I need to get a new computer for photo processing - so what software & PC vs. Mac?

[The Stigenator]

I currently have a 40D and a few more cameras. I use a 7 year old 2.4 celeron laptop for just downloading and simple picture processing (sometimes use my netbook for on the road). However I find this is totally inadequate for my work. Its fine for downloading pics off the camera, but not good for photo processing.

I shoot jpg or sraw + jpg. I currently use photoshop 7.5 (yeah i know, its an old version, last version I bought), Canon DPP for raw images & Picasa.

I would like to go to a meta editing system where I dont have multiple copies of edited files. I also have a large external picture storage where I store processed images that i would like to access at times.

So question is what would be the best route to go with this?

I could go with an 24" Imac + aperture + photoshop/Lightroom (or photoshop elements if need be).

Or PC + XP/Vista + photoshop / lightroom or paintshoppro X2 ultimate.

I am trying to keep this on a budget. Ultimately teh computer will be used for other stuff too.

I could get the student edition of photoshop / lightroom but does it come with windows / mac on one disc? if so I would do that rather than spend 400 for each software.

Good open source stuff? I use gimp too at times if need be.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

I personally use the Windows Vista/7 + Photoshop + Lightroom route. I heard that you have to buy a lot of extra plugins for aperture in order for it to match the capabilities of Lightroom. PCs are cheaper than Macs, no? A solid multicore CPU, a quick HDD, lots of RAM, and an accurate monitor are really all you need for the hardware. As for Photoshop, I hardly ever use it anymore now that I have Lightroom. I mean... what do I use it for... adding borders? Uhhh... doing more advanced cloning (Lightroom can clone and use adjustment brushes, plus it integrates very nicely with PS). I don't know anything about GIMP. If it can clone, heal, and add borders and text, you should be good to go without needing PS.

 

[The Stigenator]

yeah gimp can do cloning and adding borders and stuff.

I was thinking of doing lightroom route. I still have an older photoshop version or heck I can buy paint shop pro X2 for a lot lesser if I need that ability. I wasnt sure if lightroom is all you need to photo process.

This laptop is getting hecka slow. It took 45 minutes just to change my RAW color balance back to normal. I shot about 300 pictures on the wrong white balance and I just to change it over to tungsten instead of flourcent took 45 minutes, now to delete those jpgs and change the raws over to jpg.. ugh

I am looking at a PC i guess. I could build a nice AMD or Intel system for under 800 bucks with 24" screen. Do adobe sell a student edition of lightroom?

 

[jpeyton]

Make yourself a loaded quad-core system with a ton of RAM (6GB+) and a 64-bit OS (Vista or Windows 7 RC). The newest versions of Adobe software make better use of quad-core CPUs, and having all that RAM will make your system fly during image processing.

 

[troytime]

get yourself a lower core 2 duo for <$150 and 6 or 8 gb of ram
run windows 7 64bit

photoshop runs so much better on my PC than it does on my much faster (by spec) mac

 

[ivan2]

I am slowly moving towards this: lightroom, photoshop elements + plugin (exposure).

 

[angry hampster]

Originally posted by: troytime
get yourself a lower core 2 duo for <$150 and 6 or 8 gb of ram
run windows 7 64bit

photoshop runs so much better on my PC than it does on my much faster (by spec) mac

I can attest to this as well. The paper I shoot for has dual core intel Mac G5s in the newsroom with CS3, running Leopard. My old setup with an identical processor running Win7 and CS4 is worlds faster and more reliable to boot.

 

[akugami]

Options are to get a decent Core 2 Duo such as the E8400 (3GHZ 6MB L2 Cache) or alternatively Core 2 Quad Q8400 (2.6GHZ 4MB L2 Cache). Both should serve you well. Though if you're not adverse to some slight overclocking the quad core can easily reach 3GHZ with little trouble though you'll have to spend a little time tweaking and testing for stability. Both CPU's should cost you $160 and $190 respectively.

Get a decent motherboard for about $100-150'ish. Make sure your motherboard supports 8GB of RAM and that it is DDR2 and buy 8GB of RAM which should cost about $100'ish. When working with RAWS or multiple large files it helps to have lots of RAM. DDR2 RAM is currently very cheap so there is zero reason to not get it.

