Photoshop CC problem(s)

On 16/01/2021 6:01 am, Melanie van Buren wrote:
On 12/01/2021 07:48, Eric Stevens wrote:

As far as I can tell I have the same problem irrespective of whether I
am using PS 2020 or 2021.

Has anyone encountered or heard of a similar problem and if so what
was the cause/cure?

This gearhead masturbation topic generated 66 replies. That's an order of
magnitude more than it would generate on a dedicated Adobe forum. Meanwhile eff
all response all week on topics on the actual subject of, duh, photography.


They won't refund your admission fee? I'd tell 'um to beat it. ;-)

On Jan 16, 2021, Melanie van Buren wrote
(in article ):

On 16/01/2021 17:54, Bill W wrote:
On Jan 16, 2021, Melanie van Buren wrote
(in article ):

On 12/01/2021 07:48, Eric Stevens wrote:

As far as I can tell I have the same problem irrespective of whether I
am using PS 2020 or 2021.

Has anyone encountered or heard of a similar problem and if so what
was the cause/cure?

This gearhead masturbation topic generated 66 replies. That's an order
of magnitude more than it would generate on a dedicated Adobe forum.
Meanwhile eff all response all week on topics on the actual subject of,
duh, photography.

It is photography. Post processing is part of it, and this is rec photo
*digital*. Computers are pretty much required. If a poster can’t get his
PC
to run Photoshop, his tool for processing, we try to help. It seems to be a
PC problem, not an Adobe problem, and some people here are knowledgeable in
that area - both Windows and Mac. It’s not like this subject is crowding
out any others. It’s a quiet little group here, and can be very helpful on
varied subjects.

You can rationalize anything away like that.

Or answer honestly like that.

Anyone stop to think the op
may be running warez?

Not anyone who actually read his posts.

https://community.adobe.com/t5/photo...ort=latest_rep
lies&filter=all

If you ever have an issue, you might appreciate the help you can get here.

On 16/01/2021 19:36, Bill W wrote:
On Jan 16, 2021, Melanie van Buren wrote
(in article ):

On 16/01/2021 17:54, Bill W wrote:
On Jan 16, 2021, Melanie van Buren wrote
(in article ):

On 12/01/2021 07:48, Eric Stevens wrote:

As far as I can tell I have the same problem irrespective of whether I
am using PS 2020 or 2021.

Has anyone encountered or heard of a similar problem and if so what
was the cause/cure?

This gearhead masturbation topic generated 66 replies. That's an order
of magnitude more than it would generate on a dedicated Adobe forum.
Meanwhile eff all response all week on topics on the actual subject of,
duh, photography.

It is photography. Post processing is part of it, and this is rec photo
*digital*. Computers are pretty much required. If a poster can’t get his
PC
to run Photoshop, his tool for processing, we try to help. It seems to be a
PC problem, not an Adobe problem, and some people here are knowledgeable in
that area - both Windows and Mac. It’s not like this subject is crowding
out any others. It’s a quiet little group here, and can be very helpful on
varied subjects.

You can rationalize anything away like that.

Or answer honestly like that.

Anyone stop to think the op
may be running warez?

Not anyone who actually read his posts.

https://community.adobe.com/t5/photo...ort=latest_rep
lies&filter=all

If you ever have an issue, you might appreciate the help you can get here.

Why would I bother reading an achingly boring gearhead topic? They know
where the tech support forums are...

What help? Nobody here actually wants to make the effort of discussing
art and photography or anything I'm interested in. Gearhead talk doesn't
rock my boat even if it is the lazy option.


--
Melanie van Buren

On Jan 16, 2021, Melanie van Buren wrote
(in article ):

On 16/01/2021 19:36, Bill W wrote:
On Jan 16, 2021, Melanie van Buren wrote
(in article ):

On 16/01/2021 17:54, Bill W wrote:
On Jan 16, 2021, Melanie van Buren wrote
(in article ):

On 12/01/2021 07:48, Eric Stevens wrote:

As far as I can tell I have the same problem irrespective of whether I
am using PS 2020 or 2021.

Has anyone encountered or heard of a similar problem and if so what
was the cause/cure?

This gearhead masturbation topic generated 66 replies. That's an order
of magnitude more than it would generate on a dedicated Adobe forum.
Meanwhile eff all response all week on topics on the actual subject of,
duh, photography.

