Computer for Photo Editing

[Green Mountain Girl]

Currently I am using a Dell Inspiron laptop, and have begun to feel the constraints of less memory and slower speed. The monitor failed recently, so I hooked up an older, smaller, desktop monitor. It works OK, but is smaller than the laptop monitor. Also the setup is uncomfortable because it won't lay flat - have to prop up with book and notebook!

I have been researching what computer to buy for photo editing. Right now my first choice is the Dell XPS 8700 Special Edition (desktop). There are several variations, but from what I have heard it is a good idea to get one with both SSD and HDD. There are two, and the lower priced one is more than enough of everything, with room to expand to 32GB memory later. Talking to the Dell customer service is a pain, because they have to look up everything to answer questions. I understand, because they have so many different models they have to provide information about - but that doesn't stop it from being frustrating!

Here's my problem: I worry about how expensive it is! I can pay for it, but a price-tag of almost $2000 after adding the Microsoft Home and Student, accident protection (1yr), and speakers, just seems high. Especially when I plan to purchase a good 27" monitor - Dell UltraSharp U2713HM - at around $700. It all seems a bit like over-kill since I am not a pro, but I have been getting into my photography more and more as time goes by.

I am interested in opinions. Should I go for it? Should I look at a different system?

Thank you.

Susan

[Digital]

Susan, I have a Dell XPS 420 that I have had for about 5 years. It is most likely ancient by today's standards; however it has been a good computer for graphics (photographs). I paid about $1900.00 for it.
Although I believe Dell makes a very fine product have you ever considered a Mac (Apple product). In my opinion, a Mac does a better job with graphics. Apple may be more expensive than a comparable Dell computer; however it may be a better for you in the long run. It may depend on how involved you are going to get with photography.
Hope this has been some help.

Bruce

[Polar01]

Susan: there have been a number of such requests, suggest you try the advance search at top right hand corner, I would stay away from Dell (they are good machines), however you will want in the future to swap hardware from off the shelf and Dell makes that hard to do. So a good custom build is better and less money, suggest as this is what I got installed as a starting point, 240GB SSD (had a 120GB SSD installed too small once everything installed to switched to 240 and use 120 as a scratch disk), (2) 2TB HHD's, i5 processor (i7 processor would not give increase performance for extra money at time), 16GB memory, as I do not do video a standard graphics card, and Windows 7 installed.
From above suggestion about advances look at Colin's posts.
Dell do have some good monitors.

Cheers:

Allan

[John 2]

Susan: Alan's specification mirrors mine almost exactly. I only added a 1TB HDD to take advantage of Windows 7 's excellent backup facility. If you value your images this or an equivalent external drive is a good investment. USB 3 connectivity is also good (but not essential). Apart from future proofing your system to a degree, if you do elect to use an external backup or your load your images via a card reader, transfer times are very significantly reduced. Ditto an SSD for you C Drive. Not essential but certainly desirable. Every one talks in terms of the reduction I boot times that an SSD provides but to me the real advantage is in the speed at which Lightroom, Bridge and Photoshop start up given the number of times you move from one to the other. Finally, custom build is sensible because you can spend your hard earned on what matters photographically.

[Adrian]

Avoid Dell. You are paying for branding and warranty service is unimpressive. Computers, whether Mac or PC are just a bunch or parts and performance depends on what you choose. With Mac you are paying for branding as well. That said, in your shoes unless you really feel you will be doing upgrades, I would be tempted to consider a well specced 27 inch iMac with fusion drive and latest chip. Otherwise I would take a look at PC magazines and look into medium spec gaming rigs with good chip and graphics cards. SSD (or fusion, which combines SSD) makes a big difference as does minimum 16Gb and preferably 32Gb memory. A decent custom builder will exceed Dell spec comfortably for the same money. Dell screens are fine in my view. Not high end, but not high end price either.

[Mito]

Susan, go to your local computer shop, tell them what you want to do and ask for a quote for a custom built computer.
I used to be an Apple owner and wish I still was.
Look around at software. There are many good photo management and office programs apart from Microsoft and Adobe.

