The newest iMacs - suitable for Photoshop work?

[Frank Petronio]

It's obvious that a $6K Tower/LCD/4 gb RAM system is going to be faster than a $2K iMac with 2gb RAM. Just like a new $30K 39mb digital back is going to be faster than your $2K view camera investment. And if I were a client shooting high-end national ads I'd want my photographer to have the fastest gear.

But the point is, you can still do professional work of the highest quality with an iMac and an analog view camera. For a fraction of the price of the top end gear. It will just take you abit longer.

A more realistic question would be should I spend $2K on a new loaded Intel iMac or use the same $2K to buy an older G5 tower with lotsa RAM and fast hard drives? Being that they will be worth approximately the same price.

I would take the iMac hands down. How about you?

[Lee Hamiel]

Long story short - I have an illustration business as well as my photography interests - over the years the Mac's have been the most stable problem free platform ever - I have gone through several PC's in the same amount of time.

May want to consider two computers - one for editing/processing of files/backup etc. & the other as a printing/internet computer or any combination of the above.

End of story - I have spent countless hours dealing with PC issues & virtually none with the Mac's in comparison.

[Henry Ambrose]

I'd sure like to see a 300 MB scan on one of the new iMac screens. That would probably push me over the edge.

I've been several rounds with buying the latest and greatest computer. My first Mac and the Laserwriter was like buying a car. Still got the next one, a IIci - its downstairs somewhere, chock full of RAM - all 32MB that it'd hold. Then came the fully loaded 9500 with 21 inch monitor and 2 fast & wide SCSI drives. Whew.... I'm not sure I can remember exactly how much that was but it makes me cry to start thinking about it. Cutting edge technology will perform a violent suction on your wallet. (Although I did use that 9500 for 10 years - 2 processor upgrades, three power supplies and a motherboard.)

As fast as the new machines are, for "normal" scanning and printing from 4x5 I can be happy with lots less than the very top end machine. In fact I'm not that unhappy with my G4 but its time to look at the next replacement. I am astounded that a 24 inch iMac and fast everything is as cheap as it is. I'd like to be sure the screen is up to the task.

[MJSfoto1956]

I have a lowly (2-yr old) Dell laptop with Photoshop CS2 which I use while traveling. It "only" has 1Gb ram. It works fine with Photoshop (if a bit slow). One key thing I did was buy a couple of external 2.5" 100Gb hard drives to keep my digital data on. Makes it viable.

At home I use my Mac dual G4 tower w/ "only" 2Gb of RAM (but with 1 terabyte of eSATA online storage, RAID 0 scratch disk, and 1 terabyte of offline storage). No problems at all opening/editing/saving 1GB Photoshop files.

If you see a pattern here it is this: IMHO, hard disk space trumps CPU speed and/or RAM. Personally, I think many people make the mistake of biasing "speed" over storage space and redundancy.

One last thing: The fastest desktop computer you can own today is TWO desktops (one dedicated to Photoshop, the other for everything else). Or perhaps to put it another way: the efficiency of two older (i.e. used) G4s will generally outperform -- on a day-to-day basis -- the latest (and more expensive) hotshot Quad boxes.

[Dirk Rösler]

I am mostly committed to the purchase of 24 inch iMac, maxed with RAM as recommended. Still contemplating about the better video card option. Even though I am not a gamer, it is probably a good-to-have for my fully ensured next 4 yrs of Mac life and only needs $125 more.

[Marko]

Personally, I think many people make the mistake of biasing "speed" over storage space and redundancy.

This is a very valid point. Actually, most people make the mistake of not even having enough storage space, much less redundancy! I agree that this is the biggest mistake that could be made, especially with the long-term value data such as photographs.

But it is a separate issue from the performance one. The performance issue usually comes up in budget situations and concerns the scenario that gives the biggest boost for the dollar, not overall. In those cases, RAM trumps MHz or screen size any time.

[medform-norm]

For photography, I prefer either a late model high end CRT (like LaCie or Sony) or a fabulously expensive LCD (eizo). I'm sure this will change over the next couple of years as LCD technology matures, but right now, imac level screens bug me too much for photography.

I can second the choice of an Eizo screen, they are superb and have great angles of view, meaning you can view the image from almost all angles without loosing contrast. We're not so hot on the LaCie, had one, and exchanged it for a Sony within a week. Something to do with a wide app grill or whatever it's called, causing cushioning in the screen that cannot be adjusted as it's a hardware problem.
Also, we work with dual screens, one CRT and one flatscreen, but maybe you won't need that with a 24" screen where you can view two files side by side.
The comment about using two computers, one dedicated to PS, is very sensible. We use this set-up for years and whenever we upgrade one, the older computer takes over the job of 'everything else'. The only problem we run into is that we'd each like to have a computer dedicated to PS, which means desk expansion problem ;-)
I can't tell anything about the iMac screens but know they had could not hold their own compared with the Eizos in the past. Maybe that has changed?
Good luck deliberating - I know how hard it is and how much time it can cost.

[Brian K]

The Mac screens are not that good. They have that very distracting twinkle affect and are not even in tone or color. I ended up getting an Eizo, vastly superior.

Will CS3 address more than 3 gigs of RAM?

[Frank Petronio]

Well if you guys can afford Eizos then what is the point of being on this thread?

[paulr]

A more realistic question would be should I spend $2K on a new loaded Intel iMac or use the same $2K to buy an older G5 tower with lotsa RAM and fast hard drives? Being that they will be worth approximately the same price.

This is how I think about it too.

But I'd probably lean towards the older computer, maybe even older than that. With craigs list you could could probably find an earlier model G5, pack in some ram and good drives, and get a great monitor (which you would keep even if you upgrade the machine) for that price or less.

Then, when CS3 is out, and the we've had a few more generations of intel mac towers, which will likely do your dishes for you and give a mean foot rub, you can upgrade at your leisure.