It is photography. Post processing is part of it, and this is rec photo
*digital*. Computers are pretty much required. If a poster can’t get his
PC
to run Photoshop, his tool for processing, we try to help. It seems to be a
PC problem, not an Adobe problem, and some people here are knowledgeable in
that area - both Windows and Mac. It’s not like this subject is crowding
out any others. It’s a quiet little group here, and can be very helpful on
varied subjects.

You can rationalize anything away like that.

Or answer honestly like that.

Anyone stop to think the op
may be running warez?

Not anyone who actually read his posts.

https://community.adobe.com/t5/photo...ort=latest_rep
lies&filter=all

If you ever have an issue, you might appreciate the help you can get here.

Why would I bother reading an achingly boring gearhead topic? They know
where the tech support forums are...

What help? Nobody here actually wants to make the effort of discussing
art and photography or anything I'm interested in. Gearhead talk doesn't
rock my boat even if it is the lazy option.

This thread relates to Eric, a long time subscriber to this NG having a problem with Photoshop. If you hadn’t been paying attention you should be aware that Photoshop is an editing tool that most serious photographers, pro & amateur use as a fundamental part of their photography workflow.

As for photography, from time to time some of us actually post images, and sometimes we might get a comment or two.

Perhaps you should exercise your particular boredom over at alt.binaries.photos.original. The folks there might applaud your artistry.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

On 16/01/2021 21:31, Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 16, 2021, Melanie van Buren wrote
(in article ):

This gearhead masturbation topic generated 66 replies. That's an order
of magnitude more than it would generate on a dedicated Adobe forum.
Meanwhile eff all response all week on topics on the actual subject of,
duh, photography.

This thread relates to Eric, a long time subscriber to this NG having a problem with Photoshop. If you hadn’t been paying attention you should be aware that Photoshop is an editing tool that most serious photographers, pro & amateur use as a fundamental part of their photography workflow.

As for photography, from time to time some of us actually post images, and sometimes we might get a comment or two.

*yawn* So what? I've said what I wanted to say and am sold on not
appeals to history and appeals to authority and general willy waving.
Any berk can obsess boys toys and there's eff all discussion about art
and photography which interests me more although, apparantly, none of
you lot. Maybe cuz you're **** at it.

Myself I can but don't use Photoshop. It's standard practice in my
industry not to alter photos apart from cropping.

--
Melanie van Buren

On 15/01/2021 10:18 pm, Bill W wrote:
On Jan 15, 2021, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 18:14:39 -0600, Bill
wrote:

On Jan 15, 2021, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 12:44:40 -0600, Bill
wrote:

Go into task manager, and check for 100% (or close) CPU, memory, or disk
read/write usage. The problem will be that it might take forever just to
get
into task manager, but it’s helpful, so wait. If it’s Adobe tying
everything up, then take nospam’s advice, and reinstall everything. If
something else is responsible, let us know what it is. I have had very
similar problems from Malwarybytes, Foxit Reader, and one or two others.
If
it something else, then you have to kill those programs, or uninstall
them,
and then talk to their customer support. My problems tended to come after
updates to programs, and reinstalling them will not fix that.

I wish I had two Task Managers so I could watch both Processes and
Performance at the same time. In the absence of a second, I spend most
time watching Performance. With TBMT enabled only one core (out of 12)
is actively engaged and that is at 100%. With TBMT disabled loading an
image has an effect on the loading of all cores but not excessively.

But that is only part of the problem. Why does PS insist on starting
raw files in ACR, even when I have all the options switched off? Why
does it then run so slowly? Why are the sliders not working? What is
the difference between loading an image in PS and ditto in LR? PS has
been unusable since before Christmas.

I don’t think PS can open raw files. I believe they must open in ACR.
Maybe
you turned off the wrong options, and that is causing your problem.

I've spent years opening raw files and doing things to them that don't
involve ACR. When I wanted ACR I called it in from the filter menu.

With PS CC? I don’t see how that’s possible. Was this an earlier version
of PS? And are any of your other apps of any sort also running slowly? Is
your PC booting very slowly? Does your PC see all of your memory?