[davidedric]

Hi Susan,

Went through this recently, and had my new machine delivered a month ago. It was a custom build from an on-line (UK) supplier. It followed the consensus from the ideas above, a Windows 7 desktop, 250Gb SSD and mirrored 2Tb hdd's. I actually went for the i7 processors which I know is overspec'd for now, but that's just me. I'm very happy so far, and the advantage of the supplier I chose is that I know exactly which make and model of components is installed. I already had a Dell Ultrasharp. IMHO the Apple Microsoft debate is yesterdays news, if you are used to windows stay with it, and save many dollars.

Dave

[Sponge]

I just saw a thread posted today that might help, it's for an ASUS that's under a grand.
http://www.mu-43.com/f92/lightning-f...desktop-47904/

[Green Mountain Girl]

I appreciate the replies to my inquiry.

To those who suggested Mac, I know it is a good product, but I am not used to it, and when I have used one felt uncomfortable. Plus, my understanding is that my photo editing programs and other peripherals may not work with it.

With regard to custom build, there is no local computer shop where I live. At least, none that I know of! There might be some over in Albany, NY, which isn't very far, but I have no idea how to find one that I could trust. My computer expertise is very limited, so I have been asking questions and doing research to figure out what to get. This is how I arrived at the XPS 8700 Special Edition.

Guess I was planning to stay with Dell because it is comfortable! However, I can ask around and see if anyone in my area knows of a custom computer builder with a good reputation. It would be nice to have someone local to help with the system rather than someone on the telephone who is far away.

Thanks again.

Susan

[davidedric]

Just to add. I've had a couple of Dell desktops, and been happy with them. I don't think you would go far wrong, just maybe not get the best value for money. Personally, I wouldn't go to a local shop without some very solid recommendations.

[Manfred M]

A few more thoughts for you Susan. I've used both Macs and PCs for image editing and video work; and apart from the software running on them (some is Mac specific and some is PC specific and some is available on both), there is no inherent advantage of one over the other, regardless of what the Apple or Microsoft fanboys would have you believe. If you are comfortable with a PC, stick with one; chances are you'll save money going that route regardless.

Photo editing is not a particularly processor sensitive application, so you certainly do not need a top-of the line computer. Paying $2000 for a Dell is way over the top for your needs. The XPS 8700 Special Edition sounds like a gaming machine; not what you need to pay for. Unfortunately, going Windows means Windows 8 and there will be a learning curve. I would suggest a 64 bit operating system (pretty well the standard these days) and at least 8MB of RAM. Photos can take up a lot of room, and going for at least a 1TB hard disk is pretty standard. You won't need any special graphics board, so built in graphics are fine, and you won't need an Intel i7 processor; a less expensive i5 or even i3 will do.

As for a SSD or not, that is a personal choice. One of my machines has one and yes, it does start up faster and saves files faster, but not so much that I would necessarily insist on it. If you are looking to spend $800 on a 27" screen, you should be able to get a desktop that meets your needs for roughly the same amount of money; i.e. $800 or even less. I would recommend getting a second, smaller (24") screen as well; I use it to hold all my menus and other stuff while video editing. It can be the cheapest monitor around, as colour accuracy is only really important on the one the actual editing is done on.

One other world of caution; some manufacturers have a practice of having custom (i.e. not off the shelf) components that you can only buy from them for considerably more money than the standard variety stuff. Dell and Apple are the two primary offenders here.

[John 2]

Dave absolutely agree with you but I've had some recent experience that suggests on board graphics are not the best idea. Just built a replacement computer to allow an increase in memory on the motherboard and thought that I could save money by going that route (old card was not SATA III compatible). Compared to my old machine and using the same monitor, there was a colour shift in the images I transferred across. A low end graphics card solved the problem without any further adjustment. Don't know why that should be but that's what I found. The other consideration of course is that on board graphics rely on installed RAM and so you lose some of your memory capacity.

[Manfred M]

Dave absolutely agree with you but I've had some recent experience that suggests on board graphics are not the best idea. Just built a replacement computer to allow an increase in memory on the motherboard and thought that I could save money by going that route (old card was not SATA III compatible). Compared to my old machine and using the same monitor, there was a colour shift in the images I transferred across. A low end graphics card solved the problem without any further adjustment. Don't know why that should be but that's what I found. The other consideration of course is that on board graphics rely on installed RAM and so you lose some of your memory capacity.

