Computer for Photo Processing

[Tri Danimal]

Hey All,

I am going to be getting a new computer shortly, not too sure how soon just yet though. Would you guys, and gals, suggest going to a Mac or a PC platform? I have heard the Macs are better for photo and video processing but the PCs are better for well everythign else. Lets hear some opinions. Thanks.

[kris]

Dear Daniel,

if we consider the Operating System and software Mac are good for everything, not only for video/photo editing. And have the advantage over PC of being attacked by less viruses. I am a Mac user, but I have used several different computers including PC with Win. I will definitely vote for a Mac. I do not know what is your skill with computers, but Mac are more friendly and easy to use. Mac are "plug and play", while PC are "plug and play around". This does not means they are bad computers, only you can be rather frustrated with them. All average users I know I convinced to switch from PC to Mac now they will not move back again.

Hardware is more difficult to say on a general ground because also among PCs there are quite large differences. Roughly speaking we can say that Macs have in general a better hardware than PCs of comparable price, but this is not a rule since it depends on the configuration.

Cheers
Andrea

[Manfred M]

Hey All,

I am going to be getting a new computer shortly, not too sure how soon just yet though. Would you guys, and gals, suggest going to a Mac or a PC platform? I have heard the Macs are better for photo and video processing but the PCs are better for well everythign else. Lets hear some opinions. Thanks.

I know people say that, but as a person that uses both Macs and PCs for both photo and video work I will have to disagree with that statement; with a couple of caveats.

1. If you use Apple Aperture or Final Cut Pro, then the Mac is the only way to go. If you use current Adobe software (Photoshop or Premiere Pro), you can go either Mac or PC.

2. Macs ship with excellent monitors with excellent colour rendering. If buying a PC, you have to make sure that you do get a high end monitor to match.

3. Mac has partnered with AMD and by default supply Radeon video cards. If you are planning to run Premiere Pro or After Effects and use GPU acceleration you have to use specific nVidia graphics cards (using Cuda) that are not available on the Apple platform. This significantly improves rendering time. There is no way I would even consider an Apple computer because of the huge performance hit.

This is not a problem with Photoshop as both AMD and nVidia cards work equally well. Both PCs and Macs support Open GL.

4. If you are looking at a non-standard configuration with add-in boards and some plug-ins; in general PCs are much more stable. Apple has traditionally used a "closed garden" approach and limited third-party hardware and software support. PC's open platform has had to deal with the issue from the beginning; which gave the reputation on being less stable that Apple. It is unfortunate that history sticks, because I have not seen any stability issues starting with XP. I have seen a number of instances with Macs have been quite unstable and I have given up even trying to run some plug-ins on a Mac.

5. Cost - Apple products are a premium product, so you can certainly get an equivilent PC version for a lot less money.

6. Learning curve - there is an advantage of sticking with the operating system that you already know. If you are an iOS user, you will have to learn the Windows enviroment if you switch platforms. The same is true for Windows users switching to a Mac. Both platforms are really equally easy to use, regardless of what fanboys on either side say.

[ggt]

I'm an apple disciple. Had to many problems with PC's. Bit the bullet and forked over the money for a macbook and have never been happier.

[herbert]

1. Get a computer that runs the software you want to use
2. Stick to your budget

Most computers running either Windows, OS X or Linux will function well for 90% of computing tasks. Modern operating systems are all very good (including Linux). It is the 10% of tasks you have to worry about. If your software of choice works better on a certain machine then your decision would be to buy that type of machine (or change software). If you have no software choices then I would say a Windows machine would be cheaper than a Mac.

For example because I use Adobe software I cannot use Linux. So that leaves Mac OS X and Windows. I chose a PC because I built it from components and you get a lot of performance for your money. An equivalent Mac would be at least twice the price. If you are not building the machine then the costs are closer but a PC would still be cheaper.

Lots of people will tell you that one is better than the other. There are a lot of evangelists around. If you are not sure about which of the latest operating systems feels best then go to a computer store and try them out. You will learn a lot in 15 minutes trying them out. You'll probably find that one is unfamiliar and so the choice will be made.

Alex

[Polar01]

Suggest that you check the next forum post processing as there is a similar question and answer that maybe of some help, "Building a desktop for image Processing" that is the heading I believe.