Did the OP say what CPU and how much RAM he had? A year ago I replaced
my 15 year old AMD and Intel boxes with an AMD Ryzen 6 core CPU and
16 GB RAM motherboard. Things became much better. They became a lot
better, in general, when my bro upgraded my old GPU to later model. BTW,
I'm not a gamer. I only spent $500 including new power supply and a new
SATA drive. Boot time could be better but I have two SSD slots available.
My Dell laptop with SSD will boot in 10 seconds

Some years ago my old boxes worked very well for photo editing. Even large
files. Over the past few years things became slower and slower.
I upgraded(?) Win 7 x64 to Win 10. Didn't help at all. My old Intel had 4 GB
RAM and my old AMD had 6 GB and could tell little difference in the good
old days.

Later on 4GB was unbearable and 6GB was somewhat usable.
I would have to wait a very long time to view the 'properties' of a jpg.
I've wondered if having 5TB of harddrives online would slow things down
but never got around to checking it.

I have no idea what the problem was and don't really care anymore.
Nothing beats have a new car in the driveway. g

On Jan 16, 2021, Melanie van Buren wrote
(in article ):

On 16/01/2021 21:31, Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 16, 2021, Melanie van Buren wrote
(in article ):

This gearhead masturbation topic generated 66 replies. That's an order
of magnitude more than it would generate on a dedicated Adobe forum.
Meanwhile eff all response all week on topics on the actual subject of,
duh, photography.

This thread relates to Eric, a long time subscriber to this NG having a problem with Photoshop. If you hadn’t been paying attention you should be aware that Photoshop is an editing tool that most serious photographers, pro & amateur use as a fundamental part of their photography workflow.

As for photography, from time to time some of us actually post images, and sometimes we might get a comment or two.

*yawn* So what? I've said what I wanted to say and am sold on not
appeals to history and appeals to authority and general willy waving.
Any berk can obsess boys toys and there's eff all discussion about art
and photography which interests me more although, apparantly, none of
you lot. Maybe cuz you're **** at it.

That is your particular bias, and obsession, you need to recognize that.

Myself I can but don't use Photoshop. It's standard practice in my
industry not to alter photos apart from cropping.

Who is talking about altering photographs with photoshop, or any other good editing software?

If you intend to continue of your path of developing you photography skills, and style, you need to recognize the value of good editing/processing software.

Good editing software, regardless of what it might be, or one’s OS of choice does provide a multitude of tools to provide the artist/photographer the means to express their particular vision. Ignoring, or discounting it is a mistake.

Here are two photos from my past for you to chew on:

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-HQ6mvFt/0/b1fff2c9/O/i-HQ6mvFt.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-2CLFZ79/0/ceab9158/O/i-2CLFZ79.jpg

--
Regards,
Savageduck

In article ,
says...
Later on 4GB was unbearable and 6GB was somewhat usable.
I would have to wait a very long time to view the 'properties' of a jpg.
I've wondered if having 5TB of harddrives online would slow things down
but never got around to checking it.

It always amazes me how many GB RAM are needed to do things.
Years ago 100MB of RAM were plenty, now you are supposed to have
at least 8GB.

A 20-30 MP image takes only 60-90 MB in memory. It's strange
that PS would need several GB to operate smoothly.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On Jan 16, 2021, Alfred Molon wrote
(in s.net):

In ,
says...
Later on 4GB was unbearable and 6GB was somewhat usable.
I would have to wait a very long time to view the 'properties' of a jpg.
I've wondered if having 5TB of harddrives online would slow things down
but never got around to checking it.

It always amazes me how many GB RAM are needed to do things.
Years ago 100MB of RAM were plenty, now you are supposed to have
at least 8GB.

A 20-30 MP image takes only 60-90 MB in memory. It's strange
that PS would need several GB to operate smoothly.

I have come a long way from the days of 100MB of RAM. Today I have 32GB installed, with a current look at my memory usage, I currently have 26.09GB available RAM, and I have 18.26GB allocated to PS. If I need to do any heavy lifting with PS I have comfortable headroom.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

In article , Alfred
Molon wrote:

It always amazes me how many GB RAM are needed to do things.
Years ago 100MB of RAM were plenty, now you are supposed to have
at least 8GB.

computers from years ago could not do anything close to what can be
done today.

A 20-30 MP image takes only 60-90 MB in memory. It's strange
that PS would need several GB to operate smoothly.

it's not strange at all.

you're incorrectly assuming that the only thing in memory is one copy
of the image. that is an incredibly bad assumption.