Need specs for a decent entry-level photo editing rig

[mattgyver]

I'm helping a friend decide on specs for a photo editing rig for her small photography business. She isn't very computer-savvy, hence my "help". But I don't know a lot about system requirements about such a rig. She wants to spend ~$1500 including software. Like I said, an entry level rig. Thanks!

 

[DWW]

I'm helping a friend decide on specs for a photo editing rig for her small photography business. She isn't very computer-savvy, hence my "help". But I don't know a lot about system requirements about such a rig. She wants to spend ~$1500 including software. Like I said, an entry level rig. Thanks!

There is only one solution for someone interested in photo editing who isn't very computer savvy and wants an "entry rig"-- an Apple (lower end iMac sounds perfect or perhaps an eMac).

I have a 17" iMac that I purchased three months ago and it is great for those who don't have a -clue- at all about computers. Its so intuitive and stuff like.... plugging in your digicam and all the appropriate software comes up etc. "IT JUST WORKS OK" like they say My brother in law and parents find it so easy to use and they don't use computers often.

 

[mattgyver]

Thanks DWW--I hadn't thought about the Macs. I know she's had some experience on Macs before too. She's been considering PCs, but I'll let her know about the Mac option.

 

[DWW]

Thing is... you don't NEED experience with a Mac Its just so intuitive and simple minded but it still gives me my shell and comes with all the tools I need -- man pages, vi, gcc etc

 

[Dug]

If your friend is serious about photo editing and will be using Photoshop, I highly recommend a pc over a Mac.
Especially with the price point you are at. You can basically get a system that is twice is fast as a Mac for the same price.

There isn't much about running a pc that will be different than a mac. You click on the program you want to launch and that's it. Photoshop is Photoshop either way.

Just get the fastest cpu you can get for the money you want to spend and the most ram. Don't get hung up on video cards as long as it can display the resolution and color depth you need.

 

[thorin]

You can basically get a system that is twice is fast as a Mac for the same price.

Ya it'll be twice as fast on paper (ie: twice the MHz rating). But not IRL.

Thorin

 

[Bleep]

Whatever machine you get it will work fine as long as it is over a gig and a lot of memory, at least 512 for a PC. Dont forget that all the machine in the world is only as good as the printer.
Photoshop is really good but for good work it is a tough learn.
I use I Photo Plus, it is user friendly, will do anything that needs to be done to the photo and is inexpensive.
A good deal on a pretty good printer

HERE

Bleep

 

[thorin]

Yup bleep makes some good points. If you're going to do any 'real' photo editing/touch-up you'll want as much RAM as you can afford. And if you're going to do it to make money get a good printer to reproduce the photos when they're edited/touched-up. As for software, if you don't want to pay for Photoshop (or 'acquire' it) then get WinGIMP it has 90% of the functionality of Photoshop and it's FREE , though of course just like any good software it takes some getting used to.

Thorin

Edit:
GIMP PhotoEditing Tutorial(s)
Other GIMP Tutorials (4 Pages)

 

[mattgyver]

Thanks for all the help guys! This gives me a lot to think about and a good starting point. I'll need to remind her that good phot quality printer will be fairly expensive also.

 

[mooojojojo]

ok, things that were not mentioned and that should be considered regardless of whether she chooses PC or Mac: first- a graphics tablet. Intuos2 8x6. this will be the most important part if the work involves a lot of photo retouching. second - scanner - I doubt that all the photo work will be digital so she might need a good scanner (probably with a transparency adapter or better yet a slide scanner which I think are kinda pricey).

if you go with a PC you will get a better value for your money I think... I used to really like macs until I upgraded my PC and now I wouldn't change it for one . in the PC you can also choose the monitor. 17" can be really tight for photoshop work and I doubt that the apple cinema displays are within the $1500 limit. I'd get a 19" CRT.. perferably trinitron. from there on - an athlon or P4 and at least 512DDR. as for the videocard a radeon9000pro should be enough, more wouldn't hurt but not sure if the price difference is justified if she's not going to play games. and don't forget the optical mouse .

