Apple, PC, notebook, iMac .. ?

[Matus Kalisky]

The same question all the time - I know. But I would like to find out a solution that would fit my needs and budget.

I would like to be able to process files up to 1GB (4x5 scanned with2000 dpi in 16 bit is cca 400 MB and plus some adjustements ... ~ 1GB) in PS CS3, although files of 200 - 500 MB will be more common. I was considering wheter to simply to get a PC and decent 20 or 24 inch wide screen or jsut to get a 24 Inch iMac, - or even - a bit crazy solution - a small laptop (MacBook presumably) and external screen. Sure - the last solution would cost more (the sceen would have to wait a bit) but would allow me to work with PS when I am out of home.

I would prefere probably the iMac (I hate a bit those standard PC with lot of cables around), but I do not know how much it is suitbale for such a work. How does the Aplle screen performs with photo applications?

Is the laptop idea entirely crazy?

Bottomline question - how much memory should do the trick? I know one has never enough but how much would work reasonably? I have now 756MB in older PC and - well - once the file goes above 200 - 300 MB the life slows down a bit too much.

[Ken Lee]

Speaking of cables, because all Macs come with built-in Blue Tooth, you can get a wireless mouse and keyboard for the iMac, and you will have only a power cord to trouble over.

If you add an external monitor, you get a huge work area, and there is native support for separate monitor calibration.

These things have been designed by design professionals, for design professionals.

[JavaDuke]

I chose iMac. The screen is big, bright and crystal clear. The calibration process was very easy, and colors match well with my output. I have an old scsi scanner and I was able to connect it to iMac via the Ratoc FR1SX SCSI-to-Firewire converter. Vuescan immediately recognized my scanner and the scans were very good. Well, and, of course, Mac is better than Windows ;)))
I bought my system with 1gb of memory and upgraded to 4gb for about ~$100. Works just fine, I never had any issues with it.
http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Other%20World%20Computing/53IM2DDR4GBK/

[butterflydream]

I also chose iMac between iMac and MacPro and have no regret. I already have MacBook Pro, but I use only iMac for photo works. The color space / video ram of laptop is limited. Just put max RAM to iMac.

[Frank Petronio]

I use a MacBook Pro w 4 gb of RAM. A desktop system of the same price would be faster for several reasons, but I believe that I am more productive with a laptop because I can use it more situations -- such as when watching television and doing simple tasks.

Like this forum ;-)

[Walter Calahan]

Get the new iMac 24", and a couple of external big hard drives for storage.

Other World Computing is a great source for memory and drives.

http://www.otherworldcomputing.com/

[Marko]

I have an iMac and a MacBook (laptop) and they both work fine for me, but a laptop is often a stretch. If you can afford only one computer, then get an iMac and max it out on RAM. A 24" iMac, of course, the comfort factor is larger than the price difference, IMO. And get two external firewire disks for backup. Laptops are nice and handy, but they are small, they tend to overheat and the built-in keyboard and mousepad are definitely not good for serious work. They do calibrate, but aren't as good as the screens built into the iMacs. Again, IMO.

[Ed Richards]

Are you folks who are advocating laptops really editing 1 gig files? At 1 gig and 4 gigs ram, PS is going to start swapping to the drive, and that has to be slow on a laptop.

[Richard Wall]

I think Mr. Richards is right. I have a Mac Book Pro with 2GB of RAM and I would think twice about using it to edit a 1GB file in Photoshop. PS is a resource hog, it will try to use two or three times that amount of RAM as cache. If you don't have that amount of RAM in your computer, then PS will start using disk cache and things really start to slow down.
I like the MBP option. I use my laptop to edit files on the go, and for working with Final Cut Pro on the go. I have a Firewire 800 drive that I use as an editing drive and can move between my desktop machine and my mobile machine easily, but when the files get really large, there is no substitute for a fast desktop with lots of RAM and a fast hard drive.
So, what you really have to ask yourself is would mobile computing be a significant benefit or is shear computing power more important. How often will you be editing really large files?
Good Luck with your search.

r.

[Kirk Gittings]

I use a 3GB, 2.33GZ, MacBook Pro primarily for shooting tethered on location for clients. It is a great piece of equipment for that, but IMO it does not calibrate (EYE1/Graytag) nearly as accurately as my office PC/Lacie, so I am wary of doing any final editing on it. Also for 1GB files it is a bit slower than my PC. The newer 4GB ones are not enough of a bump to upgrade, but maybe the 64 bit PS CS4 in the fall will require me to upgrade both my computers?