Cheers:

Allan

[Andrew1]

I have two friends and one son who love their Mac equipment. All had previously used a PC, found it lacking and went to Mac. The thing is, they didn't have much faith in the abilities of their old used $400 PC and kicked out $2000 for their Mac's. Not a valid comparison. Make sure you are comparing systems of equal capabilities when you shop. As Manfred eludes to, it would be a good to have in mind some idea of your present requirements as well as the perceived future use for the system. You need to do a bit of homework and understand at least a bit of what you need. Graphics cards is a good start as you could be paying for processing power you don't need. Just as an FYI I'm not overly computer literate and have never bought a PC from a big-box store. I've bought three from small shops where I could discuss what I needed and they built the PC's for me from the ground up. (including using parts from the earlier one) They were honest guys with lots of patience (multiple visits) that suggested the best setup I needed at the time. My budget allowed me to add a few upgrades which we discussed ahead of time to give me the best performance for the $$$. If you try this, not all the little shops are created equal. If you have a friend that understands the jargon take them along to protect you from the salesperson.

[ggt]

I agree with Andrew1, if you know people you can trust to build a PC for you, you'll probably have less problems with non-apple software. My computer guru friend moved out-of-state and I don't have the temperment for computer repair issues. As a result, I love my apple. Photoshop is a lot for my little macbook to handle. the Apple people say there is no problem, but I know it works better if I have no other programs running at the same time I have Photoshop running. I should have gotten the more expensive (quad-processor) probably . . .

[darkslide]

... in general PCs are much more stable

I'm sorry, while a whole lot of what you say is perfectly reasonable (and I agree whole heartedly) this statement simply isn't true - for me.

From personal experience using Photoshop and Premiere Pro on both platforms, I have not experienced any stability problems, but then again, I'm not in a professional environment either. The only 'problems' I have encountered (as did pretty much everyone who migrated to it) were with the initial versions of Lightroom 4.0 - again, on both platforms.

I prefer Mac simply because it seems more intuitive to me - the build, design and screen quality are added bonuses - but they don't come cheap

[Manfred M]

I'm sorry, while a whole lot of what you say is perfectly reasonable (and I agree whole heartedly) this statement simply isn't true - for me.

Ian - I am only relating my own experience. Remember, I am not speaking of plain out of the box Mac, I am speaking of equipment that is custom configured for pro applications.

There is no way I should have to restart a desktop Mac three times over a day of editing using Final Cut Pro 7. It has happened to me more than once. The machines had an add-iin board driving an external Marshal monitor (I can't remember the brand off-hand).

Not getting the industry standard Colorista II running on an iMac Pro is not a good sign either; especially with one of the Red Giant programmers (the company that makes Colorista II) in the room with me trying to figure out what was going on.

As I have said before I am platform agnostic; a tool is a tool. I stick by my original statement; Macs seem less stable when they are running custom hardware and software than PCs are.

[Clactonian]

I run both but use the Mac as my day to day machine.
In my experience it is ram or should I say lack of it that causes so many instability issues, particularly with power hungry apps or too many apps open.
Ram is so cheap (comparatively) that I would recommend you install as much as you can afford or your that your machine will take.

[FrankMi]

Hi Daniel, in many respects this is like comparing Canon and Nikon. Both will get the job done. I've provided many hours of professional technical support for both platforms. Each has their benefits and drawbacks. Each has their lovers and haters. I can happily use either but as I can only afford to invest in one platform I have settled on the PC, but then I use my machine extensively for far more than just photography.

If you can, try getting and opportunity to use each and see what you like. Look beyond the specific applications that tend to run very similar on both platforms and get a feel for the total experience for things like file handling, backups, recovery, application availability, ergonomics, and cost.

Based on you current vision of the two platforms, if all you intend to do is image processing then you will likely prefer the MAC.

In a way, I view the PC as a kind of Left Brain experience (appealing more to Business minded individuals) and the MAC as a kind of Right Brain experience (appealing more to Artistic minded individuals). This statement is a personal view and is NOT intended to start a meaningless MAC/PC war over the differences in the two.

Hope this helps!

[cajy1]

As much as I would like to purchase a MAC I must have a platform for Quickbooks as well and it doesn't run on a MAC so I'm stuck. My question is which non-MAC laptop is the best for my photo work? I'm guessing I will need to buy a separate high-def monitor. I have been looking at Lenova brand from past experience. Any feedback? Here is a sample of my work in low resolution. Thanks for any help...

[Manfred M]

As much as I would like to purchase a MAC I must have a platform for Quickbooks as well and it doesn't run on a MAC so I'm stuck. My question is which non-MAC laptop is the best for my photo work? I'm guessing I will need to buy a separate high-def monitor. I have been looking at Lenova brand from past experience. Any feedback? Here is a sample of my work in low resolution. Thanks for any help...