Video card I'd go with the Radeon 4770 which is a good deal. Provided you can find it. If not go with a Radeon 4850 or Geforce GTS 250 for slightly more. I'd say about $120'ish for the video card.

Power supply should run you about $50-75'ish since you don't need a powerful PSU. Something in the 500 to 600 watt range should do nicely.

For the hard drives, 1TB Western Digital Caviar Black WD1001FALS. Fast and lots of storage. Get one now, you can upgrade and get another later. Runs about $100.

DVD Burner for $40'ish.

Case for about $50-70'ish such as the Antec 300.

I'll assume you're recycling your OS, card readers, keyboard mouse and speakers. If not, add about $150'ish depending on your options.

Now here's where I'll differ with you. Get a good monitor. You're shooting in RAW format so you obviously care about image quality. Obviously you're not going to be spending over $1000 just for a monitor (most can't afford it) but I recommend spending a little more for a good monitor. The monitor is what you will be using when you view your works. If the monitor is poor, it will affect your pictures and the final edit of those pictures. The HP LP2475w Black 24" seems like a good compromise and should run you about $550'ish.

A system like the one I outlined or one similar to it will fulfill your needs for many years to come. Is it a little more pricey? Yeah but it's better to spend a few hundred extra to better serve your needs. You're not upgrading this system every year or two it seems so this system should easily last you and still remain very powerful for 5+ years.

 

[Deadtrees]

How much $ are you willing to spend? It all starts from there.

As for myself, My current setup is Q6600 @ 3.2, 6GB of ram, 1TB HDD and I've been on this setup for 1 1/2 year.
Though it works great, I feel the need for faster system due to my new 21MP 5D mk2 and its 1080P 40MB bitrate video is quite heavy.

I was thinking about getting i7 D0 (will probably do 4Ghz) with 6GB of ram until i5 news broke out.
For now, if you can wait a few month, I think it's better to wait even if you don't plan to get an i5 system as there'll be great price shift once it comes out.

 

[gar655]

Os X is worth every penny, dollar, ruble, mark, pound etc.... over Vista or it's bastard stepchild "7". At least to me. But if you can live with the POS that is Windows then you can save a bunch of money or spend the same and get a lot more hardware, speed, power.... up to a point.

The duaL CPU Mac Pros are less expensive than similarly configured "server class" towers from the likes of Dell or HP.

After years of Windows (since 3.1) 6 hours with Vista was all it took to push me over the edge and to a Mac.

As for software, the current version of Aperture has "issues". Although I like the DAM of Aperture better, LR is FAR faster and has much a better "development" engine and takes more plugins. But it costs about twice as much.

I have a library of about 26K images and use iPhoto and PSE. I'm also experimenting with ACDSee Pro beta for OS X. Very limited in features at this point but it's pretty fast and stable for an early beta. Looks promising.

 

[akugami]

Originally posted by: gar655
Os X is worth every penny, dollar, ruble, mark, pound etc.... over Vista or it's bastard stepchild "7". At least to me. But if you can live with the POS that is Windows then you can save a bunch of money or spend the same and get a lot more hardware, speed, power.... up to a point.

Vista is really not that bad. It's early issues can be attributed to bad driver support. In that respect, Microsoft should have let it incubated a bit longer so that the drivers would mature. From a usability standpoint, it was not bad. It's pretty much a "prettified" XP.

As for Windows 7, have you even used it? There are some usability quirks and changes but at the same time it's not bad from a usability standpoint. Driver support is certainly much better than when Vista was introduced. Mainly because it uses the same driver model as Vista and shouldn't require more than a relatively minor driver update.

Vista and Win7, while perhaps not the best OS, is most certainly not rubbish. This is coming from someone whose first computer was a Mac running OS6.

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: gar655
Os X is worth every penny, dollar, ruble, mark, pound etc.... over Vista or it's bastard stepchild "7". At least to me. But if you can live with the POS that is Windows then you can save a bunch of money or spend the same and get a lot more hardware, speed, power.... up to a point.

The duaL CPU Mac Pros are less expensive than similarly configured "server class" towers from the likes of Dell or HP.

