Re: Can I edit photos on a low-end laptop?
Stefan Patric
> It's a long story, but I don't read small print so well. So I use a CRT
> monitor with my desktop computer and run it at 800x600. (When I try to
> do that with an LCD monitor, it looks like shit. Something about a
> digital display needing to run at it's native resolution. Adjusting DPI
> helps, but then things don't always fit.
Most operating systems permit you to change the screen's default font and
size.
>
> Anyway, the color, temperature, contrast, etc. on the CRT I keep a good
> ways away from normal, on purpose, because it's easier to read that way,
> so I definitely don't want to edit with it.
>
> But I have a little two-year-old Toshiba laptop that I use occasionally,
> and of course it has a pretty normal LCD screen. But, it uses a Celeron
> 1500 processor and has 512M of RAM. I can easily add more RAM, but only
> to 1GB. But if I do that, could I reasonably use something like
> Photoscape to edit with? Or would it just be unbearably slow?
I'm assuming you're running Windows XP on it. I would recommend
upgrading to 1 GB. A Celeron 1500 is more than fast enough for "average"
image processing. For years I did professional level image processing on
a self-built desktop system running a 1 GHz Duron CPU and 1 GB RAM, but I
was running Linux not Windows on it. So, there was a lot less overhead.
Don't run Photoshop. It's a memory hog. You'll want as much free RAM
available as you can get. Lack of sufficient RAM really slows down a
computer. Run something light like Elements or a simplified Photoshop
like what comes with scanners or digital cameras, or GIMP (www.gimp.org),
etc. Maybe, even try to find a super image viewer than has basic image
manipulation tools like crop, scaling, brightness/contrast, color
correction, etc. built-in.
Stef
Paul Bartram
"Peabody" <waybackNO...@yahoo.com> wrote
> But I have a little two-year-old Toshiba laptop that I use
> occasionally, and of course it has a pretty normal LCD screen. But,
> it uses a Celeron 1500 processor and has 512M of RAM. I can easily
> add more RAM, but only to 1GB. But if I do that, could I reasonably
> use something like Photoscape to edit with? Or would it just be
> unbearably slow?
I recently bought a used Acer laptop (14.5") with a 1.73 GHz Celeron and 1
Gb of RAM *but* it runs on Vista, which slows things down more than a
little - it needs all the RAM it can get. However, I use PhotoImpact 4 for
editing, an older version that does the basics I need, and it works pretty
well when it comes to resizing, rotating, cropping etc. Some of the more
complicated filters might take a while, but how often do you solarize or add
paint textures etc.? I'd imagine trying to run Photoshop on a laptop might
be a slower experience...
As for the screen, I suppose it isn't as good as the CRT monitor on my main
system, but then most people these days will have LCD monitors as well. Pays
to edit in a low light environment with those, I've found.
Paul
Floyd L. Davidson
>It's a long story, but I don't read small print so well. So I use a
>CRT monitor with my desktop computer and run it at 800x600. (When I
>try to do that with an LCD monitor, it looks like shit. Something
>about a digital display needing to run at it's native resolution.
>Adjusting DPI helps, but then things don't always fit.
Yikes! I can't imagine doing that. But what you need,
if you choose to use a higher resolution, is to change
the fonts sizes.
And I would recommend doing exactly that (though I'll
also grant that you probably won't! :-) In a way I don't
blame you too, because futzing with fonts never works
out perfect, and if it isn't something you'd do just to
do, it might be best not to bother at all.
(I may have another solution for you though, as I'll
explain below.)
>Anyway, the color, temperature, contrast, etc. on the CRT I keep a
>good ways away from normal, on purpose, because it's easier to read
>that way, so I definitely don't want to edit with it.
Okay... this may be a bit of wierdness on your part,
but it indeed a very sensible approach to take.
I can barely look at the screens most people use,
because they like a white background and use black text,
which just about blinds me. I use a black background
and goldenrod2 color for text, to emulate the old
monochrome "amber" monitors that were easy on the eyes
in the 1970's. I've been doing this since the early
1990's, when I first started using the X windowing
system and a color monitor on Linux. Before that it was
green monochrome, even on bitmapped monitors.