If you are a PC user and are planning to use Adobe software for your work, there really is no advantage to switching to a Mac; Photoshop, Camera Raw, etc. are virtually identical on both platforms.

Lenovo continues to have a very good reputation, as does Toshiba and ASUS. HP and Dell have been getting bad press related to quality issues (and I can attest to that, my wife's brand new HP died when it was one day old; she bought it back in December). Some of the other brands are good as well, but don't have a huge market share. Any laptop (Mac or PC) will not have a great display for photo work; they are designed to preserve battery life, not for great colour reproduction.

The one problem that seems to be somewhat universal on laptops is a lack of DVI or DisplayPort monitor outputs. They tend to be VGA connector only and will not give you the full colour range if you do invest in a wide gamut display.

Contrary to what many people think, editing photo work is generally not terribly processor intensive (some filters are the exception), so pretty well any processor will do. If it is an Intel machine I7 is the best processor family, then I5 and finally I3 at the budget end. I would not touch one of the older E-series machines. AMD, the A10, A8 and A6 are top, medium and budget range processors. Get a 64-bit operating system with at least 6GB or RAM (8 GB is preferable); I am using over 5GB right now and I am not even in Photoshop.

I have mixed feelings on solid-state drives (SSD) they are expensive and your machine will start up faster, I'm just not convinced that the value proposition is there to necessarily get one. A reasonably large hard drive makes sense (750 GB or better).

I hope that this helps....

[cajy1]

Thank you for the info. I'm thinking seriously about the ASUS after a little research.

[Colin Southern]

I have mixed feelings on solid-state drives (SSD) they are expensive and your machine will start up faster, I'm just not convinced that the value proposition is there to necessarily get one. A reasonably large hard drive makes sense (750 GB or better).

Do both.

I use an SSD for the OS/working drive and a mirrored pair of drives for storage once I've finished editing. Price wise they don't add a lot to the system price (in NZD we're paying $280 for an Intel 240GB model). The difference they make to system performance is phenomenal though ... I can load Photoshop in under 2 seconds. Can't recommend them highly enough -- particularly beneficial if you're manipulating lots of images.

[loosecanon]

Macs now use essentially the same hardware as PC's, intel processors etc.
To me its a now brainer for the same money one can build a tower (or buy one) have lager powerful graphics card, lots of memory, run windows 7 which is very stable ( and what you get with windows 8 apart from user interface.

There was a advantage at one time with macs using postscript fonts, now opentype has taken over on both platforms.

The reason people often think windows is unstable is because unlike apple which runs effectly a closed system and control of software hooks, windows is much more open. This means windows has much more software available, and some cheap software is not that stable. Buy recognised brands and the software will run with no problems.

The great advantage is that you can upgrade a windows pc as required - new high resolution monitor, just add new graphics card. every 4 years new motherboard. Copy system to new hard drive as needed.

However if you want to be serious about graphics editing don't think a laptop is the answer, they just don't have the graphics power.

You will also find with windows you can buy things like a graphics tablet cheaply.

[kris]

Mac vs PC/Windows is similar to the discussion Canon vs Nikon, with one major difference:

Mac you have to by from Apple, to use Windows you can range form branded to assembled PC.

The price/quality/performance of Mac and branded PC are now quite similar. With assembled PC you can better tailor the PC to your needs, and get more for the same price. But you have to have some knowledge to avoid bad surprises.

In my view the real question it is not if it is better to buy a Mac or a PC/Windows, unless you fell more confortable with one or the other, but really what are your photo-processing needs.

Cheers,
A.

[RonH]

Ref above: However if you want to be serious about graphics editing don't think a laptop is the answer, they just don't have the graphics power.

I don't fully agree that laptops do not have the grunt I use a laptop with i7, 8GB memory and a Radeon HD 6770M etc and it handles the (very resource hungry) Cyberlink Power Director 11 video editing software OK. Also I have never had a problem with Photoshop Elements or other graphics software.
But what I needed was a bigger screen so I purchased an external 23" monitor ... useful with both screens set up in extension mode.

But I have to agree that what my daughter in Aussie has just purchased (Lenovo ThinkCentre M92P Series with Intel Core i7-3770 Processor 3.40GHz, 8MB Cache) makes my mouth water.

[cajy1]

My wife (the accountant) says that we can afford only one new computer at this moment.

Since I work a lot on the road, I must have a powerful laptop so I'm trying to kill two birds with one stone.

I'm thinking seriously about a gaming type laptop for the graphics/power/speed and could possibly by a 2nd high def monitor for screen resolution and color management.

Anyone out there in the same boat that has a set-up like this?