No two graphics cards have identical output, although they are somewhat similar if they come from the same manufacturer. Generally even built in graphics have a decent amount of onboard RAM, not that you really need a lot for photo editing. Shared RAM is more of a laptop issue, but even there even mid-range ones have dedicated graphics RAM; for instance my laptop has 2GB graphics and 8GB available to the system.

New graphics cards means that your screen needs to be reprofiled;

[Green Mountain Girl]

If you are comfortable with a PC, stick with one; chances are you'll save money going that route regardless.

This is basically why I decided to stay with a PC. And I have used Dell for years, don't know much about the other brands. Sort of like a choice between Nikon and Canon - both are good, you are buying into a system.

Paying $2000 for a Dell is way over the top for your needs. The XPS 8700 Special Edition sounds like a gaming machine; not what you need to pay for. Unfortunately, going Windows means Windows 8 and there will be a learning curve. I would suggest a 64 bit operating system (pretty well the standard these days) and at least 8MB of RAM. Photos can take up a lot of room, and going for at least a 1TB hard disk is pretty standard. You won't need any special graphics board, so built in graphics are fine, and you won't need an Intel i7 processor; a less expensive i5 or even i3 will do.

XPS is considered a machine for gaming and graphics, but it has all the components put together that are desirable for photo editing as well. I have heard that Windows 8 will be a bit different, but think I can handle it. The 64 bit operating system, 16MB of Ram, 2TB HDD, 256 SDD, 7i processor are standard on the one I am looking at. Perhaps a bit of overkill, but won't need upgrading any time soon, even if I shoot and keep thousands more pictures.

If you are looking to spend $800 on a 27" screen, you should be able to get a desktop that meets your needs for roughly the same amount of money; i.e. $800 or even less. I would recommend getting a second, smaller (24") screen as well; I use it to hold all my menus and other stuff while video editing. It can be the cheapest monitor around, as colour accuracy is only really important on the one the actual editing is done on.

Actually I think I can get the monitor for less than $700. And the screen I hooked up to my laptop can do for a second, although a bit small (15"). This is something I have been looking forward to because the distracting stuff will be off the editing screen.

One other world of caution; some manufacturers have a practice of having custom (i.e. not off the shelf) components that you can only buy from them for considerably more money than the standard variety stuff. Dell and Apple are the two primary offenders here.

Hopefully this won't be a problem, since if I get a system like I am considering, the only upgrading I can foresee would be increasing the memory from 16GB to 32GB. Maybe. I also have a 2TB WD Passport for backup.

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. I have some thinking to do!!!

Susan

[Manfred M]

I have several computers with 8GB of RAM and I have a lot of processes and programs open at the same time; very rarely do I use more than 6GB. I also have a 16GB machine, I've never monitored it using over 7GB. 32GB is overkill. A good part of the cost of that machine is the 256GB SSD; you really don't need anything nearly that large. These are Windows 7 machines; Windows 8 is very good on memory management. Paying for something you don't need is not a wise use of your money.

Don't underestimate the screen. For image editing you do want an IPS screen, rather than the less expensive TN screen because it displays colours more accurately. If you don't have one now, budget for a profiling tool; they run less than an inexpensive screen. The IPS screen (27") and profiling tool (an x-Rite i1 that I've had for years) are probably the two best investments I've made in computer hardware.

[Green Mountain Girl]

I have several computers with 8GB of RAM and I have a lot of processes and programs open at the same time; very rarely do I use more than 6GB. I also have a 16GB machine, I've never monitored it using over 7GB. 32GB is overkill. A good part of the cost of that machine is the 256GB SSD; you really don't need anything nearly that large. These are Windows 7 machines; Windows 8 is very good on memory management. Paying for something you don't need is not a wise use of your money.

I agree - it isn't smart to pay for something you don't need. I took another look at the XPS offerings. There is an XPS 8700 (not Special Edition) that has 16GB memory (4DIMMs, so could be upgraded), 2TB HDD, no SDD, and Windows 8. Base price $1050.

The XPS 8700 Special Edition I was looking at before is 32GB memory (4 DIMMs), 2TB HDD, 256GB SDD, and Windows 8 Pro. Base Price $1850.

