difference, but not too much compared to editing directly off the NAS. Does your computer currently have an SSD for the operating system and applications? If not, that upgrade will make more difference than where the images are. I like Samsung SSDs.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
benji25
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
970 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 65
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Twin Cities
     
Sep 18, 2017 12:36 |  #3

mike_d wrote in post #18454977 (external link)
What editing software are you using? I've done what you suggest with Lightroom and it made a little difference, but not too much compared to editing directly off the NAS. Does your computer currently have an SSD for the operating system and applications? If not, that upgrade will make more difference than where the images are. I like Samsung SSDs.

I use a combination of Capture One, LR and Photoshop. Computer does not have an SSD it is a late 2013 iMac with dedicated graphics.

Was thinking about doing a new build since I will be editing 4k footage now so maybe it is just time to upgrade to something new.


Website (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mike_d
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,064 posts
Likes: 365
Joined Aug 2009
     
Sep 18, 2017 12:39 |  #4

benji25 wrote in post #18454983 (external link)
I use a combination of Capture One, LR and Photoshop. Computer does not have an SSD it is a late 2013 iMac with dedicated graphics.

Was thinking about doing a new build since I will be editing 4k footage now so maybe it is just time to upgrade to something new.

I don't know if that computer can be upgraded (Apple appears to make that proposition as difficult as possible) but replacing hard drives with SSDs is life changing. My PC is an i7-2600 (6 years old?) with 16 GB RAM and all SSD storage. It runs circles around brand new computers with hard drives.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
benji25
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
970 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 65
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Twin Cities
     
Sep 18, 2017 12:41 |  #5

mike_d wrote in post #18454989 (external link)
I don't know if that computer can be upgraded (Apple appears to make that proposition as difficult as possible) but replacing hard drives with SSDs is life changing. My PC is an i7-2600 (6 years old?) with 16 GB RAM and all SSD storage. It runs circles around brand new computers with hard drives.

Yeah I would do a new PC build. No way I am upgrading that even if possible.


Website (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ from ­ PA
Cream of the Crop
7,821 posts
Likes: 441
Joined May 2003
Location: Southeast Pennsylvania
     
Sep 18, 2017 12:58 |  #6

benji25 wrote in post #18454954 (external link)
I am running in to performance issues and I am guessing it is because my photos are on an external HDD (don't remember the RPM off the top of my head)

More important than the "RPM" might be the connection method.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
eelnoraa
Goldmember
1,754 posts
Likes: 30
Joined May 2007
     
Jan 05, 2018 18:40 |  #7

I think for photo editing, it makes little difference. Once you open the RAW, most info is sitting in RAM, assuming you have enough RAM. I also don't notice much difference in LR, but I do have quite bit of RAM. For video editing, it makes more differences even if you max out your RAM, it is unlikely to be able to storage all the footage you need to load at once.

For exporting, in my case, it is CPU limited when exporting to SSD, but I think is HDD limited exporting to HDD. However, if you need to copy from SSD to HDD, might as well just export to HDD


5Di, 5Diii, 28, 50, 85, 16-35II, 24-105, 70-200F2.8 IS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
eelnoraa
Goldmember
1,754 posts
Likes: 30
Joined May 2007
     
Jan 05, 2018 18:43 as a reply to  @ benji25's post |  #8

If you are doing a new PC build, there is no doubt at least your OS drive should be on SSD. Random access performance of SSD is what makes the most difference in term of how fast the PC feel. You can swap the HDD to an SSD for a 5 years old computer and it will feel like a new computer. IMO, the processing power of desktop micro processors hasn't really improve by too much for many years.


5Di, 5Diii, 28, 50, 85, 16-35II, 24-105, 70-200F2.8 IS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Avatar
5,908 posts
Gallery: 163 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 5810
Joined May 2008
Location: Calgary
     
Jan 05, 2018 19:00 |  #9

I use Lightroom on a 2 or 3 year old Windows 10 box, with my OS and software on an SSD and data on an external HDD. For 3 months, as an experiment, I put the LR catalog and new RAW files on the SSD. It made little if any difference to performance.

But as the SSD filled up I had to have transfer sessions, moving the files from the SSD to the much bigger HDD. So putting new pic files on the SSD greatly increased the complexity of file and backup management. I had to be verrrry careful not to delete stuff from the SSD until I was sure it was all properly moved and backed up. It was totally not worth it and I reverted to using the HDD for all photo files new and old.


Pentax Spotmatic F with 28/3.5, 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 135/3.5; Canon digital gear
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
graham121
Senior Member
Avatar
672 posts
Gallery: 84 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 2380
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Pakenham, VIC, Aus
     
Jan 06, 2018 03:02 |  #10

I am wondering abou someing similar and that is how to speed up transferring the images off the camera.

