Graphic Artists and iMac's...

[ewytt]

I am not finding many people posting who use macs for static graphic design so I am starting one.

I am a print designer currently using a dinosaur 1.6 G5 tower and CS2. I use Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign. I also shoot in RAW with my Nikon D80 and currently do most of my editing at my office computer because it is faster. I work primarily in vector graphics which is why my 1.6 is "working." After 3 HD problems and lost data, It is time for an upgrade. I will miss my 20" matte cinema display and will have to find a new way of working in my bright living situation. (that is why we have blinds, right?) Yes, there will be color shift on that glossy screen but I use Pantone swatch books, so that should help. (maybe)

All this hype for i5/i7 chips is coming mostly from motion designers or gamers which I am not. Coming from a 1.6, I think the base model Duo will blow me away. My office machine is a 2x2.66 GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon with 5 GB, 10.4.11, so the iMac should be equal to my machine at work and probably a bit better. (depending on snow lep lag) I hope to keep the machine for as long as It runs. I also will update to CS4, if that matters.

Anybody else in my boat? I know the base Duo will be a HUGE upgrade to my current fossil and it is obvious I hold on to my machines for awhile.

Anybody else going to roll the dice with the glossy screen who does similar work as me?

 

[jbennardo]

I'm more worried about printing in Snow Leopard. We've held off at work because we print to a Fiery and there may not be support for that for a while. As far as the screen, you should be able to get a film to reduce that glare.

 

[iTiki]

Go all the way. Since you don't upgrade all that often, I would "future proof" as much as I could afford. New software will be able to take advantage of the better processors even if you don't think you need that level of performance now.

 

[ewytt]

Re:

It is more of a matter of money, so just doing it is not the smart decision for me right now. (as much as I want to)

 

[srexy]

If your ACD is the newer aluminium style just hook it up to a maxed out 21.5" iMac. Bingo - 2x your real estate and eleventy-billion x your computing power.

 

[hotpinksharpie]

I'm a mostly static designer like the OP. I am also a little bit concerned about the switchover to a glossy screen. I asked about any kind of matte option for this one but it doesn't sound like it will be offered. Will just have to see how it goes. As for specs, I think you will be happy enough with the base 21.5 or the next step up with the better graphics card. I was using an imac G5 for many years and it only JUST got to where I feel like I need an upgrade. I have a MBP as a backup and with some of the newer softwares have had to switch to using it. But at 2.5 Ghz with the same NVIDIA card (I think) as the base model new imac, this MBP has been great for me doing all my print design and photo retouching work. If I had a desktop with even the same specs I'd be fine with all the same sort of work you mention.
Hope this helps

 

[Kronie]

I can tell you that my unibody (2.66 2Core) slightly struggled in LR with 40D 10MP files. 5D MKII 21 MP files? Just about killed it. I shortly had a quad mac pro (back to apple) and it handled the MK II files much better.

Glossy screens are fine as long as you can control the light in the room and its properly calibrated. If you have lots of windows in your office and there behind your back you may have problems with the glossy.

I have the I7 IMac on the way....In November and I'm going to redo my office so my window isn't directly behind me. I see problems otherwise.

I work on a 22" matte screen now.

 

[fragile926]

I can tell you that my unibody (2.66 2Core) slightly struggled in LR with 40D 10MP files. 5D MKII 21 MP files? Just about killed it. I shortly had a quad mac pro (back to apple) and it handled the MK II files much better.

Glossy screens are fine as long as you can control the light in the room and its properly calibrated. If you have lots of windows in your office and there behind your back you may have problems with the glossy.

I have the I7 IMac on the way....In November and I'm going to redo my office so my window isn't directly behind me. I see problems otherwise.

I work on a 22" matte screen now.

Mind if I ask why you sent back the Mac Pro for the i7 iMac? I have been going back and forth between pulling the trigger on a Mac Pro or wait for the i7 iMac myself. Your case peaked my interest cause my current iMac is about to die with the RAW library I am amassing in Aperture. Was the Mac Pro just not cutting it for you?

 

[BJMRamage]

I am a graphic designer (print) and use a Matte at 9-5 work and a glossy iMac at home.

much difference. no. glare somewhat when I look for it.
then again....MATTE PRODUCES GLARE! just a more diffused and THUS harder to notice and make a change if needed.

I love the imac. works well and screen is great.

 

[raydsr]

i do illustration using photoshop on my G5 and 23" CD.

when i saw the iMac 27" i thought that perhaps i had found my new machine.

i went to the nearest apple store today and was GREATLY disappointed. there was a 30" matte CD right next to the new iMac and in my opinion there is no comparison. the matte 30" is SO much better than the new 27" display. i dunno whether it's the new technology, but the new glossy screens are just painful on my eyes.

 

[C64]

i do illustration using photoshop on my G5 and 23" CD.

when i saw the iMac 27" i thought that perhaps i had found my new machine.

i went to the nearest apple store today and was GREATLY disappointed. there was a 30" matte CD right next to the new iMac and in my opinion there is no comparison. the matte 30" is SO much better than the new 27" display. i dunno whether it's the new technology, but the new glossy screens are just painful on my eyes.

Consider that the store is usually filled with bright lights, something that's pretty different in a home (or in an office). Also, the 27" is a LED display which is a lot brighter than the non-LED matte 30". Takes a bit of time to get used to, but most people don't notice it anymore after a few days. But these two things might make it seem very different on face value, while in practice it's actually not bad at all or even better.

 

[eelpout]

i do illustration using photoshop on my G5 and 23" CD.

when i saw the iMac 27" i thought that perhaps i had found my new machine.

i went to the nearest apple store today and was GREATLY disappointed. there was a 30" matte CD right next to the new iMac and in my opinion there is no comparison. the matte 30" is SO much better than the new 27" display. i dunno whether it's the new technology, but the new glossy screens are just painful on my eyes.

That's my concern too. I never like using my wife's iMac because of the glossy screen... but at ~$2K getting a Mac WITH a 27" IPS screen seems like such a good deal.

Since the i5/i7's iMacs aren't shipping right now anyway, I'm tempted to wait and see if they drop the prices on the Mac Pro's. It could be Apple is waiting until the quads ship before doing just that.

 

[Kronie]

Mind if I ask why you sent back the Mac Pro for the i7 iMac? I have been going back and forth between pulling the trigger on a Mac Pro or wait for the i7 iMac myself. Your case peaked my interest cause my current iMac is about to die with the RAW library I am amassing in Aperture. Was the Mac Pro just not cutting it for you?

Mac Pro worked awesome....but.....

Mac Pro: 2.66GHZ Quad, 6GB RAM, 640GB Hard Nvidia GeForce GT 120, Drive=2,727.74

27" iMac: 2.8GHZ Quad "I7", 8GB RAM, 1TB Hard Drive, ATI Radeon 4850=$2,442.94

$285 cheaper for a better (although less upgradable machine).

Mac Pro: loud Fans. Energy hog

Imac: Dead quiet. Or at least quieter than the Pro.......(hopefully quieter) Probably just as much of an energy hog.

Mac Pro: No Display or any thing else. WTF Apple?

iMac: 27" IPS LED Panel! Keyboard and new wireless mouse.

That about sums it up...cant wait until....."November"

 

[raydsr]

at ~$2K getting a Mac WITH a 27" IPS screen seems like such a good deal.

I was thinking the same thing until I saw it in person.

My wife has a glossy MacBook Pro and every time I pick it up at our house I hate the display, so I don't think it's just a matter of getting used to it.

There is something to the technology that is not pleasing - almost like florescent light compared to tungsten. The matte screens are just more pleasant on the eyes even when no reflection is present.

 

[fragile926]

Mac Pro worked awesome....but.....

Mac Pro: 2.66GHZ Quad, 6GB RAM, 640GB Hard Nvidia GeForce GT 120, Drive=2,727.74

27" iMac: 2.8GHZ Quad "I7", 8GB RAM, 1TB Hard Drive, ATI Radeon 4850=$2,442.94

$285 cheaper for a better (although less upgradable machine).

Mac Pro: loud Fans. Energy hog

Imac: Dead quiet. Or at least quieter than the Pro.......(hopefully quieter) Probably just as much of an energy hog.

Mac Pro: No Display or any thing else. WTF Apple?

iMac: 27" IPS LED Panel! Keyboard and new wireless mouse.

That about sums it up...cant wait until....."November"

Thanks for the insight! I am probably going to go back and forth in my head till I see some real life benchmarks for the i7. I have had so many things "go" on my iMac I currently have and I have opened it up more times than I ever wanted to. 24" iMac screens are no fun to move around. the idea of opening up the side and fixing what I need sounds soooo nice. I refuse the headaches of hackintoshing so the Mac Pro seems to maybe fit my mr. fix it needs better. Ugh. Who knows, but thanks again for the tips!

 

[Buzz Bumble]

I am a print designer currently using a dinosaur 1.6 G5 tower and CS2. I use Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign.

A PowerMac G5 1.6GHz is a "dinosaur"?!? What does that make mine? I'm still using a PowerMac G3 266MHz running Mac OS 9 daily in my own business which includes quite a bit of layout work for both desktop and proper printing with use InDesign 2 (non-CS), Illustrator 9, and a Photoshop-clone as well as web design with DreamWeaver (can't recall what version).

 

[decksnap]

When I saw the new 27 I thought the same thing. I have a MacPro quad at work that frankly doesn't seem any faster than my G5 at home. But, when I do upgrade the home system, I'm thinking 27" iMac and screw the 'pro' machines. I guess I'll have to see the glare in person though.

 

[AppleThis&That]

You'll enjoy the 21.5" model. I'm like you and use a G5 tower at work. I purchased a 24 inch model about half a year ago for home and was blown away by the performance compared to my work computer. Hopefully my work will update soon though because I can't run SL at work and it's becoming a standard for me now.

 

[dergoog]

Imac vs Macpro - very different machines.

The mac pro is a beast and will likely still run a circle around the new i5 / i7. Its cooling is regionalized much better and its cooling system is far better, and thus can run the processors harder. Not to mention its expandability. The additional hard drives (usually setup in a striped raid to increase performance that much more), each usb port is a hub, not just a shared port on a single hub like the imac. Optical in outs, real video cards that can be swapped out.

The old imacs don't cool well enough for even laptop use. Download the tweak tool and you can set your fan speeds higher and get better performance out of it (it will be louder) but again - its cooling is nothing compared to that of the mac pro.

A closer comparison, but not even close.

OH and in regards to the LED displays - apple's new color profile sucks IMHO. Calibrate your screen with a huey - you'll like it much more.

 

[ewytt]

Re:

It is really annoying that the "pro machines" are not affordable for most "pro's." Guess all the motion guys make the big bucks.

I was considering the new mac mini maxed out too, but I don't think that will be enough machine. (although it is close) It would still blow the doors off my 1.6.

I am going to check out the iMac in the apple store and make them set one up for me facing the window. I do fear the glare from my windows in my home, but I know that I will be moving in a year.

Are you print guys shelling out the extra coin for i5/i7-whatever chips? I am tempted, but I really rather keep this machine under 2K.

 

[dergoog]

I do like it...

It is really annoying that the "pro machines" are not affordable for most "pro's." Guess all the motion guys make the big bucks.

I was considering the new mac mini maxed out too, but I don't think that will be enough machine. (although it is close) It would still blow the doors off my 1.6.

I am going to check out the iMac in the apple store and make them set one up for me facing the window. I do fear the glare from my windows in my home, but I know that I will be moving in a year.

Are you print guys shelling out the extra coin for i5/i7-whatever chips? I am tempted, but I really rather keep this machine under 2K.

The imacs, though no Mac Pro, still run like bandits.

We use our 24in imac as the house computer, dvr, itunes server to our two apple tv's, central backup for itself and our two laptops, version cue server, my testing web server, photo server, print server and with all that going on, I can still work on it, browse the web etc.

Part of the reason we can, is we have it setup with 2 firewire 400 drives and 1 usb drive that work as external media storage (FW - 1.5TB), recording scratch disk (FW-320 GB) and backup (USB 1.5 TB). To help lessen the processor burden when encoding the video from our dvr, we got the elgato turbo 64 (cuts export time in half).

The other trick is to make sure you don't put too many devices on your usb hub (there is only one hub for the three ports on the old imacs, don't know if they fixed that on the new ones) so all your devices off each port share the same bandwidth. Put too many on there and they won't work. And don't use any of the really fancy screen savers that read 1000's of your photos to create mosaics.

 

[HLdan]

It is really annoying that the "pro machines" are not affordable for most "pro's." Guess all the motion guys make the big bucks.

Most "Pros" should be making plenty enough money to afford a Mac Pro, otherwise they are not "Pros", they are just aspiring.

 

[Kronie]

I refuse the headaches of hackintoshing

That's why I bought the Pro. If it was just for personal use, I would have just built a machine but I cant have my hackintosh crash mid week and have to rip it apart or redo kext files and kernal extensions and download updates from third party sources. I just need it to work.

 

[AppleThis&That]

Most "Pros" should be making plenty enough money to afford a Mac Pro, otherwise they are not "Pros", they are just aspiring.

No, it's the agency or company that you work for that pays for them.

Unless of course you freelance.

 

[eelpout]

I was thinking the same thing until I saw it in person.

My wife has a glossy MacBook Pro and every time I pick it up at our house I hate the display, so I don't think it's just a matter of getting used to it.

There is something to the technology that is not pleasing - almost like florescent light compared to tungsten. The matte screens are just more pleasant on the eyes even when no reflection is present.

The other thing that bothers me a bit is the move to 16:9, we're losing vertical work space. I know some people watch movies on a Mac, but I'd rather have the extra pixels thank you. Though someone made the astute observation that maybe panels of that ratio are getting cheaper faster than others. Could be. As a coder and a photographer I have no problem with the old 4:3.

Anyone calibrated one of these new 27" puppies yet?