After years of Windows (since 3.1) 6 hours with Vista was all it took to push me over the edge and to a Mac.

As for software, the current version of Aperture has "issues". Although I like the DAM of Aperture better, LR is FAR faster and has much a better "development" engine and takes more plugins. But it costs about twice as much.

I have a library of about 26K images and use iPhoto and PSE. I'm also experimenting with ACDSee Pro beta for OS X. Very limited in features at this point but it's pretty fast and stable for an early beta. Looks promising.

joy, a disgruntled windows user turned basher. and you don't need a server class tower. hence the reason why apple is just too expensive for what you can get building a windows rig.

The words budget, photography, and mac don't all go together. And yes, LR over Aperture if you do go Mac.. that way, if you come back, your library is all good. I went from Aperture -> LR ... that was painful because I knew I'd have to go to LR for win.. and couldn't just load up aperture (that and I like to have an all inclusive library)

I'm not sure how well LR makes use of cores over raw speed, but I think it might lean on the speed side. And yes, they have a student edition.. check w/ your school, we have it for $100. Don't bother getting PS too unless you find you absolutely need it.

 

[troytime]

Originally posted by: gar655
Os X is worth every penny, dollar, ruble, mark, pound etc.... over Vista or it's bastard stepchild "7". At least to me. But if you can live with the POS that is Windows then you can save a bunch of money or spend the same and get a lot more hardware, speed, power.... up to a point.

The duaL CPU Mac Pros are less expensive than similarly configured "server class" towers from the likes of Dell or HP.

After years of Windows (since 3.1) 6 hours with Vista was all it took to push me over the edge and to a Mac.

As for software, the current version of Aperture has "issues". Although I like the DAM of Aperture better, LR is FAR faster and has much a better "development" engine and takes more plugins. But it costs about twice as much.

I have a library of about 26K images and use iPhoto and PSE. I'm also experimenting with ACDSee Pro beta for OS X. Very limited in features at this point but it's pretty fast and stable for an early beta. Looks promising.

6 hours? let me guess, minimum specs on your e-machine?

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: akugami

Originally posted by: gar655
Os X is worth every penny, dollar, ruble, mark, pound etc.... over Vista or it's bastard stepchild "7". At least to me. But if you can live with the POS that is Windows then you can save a bunch of money or spend the same and get a lot more hardware, speed, power.... up to a point.

Vista is really not that bad. It's early issues can be attributed to bad driver support. In that respect, Microsoft should have let it incubated a bit longer so that the drivers would mature. From a usability standpoint, it was not bad. It's pretty much a "prettified" XP.

As for Windows 7, have you even used it? There are some usability quirks and changes but at the same time it's not bad from a usability standpoint. Driver support is certainly much better than when Vista was introduced. Mainly because it uses the same driver model as Vista and shouldn't require more than a relatively minor driver update.

Vista and Win7, while perhaps not the best OS, is most certainly not rubbish. This is coming from someone whose first computer was a Mac running OS6.

I've been using Win7 as my primary OS for a long time now, and I won't hesitate to recommend it over Vista for a bonafide primary OS for photo work. All of my photo editing programs run on it without a single hitch.

 

[The Stigenator]

I've got a budget of about a 1000. I know its not much but I dont want to spend too much considering the govenator is planning on taking another 5% of my paycheck away.

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: gar655
Os X is worth every penny, dollar, ruble, mark, pound etc.... over Vista or it's bastard stepchild "7". At least to me. But if you can live with the POS that is Windows then you can save a bunch of money or spend the same and get a lot more hardware, speed, power.... up to a point.

The duaL CPU Mac Pros are less expensive than similarly configured "server class" towers from the likes of Dell or HP.

After years of Windows (since 3.1) 6 hours with Vista was all it took to push me over the edge and to a Mac.

As for software, the current version of Aperture has "issues". Although I like the DAM of Aperture better, LR is FAR faster and has much a better "development" engine and takes more plugins. But it costs about twice as much.

I have a library of about 26K images and use iPhoto and PSE. I'm also experimenting with ACDSee Pro beta for OS X. Very limited in features at this point but it's pretty fast and stable for an early beta. Looks promising.

oh yeah! Another un-educated Windows basher! I love people like you. You make it so entertaining.

