Need specs for a decent entry-level photo editing rig

[DurocShark]

Even if the workflow is purely digital, decent sized images are 25+megs. Add a couple of adjustment layers, etc, and it multiplies. If the work can be completely done in ram, a slow CPU won't be noticed. Nor will a slow HD.

I work in film, so scan at 2720dpi at 32bit color = 45+mb files. On my Epson printer, I've made a decent amount of $$ selling the prints.

512 is the bare minimum amount of RAM. It's what I'm running, and I often wish for more. A VERY GOOD CRT monitor is a necessity. That's why I have a Trinitron. LCD's that are capable of excellent color correction are very expensive. A good Trinitron or other quality tube based monitor will be invaluable.

A strong vid card is also important. If this is to be a strictly work machine, the G450 dual head will be perfect. I have the ATI for its AIW capabilities.

There's a color matching tool called the "spyder" that is essential to matching prints to display! You'll be much happier with the output if you're able to match things up, and make the results predictable.

 

[pm]

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.

I don't think that I am confused. Maybe.

A lot of RAM helps while doing manipulations of images - especially large ones. I'd say 512MB minimum, and 1GB ideally. Rotate a 100MB image while you have a couple of similarly sized images static in memory, and you'll watch the fastest computer grind to a halt while it swaps out.
A lot of HD space helps if you end up storing some of the images. And by a lot, I meant 60GB+... not 200GB. I guess it depends on whether they will end up storing the images. But if you scan a couple of dozen images at 2000+ DPI or higher, then you rapidly eat up disk space.

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.

I suppose, although I don't think so personally. I assumed that the scanner/printing solution is chosen already. From a computing perspective, I don't see that much more is required than what I described. I could think of plenty of things that would be nice (a dual-head 21" Trinitron display setup like I'm using right now to type this), but you said you wanted entry level. A color matching CRT is useful though, I will agree.

 

[mooojojojo]

well 512 is a minimum these days (for power users anyway) but maybe 1GB deserves mentioning.. but it's not the most important thing in the system - I mean it's a given. also - I don't want to be misunderstood. I do think that more ram is nice. but assuming that the tools / scanner / printer solution is ready.. well then there isn't much to talk about - it's the same fast cpu / more ram / large hdd thread

 

[pm]

Right.

I set up something like this for my mother. She decided to archive all of the historical photos for her family - everything important dating back to the turn of the century so about 800 photos - add captions to them (since most didn't have any) and then reproduce them by printing them out and archiving to CD's. If this isn't something that sounds like entry-level photo editting/processing, then perhaps I am confused. I ended up getting her a basic Dell, and then sticking on a high-end Epson scanner and a Alps 5500 printer. We ended up swapping out the HD twice (40GB became 80GB became 120GB), and I had to upgrade the memory from 512MB to 768MB to speed things up. Hence my advice. The Alps was not quite up to the task... it broke three times, but it was a pretty good choice for the time (about 18 months ago). She didn't want a monitor because she said she wanted a lot of desk space to lay everything out, so I got her a 15" LCD - which my father and I upgraded to a 17" LCD as a Christmas present this last Christmas. Color accuracy is not a huge deal because the majority of the photos looks pretty bad anyway.

mooojojojo, this is just my advice based on a very similar experience - my mother is hardly a power-user and she did (and still is, but she's mostly done) a similar task to what seemed to be asked. If you think I'm way off base, then just ignore my advice.

 

[mooojojojo]

I catch your point, but if you think about it, the quality of your work is not going to depend on the main hardware components. in this case I think that they are a given. a ~2GHz CPU, 512MB-1GB of ram and ~100GB of storage is pretty much standard in this case and is understood from the beginning I hope.

anyway - maybe Matt should've stated more specifically what he's interested in. the core system or the tools for it or maybe some general advice of which he already got plenty

 

[alkemyst]

if you really wanted help you should have mentioned your 'friend' is a couple of asian twins

In all seriousness if truely photo 'editing' 1.5GHz-3.0GHz and if building from scratch do the 2.4+ route.

100GB of HD space

1GB or more of ram....this is much cheaper is you have more than 2 dimms slots.

Macintosh is definitely an option for the clueless...however the PC market still is bang for buck (much like the asian twins).

good luck.

 

[Budmantom]

asian twins ... I'm lost ...

 

[AthlonXP]

Get her a mac and be done with it.

 

[mattgyver]

Wow--thanks again guys. This has been way more discussion than I anticipated. . .but then again I did ask the AT crowd! I haven't been able to check on this thread as much as I'd like, but thanks for keeping it alive. This has given me tons of info to consider, and I think I learned a little bit in the process! Thanks again!