Best PS Alternative for RAW & Editing?

Wilt wrote in post #19400159
Note the 26 hard faults per second in Memory!! Your problems can well be due to that.

What does that mean?

snegron wrote in post #19400161
What does that mean?

'It depends' upon what is causing the memory fault...there should not be any faults. That there are 26 per minute means that the processor is slowed down by the system trying over and over to overcome the faults, whatever the cause.

snegron wrote in post #19400157

Hosted photo: posted by snegron in
./showthread.php?p=194​00157&i=i191397466
forum: RAW, Post Processing & Printing

I wouldn't worry about the memory faults. On process start-up you'll get those but they should go to zero or near zero if your computer is idling. My computer does the same thing when I start a process and PS comes up in seconds on mine. Looking at the pics you posted you just did something because the faults went up, disk duty cycle spiked-up and so did the network traffic all simultaneously.

You're only using 50% on your computer's memory so you have enough memory.
Click on the "CPU" column in the CPU block (under the word "Frequency") so that the process using the most CPU is always at the top of the list and repost a screen shot.

Also post a snapshot of the "Task Manager" window so we can see everything goin on with the computer.

@dangermoney,

You were right, the memory faults didn't show up after a couple of minutes.

I just timed mine from PC being asleep to Photoshop being open and ready to go, 18 sec (less than 8 sec from clicking PS shortcut to launched)... I must be the only person who doesn't hate the subscription model. I'd rather pay $10/mo and always stay up to date than $600+ to be outdated in a couple months and have to choose between using outdated software or spending another few hundred to update.

https://imgur.com/a/Td​XYeHT

(Ryzen 7 5800x w/SSD & 32GB RAM)

snegron wrote in post #19400157

Hosted photo: posted by snegron in
./showthread.php?p=194​00157&i=i191397466
forum: RAW, Post Processing & Printing

In addition to the memory faults, is that 58% CPU Utilization just at start-up or does it run like that most of the time? Typically you should be well under 5% with routine usage.

It seems resolving the incredibly slow Photoshop load is being looked at. Good chance any other photo editing software will also be slow.

I honestly don't think software recommendations are very useful. It's a very personal thing.
It's been years since I have done direct comparisons, but when I did, Canon DPP processes Canon RAWs best.
It's what you'd expect, they know their files. It can take a variety of images to see the difference.
Last comparo I did, greens were much, much better with DPP comparedvvto Adobe.

I shoot RAW and full size JPEGs, no matter what brand camera. I review and cull using JPEGs.
Then, for Canon, I use DPP to convert RAW to Tiff.
Many consider that way too complicated, tedious, a hassle, whatever.
To me, it's just a few clicks to start a batch process.

I then use CS4. It's what I have and have been using for years. I don't feel any need to get a later version, or move to subscription.
If I tried one of the many CS alternatives, I'd probably continue using DPP for RAW to Tiff.
I'd get around to doing a comparison of RAW conversion, but I suspect DPP would still be better.

For some, having automated features is important, importing and exporting must require as few clicks as possible.
I'm quite happy, in fact prefer, to have a more manual approach.
That's why I say software recommendations are not very useful, unless you are specific in your preferences and recommendations include details relevant to your preferences.

Choderboy wrote in post #19400252
I shoot RAW and full size JPEGs, no matter what brand camera. I review and cull using JPEGs.

I do same, just wondering if you keep all the raw's or if you have a "smart" way of deleting the chaff raw when you delete the jpeg?

joeseph wrote in post #19400288
if you have a "smart" way of deleting the chaff

The "smart" way is not import the "chaff" to your hard drive ... cull before.

snegron wrote in post #19400157

Hosted photo: posted by snegron in
./showthread.php?p=194​00157&i=i191397466
forum: RAW, Post Processing & Printing

If you want to see what's gumming up your computer, open task manager (alt-ctrl-delete), and then sort on CPU and memory (separately) to see which of the many processes are hogging resources.

In addition, go to the startup tab in task manager and see what's automatically loading when you boot. Just don't disable anything there without checking to see what it is.