>But I have a little two-year-old Toshiba laptop that I use
>occasionally, and of course it has a pretty normal LCD screen. But,
>it uses a Celeron 1500 processor and has 512M of RAM. I can easily
>add more RAM, but only to 1GB. But if I do that, could I reasonably
>use something like Photoscape to edit with? Or would it just be
>unbearably slow?
>
>I'm really new to digital photography, and I doubt I'll be doing a
>large volume of editing. So I thought if I could get away with
>using the laptop to edit, then pictures I send out would look right
>to others with normal monitors.
Don't. Even if you put 1Gb of RAM in it, that isn't
going to do well. You need more RAM, more CPU and more
screen area if at all possible. Not that you *have* to
run out and spend big money to buy all of this stuff,
but to the degree that you can... you *will* like it
better!
Ideally, a quad-processor computer with at least 3Gb of
RAM, a pair of at least 19" LCD monitors, and a lot of
disk drive space.
But a lot less will do good enough. An older slower CPU
is not a problem, though if it is at all possible get
something with dual-CPU's. That is really helpful. And
a 1.4GHz or even 2.4GHz dual-CPU box isn't exactly
expensive today. And RAM is cheap. If you stay away from
the latest and greatest fastest possible systems, putting in
3-4Gb of RAM won't cost much at all. $20 a stick on eBay.
But, you still have a problem with the monitor! If
you're using Windows, I have no idea how to make it more
"readable" other than doing something exactly like you
have done. (Like one other person who responded to your
query, I use Linux.) But... what about using two
monitors? I use a pair of 22" LCD monitors (which
replaced a pair of 19" LCD monitors that I used for
years), and just absolutely cannot imagine editing
images any other way! In my case I have the image
window on the left monitor, and all of the control
windows on the right monitor. Now, in my case the two
monitors are adjusted to be as close to each other as I
can get them... but there is no need to do that! You
could have one adjusted "correctly" for display of color
images, and the other "misadjusted" to best display
readable text!
You could probably even have both of them at 800x600 if
you chose to!
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
Ron Hunter
> It's a long story, but I don't read small print so well. So I use a
> CRT monitor with my desktop computer and run it at 800x600. (When I
> try to do that with an LCD monitor, it looks like shit. Something
> about a digital display needing to run at it's native resolution.
> Adjusting DPI helps, but then things don't always fit.
>
> good ways away from normal, on purpose, because it's easier to read
> that way, so I definitely don't want to edit with it.
>
> occasionally, and of course it has a pretty normal LCD screen. But,
> it uses a Celeron 1500 processor and has 512M of RAM. I can easily
> add more RAM, but only to 1GB. But if I do that, could I reasonably
> use something like Photoscape to edit with? Or would it just be
> unbearably slow?
>
> I'm really new to digital photography, and I doubt I'll be doing a
> large volume of editing. So I thought if I could get away with
> using the laptop to edit, then pictures I send out would look right
> to others with normal monitors.
>
Photoshop Elements, or any of several free programs. Other than some
functions being noticeably slow, it works just fine. I do suggest
making sure that your editing program is the only one running, and that
you avoid excessive magnification of the image to avoid ram swapping.
Ron Hunter
on my Celeron M (1400) laptop.
Bob Williams
> It's a long story, but I don't read small print so well. So I use a
> CRT monitor with my desktop computer and run it at 800x600. (When I
> try to do that with an LCD monitor, it looks like shit. Something
> about a digital display needing to run at it's native resolution.
> Adjusting DPI helps, but then things don't always fit.
>
> good ways away from normal, on purpose, because it's easier to read
> that way, so I definitely don't want to edit with it.
>
> But I have a little two-year-old Toshiba laptop that I use
> occasionally, and of course it has a pretty normal LCD screen. But,
> it uses a Celeron 1500 processor and has 512M of RAM. I can easily
> add more RAM, but only to 1GB. But if I do that, could I reasonably
> use something like Photoscape to edit with? Or would it just be
> unbearably slow?
>
> large volume of editing. So I thought if I could get away with
> using the laptop to edit, then pictures I send out would look right
> to others with normal monitors.
>
Another option is to add an inexpensive Video card to your computer and
pick up a 17" CRT monitor at a local thrift shop for $25. They usually
have tons of pretty decent ones available for cheap.
