Quadro or GeForce for still-photo editing?

Hello!
I am an IT consultant who has one professional photographer as a client, and she needs a new workstation for still-photo editing using Photoshop CC. I asked her to ask her professional community about the best video card to use, and I got back "I need a video card with mercury graphics engine, over 1 gig. of ram (the more the better)." I have read about Quadro cards until my eyes bled, and I think they may not be the best suited for still-photo editing, at least from the perspective of performance vs. cost.
Her current workstation has a 1GB ATI FirePro V5800 card, 6GB memory, a three-drive RAID 5 array that is split into her C: and data partitions, and a single Xeon CPU. It is a pig.
New computer build (so far):
ASUS Z97-A LGA1150 motherboard
Windows 8.1 Pro (with Start8 start menu replacement)
Intel Core i7-4790 CPU
32GB memory
480GB SSD boot drive (current boot drive has 201GB used)
240GB SSD "active projects" drive (only $44 more than a 120GB SSD)
4TB SATA 7200RPM data drive for finished projects
Multiple 3TB drives for onsite and offsite backups
The only piece missing (?) is which video card to get. I deal almost exclusively with business workstations, not specialized markets like photography editing, so I bow to your knowledge in helping me decide between Quadro vs. GeForce vs. ???
Thank you for your time!
Gregg Hill

I'm no expert, but I built a PC about a year ago and did a lot of research into this.  I found a lot of conflicting opinions on it, but most of the actual data I looked at suggested that I wasn't going to see a significant boost in performance, for still photography, by adding a GPU (over a good Intel chip).  The integrated graphics performed surprisingly well in the benchmarks versus all but the top of the line GPUs.  So I concluded that unless I was prepared to spend $500 on a GPU I'd stick with the integrated, and I could always upgrade later.  Never felt the need to upgrade.  Everyone uses Photoshop differently, and your client may have use for it.  But I think a lot of people buy the most expensive machine they can afford even when it's overkill.  I'd consider myself a moderately heavy PS user; I like to do big composites (60+ layers) and I do architectural work that sometimes has dozens of frames from a full frame camera.  I don't do video, nor use the niche filters like oil that were heavy on GPUs.  But I use a lot of layers, and am somewhat heavy with actions and batching.  YMMV.
But, a caveat:  I use CS6, which doesn't have many GPU accelerated features that I use.  It looks like that is changing with CC, and hopefully more so in the future.  So perhaps it would be prudent for you to put one in.  Truthfully I don't think there's much a difference between brands so long as they're on the compatibility list.
I also did a lot of research into RAM, because Windows 7 caps at 16 gb for the basic version.  At the end of the day I convinced myself that 16 would be sufficient, and I've kept an eye on my useage in photoshop and found that it has.  I don't do video work, but my projects are usually pretty large (2 gb+).  Everybody has different uses
Sorry to drone on:  But I also looked into the traditional 4 disc setup recommend for image processors.  I couldn't get a concrete answer on whether this setup still makes a significant performance increase when using SSDs.  I ended up just getting an SSD for programs, OS, and working files.  Then a huge slow HDD (5600 RPM) for storage.  Plus backups.  I since upgraded the hard drive and used my old one for scratch - really just to take the "wear and tear" off my main drive.

Similar Messages

  • How do I create motion for still photos/pictures. I'd like to pan/scan & zoom. Please help!

    How do I create motion for still photos/pictures. I'd like to pan/scan & zoom. Please help!

    You kind of answered your own question..
    Check out Motion in the FX Control Window and learn how keyframing works..

  • X121e for mild photo editing?

    Hi there all,
    As you can see I am new to this forum. I currently have an MSI Wind U130, which I've used for mild photo editing when on the move. I've found the screen to be satisfactory when compared to prints.
    I have been looking at the lenovoa x121e and was wondering if anyone could tell me what the screen is like in comparison to my current netbook?  
    Any help would be greatly appreciated .
    Thank you all! 