 

[akugami]

*****/news_displayItem.cfm/166595

The above linked computer deal seems perfect for what you want/need. If you need a faster CPU you can always buy one and plug it in yourself (remember you'll need thermal paste if you do). I still recommend getting a good monitor such as the HP LP2475w Black 24" I mentioned previously as well as look into replacing the slow HD they always include with a WD Caviar Black WD1001FALS.

 

[soydios]

I'm going to avoid the PC/Mac debate. Adobe Lightroom and Photoshop run on both. IIRC, Adobe Lightroom 2 is $199 with student discount, though I got it when it was first released for $99, upgrading from Lightroom 1.

Get Lightroom before you get Photoshop because it's cheaper, it handles massive amounts of images better, and it's basically like Photoshop without the multi-layer capabilities.

As for the hardware, the more processor cores you can give to Lightroom, the faster it will go. When you're batch processing hundreds of images, and each core can work on a different image, it's obvious that performance scales just about linearly. 2GB of RAM is enough.

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: angry hampster

Originally posted by: troytime
get yourself a lower core 2 duo for <$150 and 6 or 8 gb of ram
run windows 7 64bit

photoshop runs so much better on my PC than it does on my much faster (by spec) mac

I can attest to this as well. The paper I shoot for has dual core intel Mac G5s in the newsroom with CS3, running Leopard. My old setup with an identical processor running Win7 and CS4 is worlds faster and more reliable to boot.

What are you attesting to? The paper you shoot for does not have a single dual core intel Mac G5.

And how did you get Windows 7 to run on a PowerPC chip? You are either really confused or had a typo in your second sentence.

 

[gar655]

Originally posted by: troytime




6 hours? let me guess, minimum specs on your e-machine?

Ahhhh no. FYI SA, it was a Dell Xps Core i7 with 6gb in tri channel setup. Aside from the usability issues with Vista, its poor OOB support for even my older Dell monitor, the hosing of my ATI driver after Vista "updated", the UI was slower than my old P4 Xp machine.

I'm sure you can tweak the UI responiveness, but why should I have to. Oh, I know. It's because Vista is locked down and dumbed down for all the fucking retards that don't know any better and buy the cheapest POS computer they can, start browsing the porn sites and infect their computer with add ware and viruses that they then send to all their idiot friends via OE with its built in virus attachment button.

So after Vista not supporting my 2nd monitor in extended desktop in portrait orientation (which my iMac does perfectly BTW) and the hosing of my video driver and knowing Dell support it went back in the box.

 

[gar655]

Originally posted by: foghorn67
[

oh yeah! Another un-educated Windows basher! I love people like you. You make it so entertaining.[/quote]

Yep. Been using Windows since 94. XP was rock solid, responsive and just plain reliable. Vista blows, 7 is still Vista under a polished up shell.

The only uneducated are the ones that fail to see how much superior OS X is to anything Microsoft has ever written.

 

[troytime]

thanks for confirming that you're not even capable of nesting quotes, let alone providing advice towards an operating system.

 

[gar655]

Originally posted by: troytime
thanks for confirming that you're not even capable of nesting quotes, let alone providing advice towards an operating system.

There. Does that make you feel better? Besides, it wasn't a quote from you. So FO!

 

[soydios]

@Troytime and gar655: can you cut it out with the personal attacks? Why does every thread that even remotely has to do with PC vs. Mac turn into a senseless flamewar?

@OP: For software, get Lightroom, followed by Photoshop if you can afford it. For hardware, preferably dual-core laptop or quad-core desktop, with at least 2GB of RAM, though you can obviously get by with a lower-performing machine at the cost of (obviously) lower performance. However you fit that in your budget, running PC or Mac, is up to you.

EDIT: I just reread your original post. Lightroom and Photoshop are separate pieces of software. And Lightroom and Aperture perform the same workflow functions, so don't bother buying both. Lightroom is for workflow and basic editing; Photoshop is for advanced editing with layers.

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: gar655
The only uneducated are the ones that fail to see how much superior OS X is to anything Microsoft has ever written.

Keep going with empty words. I mean, don't back it up with anything technical.