What's better for a Dell Mini 9?

[Rajah Sulayman]

So I bought a Dell Mini 9 to serve as my field and travel laptop (due largely to reports that it has better color accuracy than a Macbook Pro) and I'm trying to decide the best software solution for my in-field post-processing. Each has its own pluses and minuses, and I can't settle on which way to go.

Dell Mini 9 Factors

• 1024x600 display
• 1.6ghz cpu
• 2gb ddr5300
• WinXP Pro
• Intel GMA 950 video

And here are my options:

Option 1: Bridge + Photoshop

PROS: Bridge conserves more real estate and is faster than Lightroom; Photoshop offers most post-production options
CONS: Never used Bridge before; Photoshop is sluggish; Not Lightroom

Option 2: Lightroom 1

PROS: Quicker than Lightroom 2 by a mile; Is Lightroom
CONS: Fewer features than Lightroom 2; Will have to hide all panels in order to make the most of the 1024x600 display

Option 3: Lightroom 2

PROS: Most familiarity -- is what I use daily; Most robust
CONS: Sluggish as hell; Will have to hide panels when using


I'm stumped, so I leave it up to the will of the public. What's the best workflow software for a Dell Mini 9?

[OsmosisStudios]

... photoshop alone is my preferred method.

[dakwegmo]

What size hard drive did it come with? I'd suspect that even if you maxed it out, you'd want to conserve as much space as possible, and Photoshop/Bridge isn't likely to do that for you. Just checking my CS2 and LR2 installs, LR2 takes up only 60mb while Photoshop/Bridge take up over 300 mb.

[Rajah Sulayman]

Originally Posted by dakwegmo

What size hard drive did it come with? I'd suspect that even if you maxed it out, you'd want to conserve as much space as possible, and Photoshop/Bridge isn't likely to do that for you. Just checking my CS2 and LR2 installs, LR2 takes up only 60mb while Photoshop/Bridge take up over 300 mb.

Except that the Lightroom cache gets pretty massive. And turning it off slows things down even worse.

Good call on storage space, though. I forgot about that. I just have a 4gb SSD with a 16gb SDHC. The SSD is going to be reserved for the OS (and OS bloat), and my apps will be installed on the SDHC. I think I should be good, though, as this will be almost exclusively used for field photo work. The only other apps I'll have installed will be relatively tiny ones, like Firefox and Thunderbird.

[Rajah Sulayman]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

... photoshop alone is my preferred method.

For post-production in general?

I can't do the Photoshop-only anymore. I used to, but I'm too spoiled by Lightroom's fantastic photo organization and management. Which is why I'm hoping Bridge might be a suitable alternative for Lightroom.

[OsmosisStudios]

I organize my photos manually. I find I get better control and know where they are better. It likely adds a bit of time, but im more confident.

Basically, from processing RAW files from the camera to every saved file, it's photoshop.

[jdepould]

Wait, since when was LR1 faster than LR2? They were the same for me. Where are you even going to get a copy of LR1?

[Rajah Sulayman]

Originally Posted by jdepould

Wait, since when was LR1 faster than LR2? They were the same for me. Where are you even going to get a copy of LR1?

I back up every app I install on my machine, just in case. I have copies of pretty much every incremental version of Lightroom, from 1.0 through 2.2.

As for speed, LR1 was significantly faster than LR2 for me. Especially when it comes to slider adjustments. With LR1, any adjustment I made would show up immediately. With LR2, there was an annoying lag between working a slider and seeing the change. Not to mention the slider itself was sluggish and slow to respond. LR2.1 improved on it a little, but it's still very slow in comparison.

I wasn't the only one affected by it, either. I did scouring on the web and there were a number of people seeing dramatic sluggishness with LR2. Maybe it's our computers. Mine's a simple 18-month-old Athlon 64 CPU. No multiple cores, no bells, no whistles.

Whatever the reason, LR2 is pretty slow for me. The only reason I haven't gone back to LR1 is because the new features outweigh the performance hit.

[Rajah Sulayman]

Originally Posted by jdepould

Wait, since when was LR1 faster than LR2? They were the same for me. Where are you even going to get a copy of LR1?

p.s. You can find all major versions of Lightroom here. Since the program is so small, they just release a whole new copy with each version revision. You can find all the versions (except 1.0) at this page on Adobe. So long as you still have your serial handy, you can re-install the older version if need be.

[Rajah Sulayman]

Went with Lightroom 2 on account of the fact that 1.3 can't handle d700 NEFs.