    I just received my x121e (AMD Fusion model with 4GB RAM) and I'm quite happy with the performance in photo editing situations.
    I've got the Adobe Web Premium suite installed and Photoshop (64bit) runs acceptably, there's only few instances where I'm really struggling.
    Then again, it's always going to be personal, what I consider 'OK' might not be 'OK' for you. It's just a matter how patient one is.
    In terms of the screen I'm happywith it, even more so than my Dell 15.4" 1920x1200 laptop, mainly because the backlighting of my Dell laptop is uneven, in particular the corners. The Lenovo doesn't suffer any of those problems and is even brighter.
    In terms of colour accuracy I can't really comment and if that's your main concern I suppose someone else would have to give you a better answer. All I can say is that it doesn't look obviously 'warm' or 'cool' which has been obvious in some other screens I've seen.
    I was really excited about the x121e as it was not a 'netbook' and that it ran a proper version of Windows where I could actually make good use of the Adobe Creative Suite I was planning on installing. I'm not dissapointed so far.
    Hope it helps.

  • What is the best way to use a SSD for Photoshop/photo editing?

    Computer hardware newbie here: I do a significant amount of photo editing work and for a very long time I've experienced Photoshop, Bridge and Photomatix crashing constantly (usually due to insufficient RAM) or just generally taking forever (Bridge took forever to load the thumbnail/preview extractions in a folder full of images, Photoshop took forever to save images and Photomatix took ages to load/merge a set of bracketed photos).  Here are the typical error messages I'd get: http://pastebin.com/J9byczse
    As a professional photographer, constantly running into that sort of thing is quite aggravating, so to hopefully avoid ever having to deal with that again I invested in a new custom built computer.  It's Windows 7 Professional 64 bit with 32GB of RAM and a 240GB SSD; I'm using the 240GB SSD as my boot drive/OS, all of my programs are installed there, and the page file.  My photos and data are stored on several HDDs.  I have yet to install any of my photo editing software (Photoshop CS6 Extended, Lightroom, Photomatix etc) to the new computer yet since I'd like some advice first.
    My basic question is this: what is the best way to take advantage of the SSD (and the computer in general) when it comes to my photo editing software?
    Specifically...
    1. If I have a folder of photos I'm working on, should I move it to the SSD and then work on them from there in order to take advantage of the speed of the SSD?  Would this make any difference in terms of speed if the photos are located on the SSD vs. an internal/external HDD?
    2. Most of what I've read online seems to recommend two separate SSDs, one for installing/booting the apps and one for cache/scratch.  Does it matter if I use my 240GB SSD for both?
    3. This is a fairly new computer and the SSD is already almost half full (102GB used, 120GB free) *WITHOUT* any of my photo editing software installed yet.  I'm concerned about how fast that remaining 120 GB may fill up.  As it fills up will I lose the speed advantage of the SSD vs. a regular HDD?
    4. Sort of similar to #3, but should I bother moving any of my other non-photo editing programs/caches off of the SSD to a HDD and would there be any major difference in the speed/lifespan of the SSD if I did so?  It's mostly Firefox and Chrome and their caches that I'm concerned may be a problem if they remain on the SSD.
    Thanks for any help!

    If you have an SSD you can run the cache and programs on the same drive.  However, many recommend a scratch disk size of 100-200 gigs so that will not work here unless you opt for a larger SSD.  Otherwise an internal spinner is recommended that does not contain the program files, or idealy any other files that may want to get acessed at same time (only one read/write head per drive).
    With 32 gig of RAM you may not need the constant use of the scratch drive unless working on large images with lots of layers.  So see no advantage to moving folder to SSD for temp work environment.
    From what I read the new crop of SSD do not have the wear problems of the older versions.

  • Mac Mini for Parents (photo editing)

    Hello all and thank you in advance.
    My parents (for reference in their mid 60s) have finally decided to come to the mac universe.  They are asking for assistance in buying a computer. I was thinking of getting them a mac mini.
    In regards to their needs, they are pretty light computer users.  They like to facetime, make photo collages, web surf, email, etc.  Though I should mention my dad needs to have a virtual PC to log into the VA (was going to use VirtualBox). Also they would like to start doing some photo editing, note that they are very much an amateurs and will not being running super complicated workflows (he has a Nikon D700 (12MP full frame) with a ton of RAW files he has never yet bothered with). In terms of photo software, I was thinking either Aperture or the upcoming Photos app and possibly Pixelmator.
    Cost is a consideration, but if the performance increase is great enough it will also be weighted justly.
    I am debating between a 2014 version vs a 2012 that I would upgrade myself (add a SDD to make a fusion drive and max out the ram). If I did go with a 2012, would the cost difference to get a i7 quad core be worth it, or would the dual core i5 be more than sufficient?
    thanks!

