TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Those a pretty large files which can certainly tax a system depending on what operations you’re performing. Just a a question and couple of suggestions:

Question, What CPU does your laptop have? If it’s an I-3 or a slower I-5 rather than an I-7 (probably not an I-9), that could be part of the issue.

Take a look at performance monitor in task manager (Ctrl-Alt-Del) while you’re processing a file - pay attention to how much memory is being used, CPU utilization and Disk I/O.

Are you using the SSD for the OS and application as well as the data, and especially, where is the scratch disk? - on the SSD? How full is the SSD, especially the partition where the scratch disk is located? And how much disk space do you have allocated to scratch?

You may find it painful, but I would seriously consider updating the OS to Windows 10. Win 8 is one of the worst OSs Microsoft has released, and you will likely find that 10 is actually faster

If your operations are graphics intensive, the Intel graphics could be a big bottleneck, especially since they are sharing the DRAM with the CPU, and with files this big, you need all the available DRAM for processing and separate VRAM for graphics. Also, a GPU, if usable for your particular processing, can make a huge difference in array processing.

In the end, if you really need to process files this large, you may find that your computer is simply maxed out and can’t be upgraded. For extensive processing of files this big, I would want a fast I-7 (or I-9) CPU, 32 GB of DRAM, a fast graphics card with a GPU and at least 2GB of VRAM, an m.2 NVME SSD with plenty of room for large scratch space and an up to date OS.

JeffDavidson Loc: Originally Detroit Now Los Angeles

Working with 1GB files, in my opinion, would be better with at least 32GB or more of RAM. That will help with the speed. I don't know the capacity of your graphics card.

cahale Loc: San Angelo, TX

Where are you getting 1 gig files? Even the ARQ Sony produces is only 385 meg.

Shootist Loc: Wyoming

Thanks for taking the time to comment. However, my objective is to get satisfactory images without spending a lot of money. At my age and with my personal situation it is not something I want to do.

User ID

That was explained much earlier. The OP indulges in gigantic tiffs. It does simplify things, but is hugely resource intensive.

Shootist Loc: Wyoming

Wow, what a comprehensive answer. There is a lot to digest and I do appreciate your input. My current processor is an Intel Core i5-4200 cpu @2.5 GH running at 64bit. The processor's graphice is HD Graphics 4600. Kind of middle of the road.

Shootist Loc: Wyoming

Thanks, the graphics card is an integrated HD Graphics 4600. I just sprang for upgrading to 16 gig so I don't know if I will up the memory or no. It is sure a consideration. Guess I will review all of the input on this thread, run some tests and see where that takes me.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Given that you’re not going to replace the Laptop or decrease file size, and you’re using an SSD, I would concentrate on making sure of your scratch disk settings, consider updating to Win 10, and do your work without other applications running.

Shootist Loc: Wyoming

The size uptic seems to come from converting to GIMP TIFF files.

Shootist Loc: Wyoming

Thanks, good basic advice.

smiller999 Loc: Corpus Christi

It looks like you are converting to TIFF twice, which is not necessary. If you install "Darkroom", a companion to GIMP, you can load your raw files directly into GIMP, via darkroom. GIMP does everything with its native format (which you can also save in if you wish - it is also a raw format similar to PS). Then you can export to TIFF or JPEG. But unless you are going to do multiple processing paths, there is no reason not to use JPEG. If you don't re-export you don't need to worry above accumulating compression artifacts. And jpegs will be considerably smaller than tiffs. I suspect your slowness comes more from a lack of enough memory than anything else, so the smaller sizes from non-TIFF formats should help a bit.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

I agree that editing in a smaller file size would be a big help, and while exporting to a JPEG is fine, I can’t agree that editing JPEGs is a preferred solution. It’s not a question so much of compression artifacts, but more an issue of the limitations of editing in 8 bit space, where some operations can produce really unpleasant and visible artifacts such as banding in gradients for example - it’s just too limiting for my taste.

Shootist Loc: Wyoming

That is an interesting approach that I have not considered. I have Darkroom but find PhotoNinja easier to work with and more effective. I wonder if there is a file type that PhotoNinja can export to that would "Play Nice" with importing into GIMP. I asked for ANY help and I sure have gotten my money's worth, most all helpful. Thanks.

Shootist Loc: Wyoming

Per my comment earlier in the thread that is originally why I switched to TIFF. I am truly not an expert on the virtues of different file types but TIFF seemed to give me more of what I wanted. Perhaps I should try the native GIMP file, FCX and see what that does for the situation.

smiller999 Loc: Corpus Christi

GIMP used to edit only in 8 bit colorspace. I don't know if that has changed recently, but I doubt it. I have never detected any banding from that, and I actually doubt most amateurs could detect any difference in editing 8 or 16 bit color components. It actually doubt that even pros can, but I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt. But if you are viewing on an average monitor, especially an older laptop, you are looking at 8 bit spaces, and you will not see any difference. You may see a difference when printing in a color separation process (like for a magazine), but it's unlikely on a typical inkjet. Almost everything most people will use to view the image will use on of the RGB24 spaces.