Another version of the XPS 8700 Special Edition has 16GB memory (4 DIMMs), 2TB HDD, 32GB SDD, and Windows 8 Pro. Base Price of either $1550 or $1650. --- The difference seems to be entirely due to the difference in the video card - both are NVIDIA GeForce, but one is GTX 660 1.5GB, the other is GTX 665 Ti 1.0GB. I doubt that the bigger video card will make much difference for me.

Do you think the 32GB SDD is worth the extra $500?

Don't underestimate the screen. For image editing you do want an IPS screen... If you don't have one now, budget for a profiling tool; they run less than an inexpensive screen. The IPS screen (27") and profiling tool (an x-Rite i1 that I've had for years) are probably the two best investments I've made in computer hardware.

I definitely want the 27" IPS screen monitor. Pretty much decided on the U2713HM. The price difference between the HM and the H did not seem like it would be worth it to me.

I appreciate your advice. I think I was holding back on purchasing the more expensive model because I suspected that I had been reaching too high. My theory when purchasing my camera was to buy the best I can afford, which meant a Nikon D7000, not a full-frame camera. But with computers, it seems that I should be buying the best I NEED (with enough extra to also be good in the future). Not a pro, not editing video, but I am getting into my photography much more than before and starting to do more involved editing when necessary.

Thank you Manfred - you have helped to clarify much of what I was not sure of.

Susan

[Manfred M]

I agree - it isn't smart to pay for something you don't need. I took another look at the XPS offerings. There is an XPS 8700 (not Special Edition) that has 16GB memory (4DIMMs, so could be upgraded), 2TB HDD, no SDD, and Windows 8. Base price $1050.

The XPS 8700 Special Edition I was looking at before is 32GB memory (4 DIMMs), 2TB HDD, 256GB SDD, and Windows 8 Pro. Base Price $1850.

Another version of the XPS 8700 Special Edition has 16GB memory (4 DIMMs), 2TB HDD, 32GB SDD, and Windows 8 Pro. Base Price of either $1550 or $1650. --- The difference seems to be entirely due to the difference in the video card - both are NVIDIA GeForce, but one is GTX 660 1.5GB, the other is GTX 665 Ti 1.0GB. I doubt that the bigger video card will make much difference for me.

Unless you are a gamer you don’t need a high performance video card. These are designed for high frame rate 3D game rendering. Editing images, you don’t technically even need a 3D graphics card, but these don’t exist.

The least expensive card will be more than enough for what you are doing. Adobe uses 3D graphics for certain non-editing functions in Photoshop CS6, but I find I actually don't work this way (rotating my tablet when I work).

Do you think the 32GB SDD is worth the extra $500?

Do you remember my previous post where I mentioned the rip-off prices by certain computer suppliers? The street price here in Canada (where things tend to cost a bit more than in the US); I can pick up a 480GB SSD for about $500. A 32GB SSD runs for about $50.

The street price for 16GB of higher end DDR3 memory (required by the i7) runs around $150. Remember; these are retail prices; there is no way Dell should be marking up as much as they do. They should actually be charging less than street prices; I’m pretty sure they pay a lot less for these items than the computer retailer I deal with.

[Adrian]

All good advice from Manfred. I have previously advocated self build for PCs as this is very easy (but only if you are that way inclined: my son and I have built several very high end machines as he is into game development and 3D rendering).

I am not sure I wholly agree with Manfred on the SSD or memory front and might be money well spent for the future. I run Adobe Creative Suite (which includes much more software that you will need) but it includes Lightroom. I also happen to run Aperture, DxO and variother things. I find that with large image libraries, Lightroom and Aperture are very processor hungry. An older iMac with 8Gb memory, no SSD and i5 chip is taking four times as long to load and render the Lightroom library I use at work, as the i7, 32Gb + fusion drive machine sat next to it.

If you think you will get into video, the difference is more apparent. We (the business not me) produce one or two short videos a day for upload to our web sites (finance business where news changes constantly). The lower spec machines are painful now.