    Various points:
    1. You can't really diy a fusion drive. You can build a logical volume that spans two physical drives, and HDD and SSD, but that doesn't make a fusion drive, so you don't get all the benefits. Also, be aware of the issues with TRIM on Yosemite with 3rd part SSDs (short version: Yosemite doesn't allow Trim Enabler etc to load the system extensions they need to work - Apple might change this in future, but who knows)
    2. For software, I recommend Aperture (even though it's being replaced by Photos). It has two big benefits: it handles storing the pictures, with all kinds of tagging and search options so you can find them again; and it does non-destructive editing - if you make a change to a picture, you retain the original in case you change your mind or want a different version. Pixelmator is fantastic value too.
    3. You can run a virtual machine fine on a 2013 mini (I do it - Windows 7 via Parallels). If all it is is some light online stuff, no issue. But it's true that the newer minis are somewhat slicker.
    4. In general, provided you have the RAM (8GB), any mini will do - assuming they have a decent monitor with the right connections. If they want to get serious with photos, they absolutely need a decent monitor.

  • Acceptable File Size and Resolution for Still Photos in Keyframe Motion

    Hello Hello
    I know that FCE HD (as other Video Editors), will automatically fit a still photo's size to it's default capability of 720 x 480 Correct?
    Well, in regard to making the best possible ZOOMS, and Pans from Still Photos, is it neccessary to re-size all your photos (from an external editor like photoshop), to a specfic size?
    According to an older book for FCE, it sez that actually photos re-sized to 720x534 with a resolution of 72 are best. *The proper proportion for NTSC.
    And I noticed that when I inserted larger JPG still sizes (like about a meg), on the FCE timline, and when applying Panning, or Zooms, some of the rendered images with motion didn't pan or zoom smoothly.
    Is that because those file sizes were TOO large?
    Well I have soooo many stills that need to be imported into this particular project that it would be a lot easier for me to just generally reduce these stills (by percentage).
    And is the magic resolution amount supposed to be 72?
    Because if that's the case I can re-size all my photos to 72, and try to keep the file sizes down to say 300 KB's or so.
    Sound like a plan?

    Thank you guys
    "basically, you should try to make your images large enough so they never have to be scaled beyond 100% in the motion tab in fcp."
    Actually as I mentioned some of these file sizes are very large. About 800-900 KB's - and what as a result, what I've noticed is that I actually had to DECREASE the viewing area in both the Browser Window, and the Canvas Winbow just to be able to see the whole image.
    Ok - so the 72 DPI is not as important as the dimensions of the photo. But as I said I have soooooo many of these that it would take me forever to manually re-size them all not to mention the fact that re-sizing some of them (odd shapes),would throw the images out of balance.
    So again I ask - if there is NO motion applied to the photo, file sizes of about 200 to 350 KB's appear just beautifully ....
    BUT
    If I need to PAN or ZOOM, is it ok to laod a 1 MEG sized JPG onto the timeline and start working with Keyframe?????
    In fact in some cases I'm actually using these larger file JPS's (1 meg or more), so that they TOTALLLY fit the canvas window (cropping them by enlargment)
    *With some clipping of the original image of course ...
    Why do I do this?
    So that you don't see the usual border with horizontal images, or vertical images - know what I mean?
    Thanx

  • Problems setting duration for still photos and transitions in iMovie '11

    I downloaded iMovie 11 from the Apps Store last night and am trying to make my first movie with it today. I use still photos exclusively.
    For most - but not all - I like 5 seconds for photos and for transitions 2 seconds. I do vary this on occasion and so do not check "for all photos' or "for all transitions".
    I can't get these settings to work with this version of iMovie. For example, I added a photo (5 sec) then a transition (2 sec) which changed the duration time of the photo - as it should. But when I double clicked the photo, to bring up the inspector window to change the duration of the photo, nothing happened. Then I added another photo. The duration of the first photo increased to 7 seconds and nothing I do seemed to change that.
    The time increases seem random: for example, sometimes the time on the still photo increases to 6:29 sec, sometimes to 7 sec.
    The duration for the transitions always remains the same - 2 sec; it's the time for the photos that jumps around. And I haven't been able to find a way to get back to 5 sec.
    Before posting this, I researched and found an number of earlier posts detailing the same issues.
    However, none of these posts had stars to indicate the problem was solved.
    Has anyone found a solution or is this a bug that should be reported to Apple?