I just timed PS on my laptop. My desktop is much faster, but I'm away. It was roughly 9 seconds to load photoshop, and it's completely functional, normal speed, at that time.

joeseph wrote in post #19400288
I do same, just wondering if you keep all the raw's or if you have a "smart" way of deleting the chaff raw when you delete the jpeg?

I used to do my first cull with JPEGs. I had shell scripts that would match the JPEGs to the RAW files and separate the keepers from the chaff.

I was doing that in Windows and using the JPEGs for first cull because Windows wouldn't render RAW files quickly. So I went out looking for a fast raw viewer. The first one I tried was called 'Fast Raw Viewer', and that solved that problem. Worked on that for a while then went with FastStone and now DPP (all free). DPP doesn't have the file management I like with the others, but I found workarounds.

Once I finally grokked the full magic of a raw file and found first-cull software that would work directly on those, the JPEGs were just in the way. They required a bit of file-management trickery to maintain, for no benefit. It took me a couple of hours to unwind the JPEGs from my workflow, but I've never looked back. Even the old ones, now, are kinda in the way sometimes.

joeseph wrote in post #19400288

Choderboy wrote in post #19400252
I shoot RAW and full size JPEGs, no matter what brand camera. I review and cull using JPEGs.

I do same, just wondering if you keep all the raw's or if you have a "smart" way of deleting the chaff raw when you delete the jpeg?

I'm new to DPP but since getting an R6 have been using it more and more as I think DPP's colours are better than Lightroom's. What I do is I select all the raw files from a shoot and go to Quick Check, which I find is very quick and efficient. Is that a bad way and is it better to use jpegs for reviewing and culling files?

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19400494
I'm new to DPP but since getting an R6 have been using it more and more as I think DPP's colours are better than Lightroom's. What I do is I select all the raw files from a shoot and go to Quick Check, which I find is very quick and efficient. Is that a bad way and is it better to use jpegs for reviewing and culling files?

I've been using DPP more as well but as to your culling strategy, I think that there are different levels of culling. My strategy is to take a first pass eliminating all the OOF, poorly framed, and test type photos. For those I don't think it really matters what the format is. A OOF photo is OOF whether raw or jpeg. Second pass starts looking at the duplicates, several images of the same keeping only the top 2 or 3. Those require a bit more looking into. Last cull for me is once a session is complete I look at the photos I choose not to process. Many are technically fine but just uninteresting so if I feel that at some time in the future I might do something with it, I keep it, otherwise it goes as well. In all these cases examining the raw as opposed to a jpeg is really not important.

gjl711 wrote in post #19400502
I've been using DPP more as well but as to your culling strategy, I think that there are different levels of culling. My strategy is to take a first pass eliminating all the OOF, poorly framed, and test type photos. For those I don't think it really matters what the format is. A OOF photo is OOF whether raw or jpeg. Second pass starts looking at the duplicates, several images of the same keeping only the top 2 or 3. Those require a bit more looking into. Last cull for me is once a session is complete I look at the photos I choose not to process. Many are technically fine but just uninteresting so if I feel that at some time in the future I might do something with it, I keep it, otherwise it goes as well. In all these cases examining the raw as opposed to a jpeg is really not important.

That sounds a lot like what I do. In the first round I take out all the failures, for whatever reason: OOF, limbs lost (happens mostly with BIF), and wrong poses, wrong head turns etc. I select hem, delete them. I do this in Quick Check at 50%.

Then I go to 100% to select everything that is in sharp focus. What is not in sharp focus at 100% is selected and deleted. From sharp duplicates I select the nicest poses, the others are deleted. If there is a unique or particularly nice pose and there's only one shot without duplicates but it's not as sharp as I would like at 100%, I take it back to 50% and see if it's acceptable. That also depends on how much I intend to crop the image, if I need to crop at all. In any case I keep it for now but tag it. And I may delete it later on. The files that remain after all that are converted to tiffs. From those tiffs I will select a handful to edit in Photoshop.

Finding an Photoshop alternative is very hard. I've tried several and I ran away screaming... I would love to continue to use my CS6. Like Dave I don't need updates as CS6 does everything I need it to do. But I don't think it is going to work any more on my soon to be bought Mac M1 (or M2/Max/Pro, I am waiting for the new Mac Mini, then I will decide).