That way everything stays on you present computer, you can use your
"adjusted" CRT for general purpose and switch to the "thrift" monitor
when using PS.......Best of all worlds.
Bob Williams
ray
> It's a long story, but I don't read small print so well. So I use a CRT
> monitor with my desktop computer and run it at 800x600. (When I try to
> do that with an LCD monitor, it looks like shit. Something about a
> digital display needing to run at it's native resolution. Adjusting DPI
> helps, but then things don't always fit.
>
> Anyway, the color, temperature, contrast, etc. on the CRT I keep a good
> ways away from normal, on purpose, because it's easier to read that way,
> so I definitely don't want to edit with it.
>
> But I have a little two-year-old Toshiba laptop that I use occasionally,
> and of course it has a pretty normal LCD screen. But, it uses a Celeron
> 1500 processor and has 512M of RAM. I can easily add more RAM, but only
> to 1GB. But if I do that, could I reasonably use something like
> Photoscape to edit with? Or would it just be unbearably slow?
>
> I'm really new to digital photography, and I doubt I'll be doing a large
> volume of editing. So I thought if I could get away with using the
> laptop to edit, then pictures I send out would look right to others with
> normal monitors.
FWIW - I frequently run GIMP on my mini-itx. It has a 1ghz VIA C3 with
1gb ram. I'm handling up to 5mp images in RAW using ufraw and GIMP. Runs
quite nicely with a fully optimized Gentoo Linux operating system.
mianileng
>
> But I have a little two-year-old Toshiba laptop that I use
> occasionally, and of course it has a pretty normal LCD screen.
> But,
> it uses a Celeron 1500 processor and has 512M of RAM. I can
> easily
> add more RAM, but only to 1GB. But if I do that, could I
> reasonably
> use something like Photoscape to edit with? Or would it just
> be
> unbearably slow?
>
You've received several replies, some conflicting with others. I
suggest you find out for yourself by installing your editing
software with the existing 512 MB RAM and see if the speed is
tolerable to you. If it is, adding another RAM stick will
probably speed it up noticeably.
Floyd L. Davidson
>Peabody wrote:
>>
>> But I have a little two-year-old Toshiba laptop that I use
>> occasionally, and of course it has a pretty normal LCD screen.
>> But,
>> it uses a Celeron 1500 processor and has 512M of RAM. I can
>> easily
>> add more RAM, but only to 1GB. But if I do that, could I
>> reasonably
>> use something like Photoscape to edit with? Or would it just
>> be
>> unbearably slow?
>>
>That depends a lot on what you consider to be unbearably slow.
>You've received several replies, some conflicting with others. I
I'm not sure that there was actually a conflict in what
was said, but there certainly might be in how it is
understood. In either case your suggestion below is
absolutely the right approach!
The conflict in understanding would come when it isn't
realized that virtually everyone who said they use
something similar also mentioned that it is used only
when necessary. I too on occasion have fired up GIMP on
a laptop with 512Mb of RAM. It "works". (I've also
been known to do that, and then sit back and begin to
think that something is wrong, it's taking too
long... before I realize that I'm using the laptop and
it is going to take nearly forever to do anything that
isn't simple.)
If I was faced with doing a few hundreds if images,
never mind thousands, on that laptop... I would either
find a bigger/better computer or something other than
photography to waste my time with! :-)
>suggest you find out for yourself by installing your editing
>software with the existing 512 MB RAM and see if the speed is
>tolerable to you. If it is, adding another RAM stick will
>probably speed it up noticeably.
--
Peabody
>
>
>It's a long story, but I don't read small print so well. So I use a
>CRT monitor with my desktop computer and run it at 800x600. (When I
>try to do that with an LCD monitor, it looks like shit. Something
>about a digital display needing to run at it's native resolution.
>Adjusting DPI helps, but then things don't always fit.
>
>Anyway, the color, temperature, contrast, etc. on the CRT I keep a
>good ways away from normal, on purpose, because it's easier to read
>that way, so I definitely don't want to edit with it.
>
>occasionally, and of course it has a pretty normal LCD screen. But,
>it uses a Celeron 1500 processor and has 512M of RAM. I can easily
>add more RAM, but only to 1GB. But if I do that, could I reasonably
>use something like Photoscape to edit with? Or would it just be
>unbearably slow?