[Frank Petronio]

1. Why even bother to calibrate a laptop?

2. Unless you're Jeff Wall or somebody rich and famous making giant prints for expensive galleries, why does anyone need 400 mb files of anything?

[Ed Richards]

Frank,

An 1800 DPI scan of 4x5 black and white gets you to 90 megs, before you do anything. Add some layers, and a dup background for sharpening, and you are at 160-180 megs. Move to color and you are at triple that. Get a decent drum scan at 2800 DPI in color as a reference scan, and that is nearly one gig before you do anything.

[jpkirk]

Yup, big prints. I like big prints. I get about 2500dpi scans, run about 300MB at 8bit, 600mb at 16bit, add some layers and.. well.. 1gig comes quickly.

jim

[Donald Miller]

I just built a new machine. dual quad processors, 12 GB of ECC ram (upgradeable to 32 GB), dual esata 500 GB drives in a mirrored raid configuration, 1.5 terrabytes of external storage and ATI 880 graphics card running on 64 bit Vista Ultimate.

My previous 2GB of ram with a single processor on XP was just not cutting it when I processed large files.

[Kirk Gittings]

[QUOTE=Frank Petronio;348936]1. Why even bother to calibrate a laptop?

I have very picky clients that are on site. They used to accept any old crap on a Polaroid and accept my "oh don't worry about it, its only a Polaroid, the film will look great", but with files, a file is the file. Or so they think......they have gotten much pickier.

The one time I shot for Dwell they wanted the laptop image to have that "a little off Dwell look" (the "someone didn't quite get the dynamic range just right in the CMYK conversion look"), but I didn't know how to do it.

[Matus Kalisky]

Thanks for all you replies and opinions. It seems that iMac could be a reasonable solution. I guess I will have to make it with max 4 GB of RAM as the machines that can accept more are beyond the budget. I just hope that if I get a 24" iMac with 4 GB of RAM in half a year, than a CS4 will not come out a few months later and will need 8 GB to run fluently ... :(

[Marko]

Matus,

I bought my 20" iMac more than two years ago - it was the first Intel Mac to come out - and I had the same thought about Photoshop CS3. Well, two OS X versions and one-and-a-half Photoshop version (CS3 Extended) later, it is running quite fine, no problems whatsoever. And this is a 2 MB max. model. It is also running Flash, Illustrator and the rest of the CS3 suite equally well. I plan to run it for at least another year, more likely two before upgrading and even when I do, it will still have work to do for a few more years. Things like web browsing, email and such.

The nicest thing about Macs, aside from their design and stability, is that they can run forever. Unlike Windows boxes, they seem to become faster and more stable with each new OS upgrade.

No matter which computer you buy, you'll always need to upgrade it, sooner or later. So, don't worry, go ahead and buy the computer you need now and worry about upgrades later, when their time comes.

[Ken Lee]

Speaking of slavery to upgrades, does anyone know what is in the pipeline for Photoshop ? I would be very happy to not upgrade for a few releases.

I presume they are working on better ways to ease the strain of digital shooters who need to perform non-destructive bulk color corrections, upon millions of... snapshots. :rolleyes:

[kipdent]

Another thought---I just tested a 400 MB scan in PS3 on the newest 3.06 GHz 24-inch iMac and the 8-core 2.8GHz Mac Pro desktop. I guess this is no surprise, but the Mac Pro desktop BLEW AWAY the iMac on every function in PS I could think of throwing at it. It was maddening since I wanted a less expensive "solution," but now I realize I really want the Mac Pro desktop. Three times faster on most processes was just too impressive for me.

[Matus Kalisky]

Another thought---I just tested a 400 MB scan in PS3 on the newest 3.06 GHz 24-inch iMac and the 8-core 2.8GHz Mac Pro desktop. I guess this is no surprise, but the Mac Pro desktop BLEW AWAY the iMac on every function in PS I could think of throwing at it.

and it should, right? It is also quite a bit more expensive. I am not a pro and I am also looking for a mashine that does not take too much place but still allows for a reasonable monitor callibration. And I keep mentioning a used high end flatbed scanner (Cezanne, Eversmart ...) in from of my girlfriend that will also be some investment ...