 

[DurocShark]

Let me tell you about my photo editing rig:

Athlon XP 2000+ (stock speeds)
512 ECC PC2100 (Needs to be doubled soon)
MIS K7T266 (Not the "A" version, )
WD 80gig 8mb
ATI All In Wonder 8500DV
Adaptec 2190 (I think?) SCSI card
17" Trinitron monitor (Dell branded)

Acer ScanWit 2720s Film Scanner
Mustek USB flatbed. (POS)

All of this can be built for under your $1500.

 

[Budmantom]

If I were her here is what I would buy: Dell 4600 (see hot deals forum) $550

P4 @2.8ghz / 60 gb hd (7200rpm)
GFMX 64mb / windows xp


take the 256mb and throw it in the trash buy 512mb x 2 for $100 (newegg)
buy an epson 785exp (or something close) $150
scanner $100

So for $800 you have one STOUT setup for photo-editing and the printer is remarkable.

 

[Lonyo]

I would suggest a Matrox graphics card if you can find one, since they are generally viewed as having the best 2D quality of any card out there.

RAM will be the most important thing really, and if you can manage to squeeze one in, you could look at 21" monitors, the bigger the better.

 

[mooojojojo]

how exactly will ram be the most important thing? it's not like this is a benchmark.. there are really more important things in photo editing..

 

[camswinton]

I think he's talking about the QUANTITY of RAM. If you're editing large files, you're going to need a lot of RAM. Since this will be for a photography business, I wouldn't go with less than 512MB of RAM. My brother is a professional photographer and complains that 1.5GB of RAM isn't enough... it depends on how big your images are.

 

[Bleep]

how exactly will ram be the most important thing? it's not like this is a benchmark.. there are really more important things in photo editing

Well you will find that when you do changes to the photo you want it to render out of the RAM and not the HD. using a swap on the HD is not very fast and when you make changes you want to preview the changes right away and not sit and watch the pix wipe itself onto the screen for a couple of minutes.

Bleep

 

[thorin]

Originally posted by: mooojojojo
how exactly will ram be the most important thing? it's not like this is a benchmark.. there are really more important things in photo editing..

Like?

IMHO RAM is the most important because:
1) You're going to work with 'giant' high res images and likely have more then one open at a time, you don't wanna be swapping to your HD all the time.
2) You'll likely have more then one application open at a time (if you're serious about this).
3) WinXP (assumption) is a friggin huge resource hog to start with. Further CPU power doesn't matter unless you're applying all kinds of funky transforms and sh!t.

What's the point in spending (ie $320 (CDN) on a Barton 2800 when I can get a Barton 2500 for $165 (half the price) just so that I can perform some transform/filter 2 seconds faster when I could spend the extra ~$150 on more memory or a gfx tablet or scanner, etc.... that will actually be useful.

Thorin

 

[mooojojojo]

I'm perfectly aware of the impact of the ram amount on performance. but it's not the most important thing by a mile. for an artist there are really other things to be taken into account. although if the person just performs non-artistic, repetitive tasks - maybe then...

my point - more power doesn't equal more skills or talent.

and files that would require more than 1G of ram perhaps should be called print and not photo .

 

[mooojojojo]

Originally posted by: thorin

Originally posted by: mooojojojo
how exactly will ram be the most important thing? it's not like this is a benchmark.. there are really more important things in photo editing..

Like?

IMHO RAM is the most important because:
1) You're going to work with 'giant' high res images and likely have more then one open at a time, you don't wanna be swapping to your HD all the time.
2) You'll likely have more then one application open at a time (if you're serious about this).
3) WinXP (assumption) is a friggin huge resource hog to start with. Further CPU power doesn't matter unless you're applying all kinds of funky transforms and sh!t.