>
>large volume of editing. So I thought if I could get away with
>using the laptop to edit, then pictures I send out would look right
>to others with normal monitors.
Thanks for everyone's responses. For the moment I think I will try
to make the laptop work. The processor is actually 1.6 GHz, and
today I bought another 512MB of ram on Ebay to bring it up to 1GB.
Ultimately, I'm going to have to figure out a way to use an LCD
display on my main computer, but that will have to wait for more room
in the budget, and for Windows 7.
In the meantime, maybe the laptop will work. It was interesting
nobody commented on Photoscape. Maybe it's not that good.
ray
Apropos your previous comments, an LCD indeed works differently than a
CRT. A CRT can switch frequencies to generate different resolutions so
that things can always look reasonably good. An LCD has, basically,
physical pixels - which cannot be changed. So an LCD has a 'native
resolution' at which everything looks good. If you deviate from that then
you see the klunkiness you described (unless, maybe, you can do an exact
fraction - e.g. if the LCD was 1600x1200, it wouldn't look too bad at
800x600 - each 'dot' would be two pixels wide and two pixels high).
tony cooper
>In the meantime, maybe the laptop will work. It was interesting
>nobody commented on Photoscape. Maybe it's not that good.
It's a surprising oversight on the part of anyone who read your post
and doesn't use Photoscape. Normally, in this group, the tendency for
the responders is to deprecate what they haven't used and say what
they do use is the only way to go.
I've never used Photoscape, but if you are satisfied with what it can
do, then continue to use it. If you can crop and print using it, and
you take well-composed pictures under proper conditions, then it's all
you need.
If you feel that there are edits you would like to make, but
Photoscape does not have the tools to make them, then download the
free trials of other programs like Elements or Paint Shop Pro and give
'em a whirl.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
J. Clarke
Just a comment but a friend of mine who is visually impaired uses a 37" LCD
HDTV for a monitor. Works very nicely for him, however, contrary to popular
belief, LCD TVs _can_ get burn-in, or, if that is not technically what is
happening, something of a like or similar nature. Note that Newegg has 40"
Toshibas for under 800 bucks including shipping.
SMS
> It's a long story, but I don't read small print so well. So I use a
> CRT monitor with my desktop computer and run it at 800x600. (When I
> try to do that with an LCD monitor, it looks like shit. Something
> about a digital display needing to run at it's native resolution.
> Adjusting DPI helps, but then things don't always fit.
>
> Anyway, the color, temperature, contrast, etc. on the CRT I keep a
> good ways away from normal, on purpose, because it's easier to read
> that way, so I definitely don't want to edit with it.
>
> But I have a little two-year-old Toshiba laptop that I use
> occasionally, and of course it has a pretty normal LCD screen. But,
> it uses a Celeron 1500 processor and has 512M of RAM. I can easily
> add more RAM, but only to 1GB. But if I do that, could I reasonably
> use something like Photoscape to edit with? Or would it just be
> unbearably slow?
Yes, it would be unbearably slow.
isw
Peabody <waybackNO...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'm really new to digital photography, and I doubt I'll be doing a
> large volume of editing. So I thought if I could get away with
> using the laptop to edit, then pictures I send out would look right
> to others with normal monitors.
Editing photos to "look right" on *any* monitor is probably not a good
idea, not least because so few people bother to calibrate theirs (and
because with less expensive flat-panel monitors, it may not even be
possible).
Get a good book on photo editing; it'll teach you how to do most of your
work by using the photo editing app's tools, and nearly ignoring the
display. I learned it from the years-old "Professional Photoshop" by Dan
Margulis.
And you might take a look at "Gimp", which is an open-source image
editor that offers a lot of the power of Photoshop at a considerably
lower cost (it's free).
Isaac
JoelH
> and of course it has a pretty normal LCD screen. But, it uses a Celeron
> 1500 processor and has 512M of RAM. I can easily add more RAM, but only
> to 1GB. But if I do that, could I reasonably use something like
> Photoscape to edit with? Or would it just be unbearably slow?
There are on-line photo editing sites that may be a good solution for
you. http://www.picnik.com/ is one option. It's not as good as gimp
or photoshop, but you can run it on almost any computer, and you have
the added benefit that you can easily see your pictures on more than
one computer.