    Interesting!!
    I've spent a lot of hours on this too, but I have come up with a different solution perhaps because I like to vary both the image duration and the transition duration in my movies.
    Here's my process:
    -> Knowing that (a) I want most of the photos to be visible for 5 seconds and most transitions for 2 seconds and (b) that a transition takes half from the photo before and half from the photo after, under File>Project Properties>Photo Duration I chose 7 seconds - each photo will 'lose' a total of 2 seconds from the transitions in front and behind. I did not check either "Applies to all transitions." or "Applies to all photos." - See below for why.
    -> I discovered, as you have, that all the photos have to go in before I add any transitions. This was new to me. With all previous versions of iMovie I simply added a photo then a transition then another photo one at a time. I had to fiddle with the timing adjustments, but at least I could fiddle. With this new version of iMovie I can't. Once the transition is in place, I cannot change the duration of the photo.
    -> Sometimes, I want a longer or shorter duration for a photo. For example, on photos to which I apply the Ken Burns effect, I often want the image on the screen for a slightly longer time. In this case, I have to use the inspector to change the duration before I add the transitions. So I might set the time for 8 seconds; when both transitions are added, the time for this photo becomes 6 seconds, which is what I want.
    -> The same applies if I want a transition to be shorter or longer than 2 seconds. If, for example, I want the duration for a transition to be 1 second, then I have to change the duration on the two linked photos to 5 1/2 seconds.
    All of this requires much more prior planning than I am used to with iMovie. Right now, I working with batches of 5 or 6 photos at a time. I don't put a transition on the last photo in the batch until I have added the next group of photos. And things get really tricky if I don't like my original design. If I want to change anything, I have to take out all of the transitions linking the photos I want to work on, do the math, make the changes in the photo durations, then put the transitions back.
    Perhaps I am trying to make iMovie do more than it was intended to do, I don't know. Perhaps this problem stems from the fact that I bought just iMovie 11 from the Mac Apps Store and not the entire iLife 11. Don't know that either. But at least I have found a way to make the movie look the way I want it to look.
    Thanks for sharing your process. I will use it when the circumstances are right.

  • Should I use Camera Raw 5.0 for JPEG photo editing?

    Hello,
    I have Camera Raw 5.0 through Bridge CS4 and I shoot photos on my Nikon D40X in JPEG.  Should I NOT be using Camera Raw to edit my non-RAW photos?  Is it degrading my images?  I noticed when I did some editing and saved the photo, the new photo size was about 25% of the original JPEG size. 
    Thanks in advance!!

    To tell you the truth, you might be better off just shooting RAW in the first place... but I'm surprised by your decrease in size... I can only echo the suggestion to check the JPEG quality box and the file format used.  You didn't crop it to some different resolution, did you?
    PS: I'm getting into photo editing pen tablets.  You might try one some time for editing.

  • Resolution for Still Photos for film

    Greetings,
    I have a full length Digital Video film and want to add still photos to it. I have been using Photo to Movie software to add a Ken Burns effect to the photo, then exporting it under the movie format- DV(NTSC) 720x480, then importing that to the final cut time line. My question is what is the best resolution in the first place for the still photo before I do this process or is it okay to use the final render size from the Photo to Movie export? Or do you have a better idea.

    I would suggest you to check your export preferences but it is my understanding that if you render the movie file, and then export, it you should be able to set the QT option for NTSC DV.

  • Premier Elements. Rcommendation for still photo resolution/size

    I have a Panasonic composite camera.  It shoots HVCHD lite.  It also takes 16:9 (3968*2232 9Meg) still photos.  I wish to produce a composite DVD in Pal format suitable for a wide screen TV.  What resolution and size is recommended for the still shots?  I am using Windows XP with Powertoy image resizer.  Or is it more convenient to use the Oraganizer in Elements to resize the photos?  Tony