I am, as I type, importing into LR some 2000 images of a cfast card from today and they are going onto my laptop hard drive...non ssd, 5400rpm, via USB 3 cable direct from camera.

Would importing them to direct to an external SSD be quicker?

Or is it better to Download from the camera - to whatever HDD - in one step and the import into Lightroom in a separate step?

I really need to speed up this process, it is bad enough with 20mp images but when I have a couple of thousand 30mp images it really sucks.


A coupla bodies and a few lenses

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mike_d
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,064 posts
Likes: 365
Joined Aug 2009
     
Jan 06, 2018 11:11 |  #11

graham121 wrote in post #18534653 (external link)
I am wondering abou someing similar and that is how to speed up transferring the images off the camera.

I am, as I type, importing into LR some 2000 images of a cfast card from today and they are going onto my laptop hard drive...non ssd, 5400rpm, via USB 3 cable direct from camera.

Would importing them to direct to an external SSD be quicker?

Or is it better to Download from the camera - to whatever HDD - in one step and the import into Lightroom in a separate step?

I really need to speed up this process, it is bad enough with 20mp images but when I have a couple of thousand 30mp images it really sucks.

Get a USB 3.0 card reader. It'll likely be faster than reading directly from the camera. Writing to an internal SSD will be faster than writing to a hard drive, but I think the weakest link in your case is the camera. Writing to an USB SSD would just add more congestion to the USB bus.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
graham121
Senior Member
Avatar
672 posts
Gallery: 84 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 2380
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Pakenham, VIC, Aus
     
Jan 06, 2018 16:54 |  #12

mike_d wrote in post #18534876 (external link)
Get a USB 3.0 card reader. It'll likely be faster than reading directly from the camera. Writing to an internal SSD will be faster than writing to a hard drive, but I think the weakest link in your case is the camera. Writing to an USB SSD would just add more congestion to the USB bus.

I already have a Tarangus USB 3.0 card reader for the CF and SD cards, but not CFast, however when I have used it
A) download speed seems about the same, maybe a bit faster but not significant
B) a number of files ( maybe 1 or 2 %) would get corrupted during the transfer and would need to be transferred again individually.

I also had this issue usung a previous USB 2 card reader, and combined with a bent pin has made me reluctant to take cards out if possible...

The external SSD would hang off the USB 3 hub just like the camera.

Agreed an internal SSD would be better, but dont fancy swapping out the existing HDD myself.


A coupla bodies and a few lenses

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Avatar
5,908 posts
Gallery: 163 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 5810
Joined May 2008
Location: Calgary
     
Jan 06, 2018 16:57 |  #13

graham121 wrote in post #18535105 (external link)
B) a number of files ( maybe 1 or 2 %) would get corrupted during the transfer and would need to be transferred again individually.

Amazing, never had a file corrupted by transfer.


Pentax Spotmatic F with 28/3.5, 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 135/3.5; Canon digital gear
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dan ­ Marchant
Goldmember
Avatar
4,855 posts
Gallery: 18 photos
Likes: 1159
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Where I'm from is unimportant, it's where I'm going that counts.
     
Jan 07, 2018 21:05 |  #14

benji25 wrote in post #18454954 (external link)
I am running in to performance issues and I am guessing it is because my photos are on an external HDD (don't remember the RPM off the top of my head)

Not sure about the other software but it won't make any significant difference in Lightroom. What is important for speed in Lightroom is the location of the catalog and the previews. The RAW data is never actually edited so its location is irrelevant. During the editing process the various RAW processors create/update the preview image and write adjustments to a catalog/file. So putting your LR catalog and the preview folder on an SSD will have a much greater impact on processing speed than the location of the RAW files.


Dan Marchant
Website/blog: danmarchant.com (external link)
Instagram: @dan_marchant (external link)
Gear Canon 5DIII + Fuji X-T2 + lenses + a plastic widget I found in the camera box.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Avatar
5,908 posts
Gallery: 163 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 5810
Joined May 2008
Location: Calgary
     
Jan 07, 2018 22:15 |  #15

Dan Marchant wrote in post #18535948 (external link)
Not sure about the other software but it won't make any significant difference in Lightroom. What is important for speed in Lightroom is the location of the catalog and the previews. The RAW data is never actually edited so its location is irrelevant. During the editing process the various RAW processors create/update the preview image and write adjustments to a catalog/file. So putting your LR catalog and the preview folder on an SSD will have a much greater impact on processing speed than the location of the RAW files.

Maybe your comparison is right, but the difference when working in LR is inconsequential.


Pentax Spotmatic F with 28/3.5, 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 135/3.5; Canon digital gear
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1,279 views & 2 likes for this thread
SSD for editing then move to HDD?
FORUMS General Gear Talk Data Storage, Memory Cards & Backup 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.0forum software
version 2.0 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is benbodey
813 guests, 417 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.