I would also make sure you are happy with Windows 8 before you choose that over Win 7. We have stacks of PCs and laptops, all brand new (average age a year) Fujitsu machines, and a variety of laptops. Most of my team hate Windows 8 with a passion. It is clunky and slow unless you are using a touch screen. I would avoid Win 8 unless using a touch screen laptop with tablet functionality. It may suit your workflow, or it may slow you down to an annoying degree.

I would not worry about Mac v PC. Mac looks prettier. Different keyboard short cuts that you will soon pick up. Apart from that it makes hardly any difference. We only use Mac's in our reception and in the media and graphic design team.

If you want to custom spec a machine, do it on line. I would not dream of going to a shop for this. Gaming magazines will list a plethora of web sites that you can order from, or you can google it.

Adrian

[Green Mountain Girl]

Unless you are a gamer you don’t need a high performance video card.

My level of computer expertise is not too high, so I don't really know exactly what function a video card might perform outside of actual videos. However, I did kind of figure that I did not need a very big one.

Do you remember my previous post where I mentioned the rip-off prices by certain computer suppliers? The street price here in Canada (where things tend to cost a bit more than in the US); I can pick up a 480GB SSD for about $500. A 32GB SSD runs for about $50.

The street price for 16GB of higher end DDR3 memory (required by the i7) runs around $150. Remember; these are retail prices; there is no way Dell should be marking up as much as they do. They should actually be charging less than street prices; I’m pretty sure they pay a lot less for these items than the computer retailer I deal with.

Last night I looked at a site recommended by OP, called newegg.com, and saw for myself the prices. It is astounding how much cheaper they are. As a result, I am re-thinking my strategy. A friend of mine mentioned a computer guy in town here, so I looked in the telephone book and saw his listing. Perhaps I will go and talk with him, and hear what he has to say. He will do custom builds as well as repairs. Then I can decide whether to go for a Dell system and get him to make modifications, or to get him to build one with parts I agree on.

Adrian stated: "If you want to custom spec a machine, do it on line." The idea of getting a computer built by someone on a website I never heard of is as scary as trying to do it myself! At least with Dell I know they will provide some technical assistance, no matter how difficult it is to get through to them or to find the representative who really knows what he/she is doing. The good thing about a local guy, is he won't make a living here in this area (small but not-too-small towns, fairly rural) if he isn't any good.

Thanks again Manfred! You have made a big difference in how I will be approaching this purchase. No one likes to be ripped off, me included, and the huge mark-ups really bother me...

Susan

[Manfred M]

I am not sure I wholly agree with Manfred on the SSD or memory front and might be money well spent for the future. I run Adobe Creative Suite (which includes much more software that you will need) but it includes Lightroom. I also happen to run Aperture, DxO and variother things. I find that with large image libraries, Lightroom and Aperture are very processor hungry. An older iMac with 8Gb memory, no SSD and i5 chip is taking four times as long to load and render the Lightroom library I use at work, as the i7, 32Gb + fusion drive machine sat next to it.

I think it may depend one the computer Adrian; I run Creative Suite and do a fair bit of video editing. The only software on your list that I don't run is Aperture. The two machines I use for this work are 2 and 3 years old respectively, one runs 8GB of RAM and the other runs 16 GB. I've never seen the 16GB machine hit over 7GB in use, so while I don't have an issue with going to 16GB, I would argue that 32GB is vast overkill (unless you are building a server). I'm like you and your son; I've been building my own desktops for decades.

The issue with the SSD is the price; charging $500 for a device I can pick up at retail for $50 is what gets me here.

The main difference between the i5 and i7 processor is that the i7 is multi-threaded whereas the i5 is not; both are 4-core CPUs. None of the software listed, other than Premiere Pro and Adobe Media Encoder are multi-threaded, so the additional cores / threads don't buy you anything. My daughter's machine is an i5 and we have used Photoshop CS5.5 on it and found no appreciable performance differences versus my i7 machines.

Win 7 / Win 8 / Apple - Win 8 isn't great even on a touch-screen (that's what my laptop is; moving from keyboard / mouse and reaching out to touch a computer screen is awkward workflow at best, in my experience, so I rarely use the touchscreen). My wife runs Windows 8 on her laptop as well, but isn't a power user, but finds it much easier to use than a Mac. I have no problems switching between Macs and PCs, but I've been using both for years, so that shouldn't be much of a surprise.