    For my thoughts on still images, you might want to see this THREAD. In your case, you'd substitute my 720x480 PAR 0.9 for your HD Project's framesize. If you need to do any panning on images that will be fully zoomed out, I'd not go any larger than you will need to accomplish this. Some Projects require that I use several different Actions in Photoshop, if I will do much panning on the zoomed out images. Since I do not do any automatic pan/zoom Effects, but create each by hand, as each image is unique, I can tailor the resizing to exactly what I will need. If you let your program do these Effects automatically, then just give a bit more wiggle room and your good to go. Having overly large stills in your Project costs you, both in processing power and also quality - PS's resizing algorithms are better than Premiere's and doing this outside of the NLE is much more efficient.
    Good luck,
    Hunt

  • In December I purchased and registered a copy of PS Premier Elements 12 for my MAC. I sue program exclusively for still photos. When I go from Organizer to Editor, I get a message that I need to download Elements, register program or download trial versio

    In December 13, I purchased & registered PS Premier Elements 12. I use only for still photography. The organizer works just perfectly. When I go to Editor to edit and/or print I  get a message to register product and/or download trial. Have I purchased the wrong product or have I missed something ?

    Premiere Elements is for video editing.

  • Macbook Pro or Air for minor photo editing?

    I have been an andriod/windows user all my life, but getting my Iphone 5s i've found that I really love the way Apple sets up its OS and am wating try a Macbook try its OS. I do a lot of minor photoediting basic things like using the blur tool, changing the hue and satuiration, and maybe doing some selevtive color. I don't need an iMac because I still have a pretty beffy desktop but I would like a laptop to carry around when I am out getting pictures or editing at someones house. Would I be able to get away with a MBA, or will I have to at least have a MBP to run Lightroom/Apeture with a little PS/Gimp for the blur tools?
    Edit: I guess I should just mention I would just be getting the base model of either seeing as this is my first Mac.

    I've got a basic Macbook Air that I use for all my image editing and all my graphic design and I've had less issues with these computers then I do using a windows based machine. I find the software runs a lot smoother on here. The only issue you might come across is the screen being small. I like smaller machines, but it makes drawing/editing large pieces difficult sometimes.
    Just make sure the editing programs will run properly on a mac and just chose the computer you like better.

  • Final Cut Server for still photo database?

    I know that FCS was intended to be use for video production database, but I have heard it could be applied to other database uses, such as a digital photo database. I haven't seen or heard of anyone doing this, but our unit is looking to replace our current database software (Cumulus) with a more user-friendly application. Our unit is a university support office with both video and digital still photography. Our current still image database is over 100,000 files. Has anyone used FCS for this type of database application?

    We are currently using it as a Photo/Video database.
    I've only put about 3000 images/clips in there so far
    but it seems to be working well.
    We are running it on a old Quad G5 and have some
    custom conversions set up for adding images and
    videos.
    Our Web team can take our videos and in two clicks
    have a WMV and FLV video for their sites and then
    select a few images and do a quick convert to web
    sized imges..all within FCS
    It would be nice to see a open architecture with plugin support
    and more file compatibility, but for now it works great
    as a database for images and video.

  • What is the best format to use for still photos in FCE that will produce the highest resolution?

    Hello,
    Can anyone recommend the best suggested format for photo stills in FCE that will provide the highest resolution and best quality output, to be broadcasted on a Standard Definition television network?
    Thanks,
    Susan Kayne

    Personally, I prefer uncompressed TIFF or PNG.  But many times it won't matter ... you'll be dropping the images into an SD Sequence, so they will lose resolution on output.
    -DH

  • Titles for still photos

    Is it possible to add a title to a photo without splitting the photo?

    I suspect Hound dog doesn't really mean 'jump' and that he simply means he sees a short clip of the still image without a title, i.e. the title is shorter than still.
    Hound Dog if this is the case you need to either make the title duration longer to match the duration of the still or vice-versa.
    Personally I would go for making the still match the title duration as I've had occasions where once a title has been rendered it has been a couple of frames more or less than what I set it at.
    So this is what I would do:
    If I was aiming for a duration of 5 seconds, I would set the still duration to about 5s 5f and apply a title of 5s, if the title rendered at 5s all well and good, if not I'd use what I had and simply trash the portion of the still that had no title rendered onto it.
    What you want to avoid is the duration of the title being longer than that of the still, which means it will over-run onto the next still and cause problems.
    Hope that is what you wanted to know and if it is that it is clear enough.

Maybe you are looking for