What's the point in spending (ie $320 (CDN) on a Barton 2800 when I can get a Barton 2500 for $165 (half the price) just so that I can perform some transform/filter 2 seconds faster when I could spend the extra ~$150 on more memory or a gfx tablet or scanner, etc.... that will actually be useful.

Thorin

you almost got my point. I meant exatcly the same - that rough power - CPU and RAM can only do so much. I'd much rather use a pc with 512DDR with an intuos, than a PC with 3G and no tablet. but you're wrong that the RAM is the most important .

tablet, scanner, printer (if printing is required) a nice monitor with color management... I don't know much about scanners but I guess that if the work is not exclusively digital, an expensive quality scanner will help really much.

 

[thorin]

Originally posted by: mooojojojo

Originally posted by: thorin

Originally posted by: mooojojojo
how exactly will ram be the most important thing? it's not like this is a benchmark.. there are really more important things in photo editing..

Like?

IMHO RAM is the most important because:
1) You're going to work with 'giant' high res images and likely have more then one open at a time, you don't wanna be swapping to your HD all the time.
2) You'll likely have more then one application open at a time (if you're serious about this).
3) WinXP (assumption) is a friggin huge resource hog to start with. Further CPU power doesn't matter unless you're applying all kinds of funky transforms and sh!t.

What's the point in spending (ie $320 (CDN) on a Barton 2800 when I can get a Barton 2500 for $165 (half the price) just so that I can perform some transform/filter 2 seconds faster when I could spend the extra ~$150 on more memory or a gfx tablet or scanner, etc.... that will actually be useful.

Thorin

you almost got my point. I meant exatcly the same - that rough power - CPU and RAM can only do so much. I'd much rather use a pc with 512DDR with an intuos, than a PC with 3G and no tablet. but you're wrong that the RAM is the most important .

tablet, scanner, printer (if printing is required) a nice monitor with color management... I don't know much about scanners but I guess that if the work is not exclusively digital, an expensive quality scanner will help really much.

Ok I can kinda agree with that. They should definatley get the tools to do the job properly/easily, and I can definately agree that some amount of RAM can be too much, I was just trying to reinforce the fact that it's shouldn't be skimped on because having too little RAM and doing this type of work can results in instability and wasted time/effort.

Thorin

 

[mooojojojo]

Ok I can kinda agree with that. They should definatley get the tools to do the job properly/easily, and I can definately agree that some amount of RAM can be too much, I was just trying to reinforce the fact that it's shouldn't be skimped on because having too little RAM and doing this type of work can results in instability and wasted time/effort.

Thorin

yes.. you're right that memory and the core hardware shouldn't be skimped on either. dunno about stability, but slow performace due to insufficient memory can be _really_ frustrating .

speaking of losing time and effort - throw in a small UPS in there too

 

[Budmantom]

I still like my idea

 

[pm]

I don't think you need much of anything special with a photo-editting rig beyond a fair amount of RAM and a large HD and a decent sized screen (19")

I'd personally recommend the special "du jour" over at Dell and then upsize the RAM and the HD size and the monitor.

 

[mooojojojo]

budmantom - actually yours is a pretty good idea! I like it too .

pm - you must be confusing photo editing with photo-storing-cropping-resizing-levels-saving. what if you want to make a mask for an adjustment layer (or any kind of mask) in a more natural way.. like brushing on the image? or what if you get a client with a portfolio of slides or prints, who wants them digitized (if that's a word). maybe you will need accurate color matching scanner - monitor - printer. I don't see how much ram and a big HDD will help you there. the idea of upsizing a dell is cool, but there is much more to a photo editing workstation than RAM, HDD and a 19" monitor.

now I really don't know what's understood in 'small photography business' maybe there's no need for color matching (which I don't know much about anyway ), or maybe it will be all digital and there will be no need for a scanner. maybe even printing won't be involved, but I think that the tablet is a sure bet in increasing productivity.. more than any amounts of ram.

 

[Dug]

Yes, the tablet will save more time than any other piece of equipment.