Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: computer specifications

  1. #1

    computer specifications

    I am befuzzled with all the computer replies. I am currently struggling along with 256 meg of RAM, 900 mz processor, 32 meg video card, and was soliciting bids for 2.4 gz pentium 4 processor, 1 gig RAM, two hard drives, and 128 meg video card. I use PS 7, Edit Lab 4.0 and Reindeer Graphics OPTIX plues Silverfast 6.0 ai and a few others. ///Bids were $1300 and $1600, all new, from Dell and Campaq.

    From what I read in the last few days, Mac G5 is a better choice, but I looked up the prices and was not amused- $3500? I have long wanted to go to mac, but holy Toledo, $3500? surely there is a mac that is more in line with the $1500 range?

    Herb Cunningham

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    9,487

    computer specifications

    You're comparing apples to oranges. The $3500 dual G5 Mac is the top of the line, and a PC with similar performance and specs would cost even more - $4500 or so. If you check out the Apple website or any of the resellers like smalldog.com you will find a range of new and refurbished G5s in the $1500 range, and even the bargain basement G5 would outperform the 2.4 ghz P4 when using Photoshop. Buy the RAM and second hard drive from a reseller, not from Apple to save money. Also remember that the Apple is better built than either a Dell or Compaq (compare them in person.)

    That said, you're looking at about $2000 to get a nice G5 system going with a gig of RAM, good video card and second HD. It's worth it.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Massachusetts USA
    Posts
    8,476

    computer specifications

    One need not spend $ 3500. Beware of marketing hype.

    The G5 has dual 64-bit processors, and is apparently optimized for graphics-intensive processing. 64-bit processors have not fully emerged in the Windows world, but one can easily get dual 32-bit processor machines, or machines with N processors. Multi-CPU machines been readily available for years. The same is true in the Unix/Linux world: it's nothing new.

    It remains to be seen if Photoshop will run N times faster, by having N more processors. Similarly, until Photoshop is re-written to take advantage of 64-bit processors, it remains to be seen that it runs 2x faster on a 64-bit machine than on a 32-bit machine. As far as I recall, Photoshop 7 is mostly 8-bit code, and the newer version, Photoshop CS, is just now introducing 16-bit operations.

    The Windows systems you have described should do fine, unless you plan to spend all day using Photoshop. Same with the lower-end Macs. Another 1 GB of RAM will improve performance a lot, and will cost around $ 200. A 2.4 gHz machine is fast enough to do operations on a large file in reasonable time - but Photoshop is very demanding on RAM, so when you get a machine, make sure that it allows you to add RAM in the future to more than 1GB.

    Don't overlook the cost of tools to profile your paper/ink and to calibrate your monitor. Without a calibrated system, all the processors in the world will still only give you junk, and waste your time and effort making endless trial-and-error prints. With a calibrated system, you do all the corrections on the screen, and then press the button to print.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    43

    computer specifications

    80286 with 1 meg RAM and a 40 meg hard drive. Hook that baby up with DOS 3.1 and your screamin'. Splurge and get the version with two floppy drives and a 13" green text monitor.

    Forget that Windows thingy. It's merely a fad.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    The "Live Free or Die" state
    Posts
    1,004

    computer specifications

    Gene, I think I bought that system for about $2000 - seems like yesterday.

  6. #6

    computer specifications

    Based upon the fact that computers depreciate faster than a rock droppin to the bottom of a lake, have you considered outsourcing some of your digital requirements. Many times you can take a digital photography course for a song at your local community college that will not only educate you on the software, you can get much of your negs scanned and work with knowledgable folks to get it fine tuned. I went this similar thing a while back when I needed some woodworking and did not have the space or the money for the tools. Cost me a total of $50 as I was going to have to buy the wood either way. Same your money for film, film holders and optics.

    Just my $0.02.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    St. Simons Island, Georgia
    Posts
    880

    computer specifications

    We use two G5s at work for video editing. They work great and save us a lot of time, but we are talking about typical file sizes of 4-9 gigs. I use a 2gig Pentium 4 PC with Photoshop - file sizes 300-400 meg or so, and it works great - very fast. I just don't think that a photographer working with a single image needs a dual processor G5 - not at $3500. If you want a Mac, you might check into a single processor, or look around for a used G4 from someone like us who upgraded. Either of those should get you close to the cost of a PC.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    4,589

    computer specifications

    The MAC platform may be better for graphic designers, but I bought an eMac and PS7 last April just to work on images, and find that my 3 year old PC with Windows XP and PS Elements is a far more logical way to handle my photographs. MAC's iPHOTO2 seems to be designed with engineers in mind, not photographers.
    Wilhelm (Sarasota)

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Mar 1998
    Posts
    1,972

    computer specifications

    Bill, you are comparing lemons and persimmons. Apple's iPhoto program is not a subsitute for Adobe Photoshop Elements (any version) or a full version of Adobe Photoshop.

    I know several photographers who use the $800.00 eMac very happily, but they aren't processing lots of images at a time.

    Herb,

    The top of the line Apple G5 is way topo much overkill for still photography aplications. The low end G5 will work fine. To be efficient you'll cwant at least 2Gb RAm (but you can get by with 1Gb or 1.5Gb. using a single processor G4 or G% will also save money on RAM costs as you must have equal amounts of RAM for aeach processor in a multi processor machine. You will also want a second internal hard drive. make at least two partions on that drive and dedicate one ofthe partitions to just be your proimary scratch disk for Photoshop. This keeps the computer from going back and forth to the same HD for both the open image and Photoshop commands. I also strongly recommend you get a monitor profining and calibration kit. The best seems to be the Gretag-Macbeth EyeOne Display (US $250) but the Colorvision OptiCAL or Monaco systems work well as well.

    If you want to go with an Apple, either look at an iMac, and eMac, or go to http://www.smalldog.com and look for a G4.

  10. #10
    Founder QT Luong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1997
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    2,337

    computer specifications

    The paradox here is that while a G4 (or similarly performing PC) is probably
    enough for most LF photographers, a 35mm photographer might need all the power
    he can get from a top G5 and even more.
    The key here is whether you work on one image at a
    time or are in a production environment where you process batches of work
    (for example my stock photo website
    has more than 7000 images).

Similar Threads

  1. Horseman LS specifications
    By Tom Davis in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2-May-2006, 18:08
  2. Computer Monitor
    By Ed Candland in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 27-Jun-2005, 14:17
  3. Nikon LF lens specifications available online?
    By Mark Sampson in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 1-Dec-2004, 11:05
  4. Computer monitor calibration?
    By Jon Paul in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-Apr-2002, 12:40
  5. Specifications for Fujinon-L 300mm f5.6
    By Bob Phagan in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 15-Jun-1998, 14:35

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •