Is MacPro overkill for digital photography?

[mrgreen4242]

Obviously there is no exact answer to your question.

However, I will tell you I have a quad core 2007 3ghz mac pro with 11GB of RAM and I find it too slow sometimes. I have very little patience with computers - I want my creativity to flow freely, not wait on the machine to do something.

If you're doing it for a living, time is money - so get the fastest you can afford. There are a lot of people running LR and PS on iMac so it certainly can be done, but especially given that GPU speeds are limited I would never use one for my primary editing machine and certainly not a laptop.

I use my machine 90% for photo editing, most commonly in aperture and CS3, 10MP RAW files from a 1DMIII

It sounds to me like you are throwing money into the wrong parts of your computer. 4x3ghz w/11GB of RAM is fast enough for just about anything being done right, let alone still photography. That's the sort of rig they edit HD video on, in near realtime.

I'm betting it's your HDD setup that's slowing you down. You should hook a RAID5 made up with 10k RPM drives to that and see how it works for you. I'm guessing you are having load times between opening/saving/changing files. Even 10MP RAW files are only, what, 10-12mb each? You can cache hundreds of those in RAM with 11gb of memory, so it must be harddrive load times you are "feeling".

A dual core MacPro with 4gb of RAM and a really fast HDD setup would likely feel faster than a quad core with three times the RAM editing photos. I'm not a photographer, but I am a network/system admin/tech and have experience working with huge amounts of data.

 

[anubis]

It sounds to me like you are throwing money into the wrong parts of your computer. 4x3ghz w/11GB of RAM is fast enough for just about anything being done right, let alone still photography. That's the sort of rig they edit HD video on, in near realtime.

I'm betting it's your HDD setup that's slowing you down. You should hook a RAID5 made up with 10k RPM drives to that and see how it works for you. I'm guessing you are having load times between opening/saving/changing files. Even 10MP RAW files are only, what, 10-12mb each? You can cache hundreds of those in RAM with 11gb of memory, so it must be harddrive load times you are "feeling".

A dual core MacPro with 4gb of RAM and a really fast HDD setup would likely feel faster than a quad core with three times the RAM editing photos. I'm not a photographer, but I am a network/system admin/tech and have experience working with huge amounts of data.

Uhh... agreed. As I mentioned earlier I've got a 3.06GHz iMac with 2GB RAM and EVERYTHING in Aperture and Photoshop CS3 is instantaneous for me, processing 8MB RAWs from my Canon XT, except when I try to flip through a dozen or more photos within a few seconds in full resolution preview mode, and even then it only takes the computer a couple of seconds to "catch up" and render the full resolution preview for all of those photos.

 

[localghost]

I've got the 3.06GHz iMac. The only time it feels slow is when I'm flipipng through pictures in full preview mode (not quick preview) in Aperture. If I start going too fast it will start taking a few seconds to generate the preview. Also, if I have Aperture, Photoshop, and iWeb open (and firefox and mail, of course) sometimes it feels like it's running low on RAM. I think I'm going to upgrade to 4GB and that should be fine.

I'd recommend the 3.06GHz iMac if you can live with the glossy screen. Otherwise if money is no object, then hell no the Mac Pro isn't overkill!!!

aperture generates the preview right after importing (or changing the file) - might be load times. reducing their size in the preferences to mach your screen could speed things up. 4GB sound like the right amount of RAM (i use 3GB, not maxed out, but without other apps running while editing, and only 2-4 files open in cs2 at the same time).

here is a very good checklist to get the most out of your mac+aperture, gives a good insight into the important parts of the system too.

 

[pprior]

Uhh... agreed. As I mentioned earlier I've got a 3.06GHz iMac with 2GB RAM and EVERYTHING in Aperture and Photoshop CS3 is instantaneous for me, processing 8MB RAWs from my Canon XT, except when I try to flip through a dozen or more photos within a few seconds in full resolution preview mode, and even then it only takes the computer a couple of seconds to "catch up" and render the full resolution preview for all of those photos.

Well waiting a couple of seconds drives me crazy, that's my point. I don't want to ever wait on my computer.

The Ram gets eaten up by parallels and PS and aperture and other programs, I don't like shutting things down to run something else.

I started with 2GB of ram and I can guarantee you you would see a huge difference if you upgraded to 4GB (which I did). then I went to 8GB and saw a slight boost, but nothing dramatic. However I frequently do large batch imports of RAW files - 8-16+GB at a time and I can tell you that importing that many 10MP RAW files at a time will destroy a computer with less RAM. I know because I've been there.

I've had an external eSATA raid5 unit, and it was too noisy for my taste so I returned it. RAID5 internally is not doable with the space that i need. I know that disk speeds are likely my biggest slowdown at this point, but can find no easy way to fix that problem.

 

[termina3]

Mac Pro has screen size over the Mac book. I was going to get a Mac Pro recently, but, opted for the iMAC 20 inch. Next year I'll probably will get a Mac Pro. My reasons are: I'm starting a wedding photography business, since weddings in my geographic area are in lower number in the winter time. Holding off of the Mac Pro till next year made sense to me.

Mac Pro can be more useful for myself. Since I don't have a studio (work at home photographer). I can bring the Mac Pro to my clients and show them.

I don't know how heavily you are going to be into photography. But myself I find the more photo's you take. It helps having a larger screen, larger hard drive. If you are shooting a few hundred shots a month in JPG. Go for the Macbook. Once the Macbook starts to hold you back in production. Sell it and buy a Mac Pro.

He's comparing a MacBook Pro, iMac, and Mac Pro--not the MacBook to the MacBook Pro, which is what I think you're speaking of. The Mac Pro isn't the type of computer you'd want to "take to your clients."

And now that I'm posting, periods are not interchangeable with commas. I sympathize if English is not your first language…*but still.

 

[termina3]

I know that disk speeds are likely my biggest slowdown at this point, but can find no easy way to fix that problem.

10k scratch/temp disk?

 

[qveda]

scratch disk?

Not having migrated to Mac yet , what is meant by "scratch disk" ?
If I get a MacPro with 320gb HD (OS and apps), then add another internal drive for data, and perhaps an internal or external drive for backup, what is needed for a 'scratch disk' ??

 

[Westside guy]

Well waiting a couple of seconds drives me crazy, that's my point. I don't want to ever wait on my computer.

The Ram gets eaten up by parallels and PS and aperture and other programs, I don't like shutting things down to run something else.

This is a peculiar affliction that seems to mostly limit itself to afflicting Mac users. That's one thing I've never understood - why people just leave all these programs running. I remember observing this back long before OS X.

The only reason I'm commenting about this is because, in threads like this one, I keep reading people posting variations on "your system just crawls if you only have the default 2GB of RAM". No, for most of us it doesn't. It can, if you always leave all these big programs running; but you should make it clear that's what you're doing when you say "Oh, gosh, you really need 4GB or even 8GB of RAM."

So anyway, I appreciate that you said exactly that. Context is important.

 

[mrgreen4242]

Well waiting a couple of seconds drives me crazy, that's my point. I don't want to ever wait on my computer.

The Ram gets eaten up by parallels and PS and aperture and other programs, I don't like shutting things down to run something else.

I started with 2GB of ram and I can guarantee you you would see a huge difference if you upgraded to 4GB (which I did). then I went to 8GB and saw a slight boost, but nothing dramatic. However I frequently do large batch imports of RAW files - 8-16+GB at a time and I can tell you that importing that many 10MP RAW files at a time will destroy a computer with less RAM. I know because I've been there.

I've had an external eSATA raid5 unit, and it was too noisy for my taste so I returned it. RAID5 internally is not doable with the space that i need. I know that disk speeds are likely my biggest slowdown at this point, but can find no easy way to fix that problem.

Sorry, don't want to sound like a jerk, but you're sound like a computer hypochondriac.

First, 8gb of RAW files, even 12MP raw files, is 750 photos. You're saying you regularly import 750-1500 photos, sometimes more?

Second, you admit that disk speed is likely why you have to "wait for seconds" for things, but you got rid of an eSATA RAID5 drive because it was too noisy. You didn't think to put it further away from you or inside of a noise baffling enclosure? Money seems to be of little concern to you so a longer cable or a vented cabinet should be within your reach.

Third, an "internal solution" isn't viable because you can't get enough space? You can put 4TB in a Mac Pro. Not sure what you are running right now, but 4TB will hold about 400,000 RAW photos. Assuming you left a very nice DSL on a motor drive constantly taking, say, 4 photos per second, that's about 28 hours worth of photos. I get needing more than 4tb of space for something like editing a big HD movie, but for still photography, the disk needs aren't THAT extreme.

Fourth, importing batches of (smallish) files shouldn't really be a memory intensive operation. It's a sequential process limited by drive space more than available RAM. I'm doubting importing even 8bg of 10mb files eats up more than a gig of RAM or so (based on my experience as a system admin with file servers and database servers). There may be some automatic processing going on during the import that eats up RAM, but the actual import itself shouldn't really do much with system memory.

It just sounds to me like you are making up problems for yourself. Like I said, I don't want to sound like a jerk, but I'm just not "buying what you are selling", as they say.

 

[localghost]

Sorry, don't want to sound like a jerk, but you're sound like a computer hypochondriac.

First, 8gb of RAW files, even 12MP raw files, is 750 photos. You're saying you regularly import 750-1500 photos, sometimes more?

Second, you admit that disk speed is likely why you have to "wait for seconds" for things, but you got rid of an eSATA RAID5 drive because it was too noisy. You didn't think to put it further away from you or inside of a noise baffling enclosure? Money seems to be of little concern to you so a longer cable or a vented cabinet should be within your reach.

Third, an "internal solution" isn't viable because you can't get enough space? You can put 4TB in a Mac Pro. Not sure what you are running right now, but 4TB will hold about 400,000 RAW photos. Assuming you left a very nice DSL on a motor drive constantly taking, say, 4 photos per second, that's about 28 hours worth of photos. I get needing more than 4tb of space for something like editing a big HD movie, but for still photography, the disk needs aren't THAT extreme.

Fourth, importing batches of (smallish) files shouldn't really be a memory intensive operation. It's a sequential process limited by drive space more than available RAM. I'm doubting importing even 8bg of 10mb files eats up more than a gig of RAM or so (based on my experience as a system admin with file servers and database servers). There may be some automatic processing going on during the import that eats up RAM, but the actual import itself shouldn't really do much with system memory.

It just sounds to me like you are making up problems for yourself. Like I said, I don't want to sound like a jerk, but I'm just not "buying what you are selling", as they say.

most people think editing photos will never really tax a system because of the way _they_ work with them. even semi-pros often think so, because their concentrate on their shooting, dslr gear, advertising and never spend a second to review their workflow.

i work full-time as an editor/pj for a website and started to do other photo assignments on the side. even those small web sized pics will bog down reasonable (in this case: windows) systems, when you are in a hurry. i completely hit a wall trying to implement a similar workflow on my g5 with high resolution raw files. the same system works excellent cutting sd-dv in fcp.

while i am not there yet, it's easy for me to see how a pro will even max out a system like the one above. you can not just do the numbers and think it will be ok.

just a few examples: the raw-file you are mentioning does not stay at 12MB. import one into cs, make a couple of layers and see what you end up with as .tiff or .psd. open a series of those (to compare color, copy layers, presets with fonts, whatever) and run a some of your scripts - sooner or later it will stop you with crap like "can't do that, currently running (another) script". if you have a series of shortcuts for a series of scripts, you'll type them mechanically and it will bug the hell out of you if you are stopped in the middle of it (even if it's just a few seconds).

1500 pictures are not that uncommon in the digital age, too. and while i could not afford a vented cabinet for storage, it's not like i could not use it. 2x2 hd (raid os, raid scratch) will have to be my next setup, so even the new mac pro will force me to backup externally.

 

[pprior]

Sorry, don't want to sound like a jerk, but you're sound like a computer hypochondriac.

First, 8gb of RAW files, even 12MP raw files, is 750 photos. You're saying you regularly import 750-1500 photos, sometimes more?

Second, you admit that disk speed is likely why you have to "wait for seconds" for things, but you got rid of an eSATA RAID5 drive because it was too noisy. You didn't think to put it further away from you or inside of a noise baffling enclosure? Money seems to be of little concern to you so a longer cable or a vented cabinet should be within your reach.

Third, an "internal solution" isn't viable because you can't get enough space? You can put 4TB in a Mac Pro. Not sure what you are running right now, but 4TB will hold about 400,000 RAW photos. Assuming you left a very nice DSL on a motor drive constantly taking, say, 4 photos per second, that's about 28 hours worth of photos. I get needing more than 4tb of space for something like editing a big HD movie, but for still photography, the disk needs aren't THAT extreme.

Fourth, importing batches of (smallish) files shouldn't really be a memory intensive operation. It's a sequential process limited by drive space more than available RAM. I'm doubting importing even 8bg of 10mb files eats up more than a gig of RAM or so (based on my experience as a system admin with file servers and database servers). There may be some automatic processing going on during the import that eats up RAM, but the actual import itself shouldn't really do much with system memory.

It just sounds to me like you are making up problems for yourself. Like I said, I don't want to sound like a jerk, but I'm just not "buying what you are selling", as they say.

Hey, no offense taken, and i'm only responding in this thread because I do the kind of thing I think the OP is doing as well.

I do regularly import that many photos. I shoot sports events and will often fill 2-3 8GB cards and sometimes twice that. It's just what I do.

Striking a balance between performance and noise is always something I have struggled with. I've toyed with the idea of a noise baffled cabinet, but the professional ones are 3-5K and I just can't justify it.

With aperture, doing a 8GB import will completely dog down the computer, creating a large swap file, and making hte system near unusable. It may be a bug, but I'm dealing with it.

I've got a 750GB boot disk, a 500GB scratch disk, a 500GB data disk, and a 1TB backup disk in my computer, and they all are almost full. Attached is a 4TB Drobo which is 80% full and a 1.5TB NAS in the basement which is 90% full. When I say I don't have room internally, I mean it

And I do not think I'm out of the ordinary for a semi-pro photographer and any full time pro will use way more than I do.

I don't claim to be an expert, but just explaining my situation, which the OP may or may not find useful.

Cheers

 

[termina3]

Not having migrated to Mac yet , what is meant by "scratch disk" ?
If I get a MacPro with 320gb HD (OS and apps), then add another internal drive for data, and perhaps an internal or external drive for backup, what is needed for a 'scratch disk' ??

It's a more pro-apps thing than an Apple thing (although, come to think of it, I've never heard of one on an XP box).

The scratch disk is super-high speed (either 10,000rpm SATA or 15K+ SAS) hard drive that handles large amounts of information that you'd rather have on RAM, but can't because there's too little RAM. Obviously the difference between having data on a 7,200 (or…*5400) rpm drive is noticable when compared to a 15,000rpm drive.

Usually you can designate a scratch disk in programs like photoshop for large files that need to be pulled up quickly/worked on.

Think of it as an overflow tank.

 

[valdore]

I chose my Mac Pro because of the fact I can throw four hard drives in it, to store all those crazy numbers of RAW files one tends to accumulate.

That and the processing power of this thing means it also handles anything I throw at it, and I can keep using it for several years with no worries about obsolescence.

 

[snberk103]

You don't know what "waiting on your computer" means until...

This is said with a smile on my face....

To the posters who can't stand to wait a second or two for their systems to respond, you have no idea....

I was creating an art photograph (a montage for a photo art show) in CS3. It was 40 x40 by inches with over a dozen layers. It was slightly bigger than a 1GB. I was working on a 1.66 Mini with 1GB of memory. Before each working session I would restart the Mini to clear all the memory, and then not open anything other than CS3 and the image.

I was terrified the Mini would crash, so I would try and save often... After hitting the save button I would go and do a load of laundry, or mow the lawn (small sections at a time), do a sink of dishes.... etc. I'm not kidding. Sometimes I would forget to save for a few hours, and you know.... that little Mini never crashed. Not once. I never lost any work. I managed to complete that project over the course of a week or two.

Then I had chance to do another project, of similar size. I went and got an 8 core Mac Pro, and I'm not sorry at all. Its not perfectly tweaked for speed I'm sure... (learnt some things reading this thread though)... but I don't complain - I have yet to do anything where I had time to even get out the office door before it was completed. This system will do me for years.

And the Mini? Is happily working as a media centre. I even named him.

To the OP - It may be overkill to get a Mac Pro, but you will get years of service out of it. And its more flexible too. Better choices for HDs (internal and external), more displays, etc etc. The only problem with a Mac Pro is that when its time to retire it, you won't be able to fit it into that little space on the shelf next to the stereo... ... If you are a professional, get the best tools you can afford. It sounds like you aren't quite ready yet to do this full time, so perhaps you should wait a bit longer to go "whole hog" on a system until you will be using it more fully.

Good Luck....

 

[wheezy]

I forgot all about the Scratch Disk! I've been running my MB 5400rpm Drive. Moved it to a 7200RPM External, so it should speed me up a little bit.

It seems that the MP is the general consensus here for several reasons. If you can afford to get it before you buy your camera and start loading up on the RAW files that would be ideal, then you can put them where you want to right from the start. When I buy my MP I'll have to move allll my files from their 2 or 3 locations and reorganize them; it'll be a tedious joy.

 

[Westside guy]

I forgot all about the Scratch Disk! I've been running my MB 5400rpm Drive. Moved it to a 7200RPM External, so it should speed me up a little bit.

It seems that the MP is the general consensus here for several reasons. If you can afford to get it before you buy your camera and start loading up on the RAW files that would be ideal, then you can put them where you want to right from the start. When I buy my MP I'll have to move allll my files from their 2 or 3 locations and reorganize them; it'll be a tedious joy.

I don't think there's anything even approaching a consensus in this thread...

 

[wheezy]

I don't think there's anything even approaching a consensus in this thread...

Okay, not a consensus. I just think I'm seeing MP as the winner cause that's what I would buy. I hereby denounce any claim to a consensus.

I did switch my Scratch disk over and while photoshop goes about the same, OS X seems to be more responsive (snappy, if you will) and my system Swap doesn't seem to be nearly as large.

 

[ZballZ]

Someone who knows how should make this into a poll, this i getting interesting

1: Overkill! Go with MacBookpro!
2: Overkill! Go with iMac!
3: Sure, you need to go MacPro!

 

[jwt]

If I go with MacPro , would it make sense not to order it with just a single xeon to save $500. and 4gb ram.

This is the set-up I have and it is perfect. I use LR and PS all the time and even with this set-up there is still some lag sometimes, indicating that it is not overkill. Other times I get into a situation where I make a 16-bit panorama with several 14 MB RAW file, and after some layers work got started it swelled to almost 1 GB. I never even realized it was that big because this machine handled it so well. In that case I realized how happy I was with my purchase.

 

[pprior]

Okay, not a consensus. I just think I'm seeing MP as the winner cause that's what I would buy. I hereby denounce any claim to a consensus.

I did switch my Scratch disk over and while photoshop goes about the same, OS X seems to be more responsive (snappy, if you will) and my system Swap doesn't seem to be nearly as large.

You're talking about setting scratch disk in photoshop, right? There is no scratch disk for the system is there?

 

[termina3]

You're talking about setting scratch disk in photoshop, right? There is no scratch disk for the system is there?

…but retrieving files (documents, photos, movies, etc.) from a faster drive would show in the OS…*even if it's not due to the OS.

Theoretically the OS can have a scratch disk: install the OS on one of those superfast drives and devote it as a boot disk.

 

[FSBW21086]

i boot off a 750 gig velociraptor 10,000 rpm drive. The system feels very "snappy" but still I thought things would be nearly instant and they aren't. I use two 750gb Barracudda 7200.11 drives in a RAID0 for all my files. Scrolling through itunes or lightroom photos for example isn't buttery smooth with the slider. Its a big increase over my macbook pro. But i/o speed I think will see a much needed improvement in snow leopard.

Exporting 13 MB raw files takes under a second in lightroom (8bit,tiff) this is where the mac pro excels. Multi tasking is also amazing.

 

[qveda]

It's a more pro-apps thing than an Apple thing (although, come to think of it, I've never heard of one on an XP box).

The scratch disk is super-high speed (either 10,000rpm SATA or 15K+ SAS) hard drive that handles large amounts of information that you'd rather have on RAM, but can't because there's too little RAM. Obviously the difference between having data on a 7,200 (or…*5400) rpm drive is noticable when compared to a 15,000rpm drive.

Usually you can designate a scratch disk in programs like photoshop for large files that need to be pulled up quickly/worked on.

Think of it as an overflow tank.

Ah!, so that's what is meant by a 'scratch disk'. Didn't know that applications like PS and LR would need more than 4gb , and so didn't think they would need an ultra high speed HD - but I guess this is like a giant memory cache. So when I buy my Mac Pro, does it make sense to use the default 320gb drive for the OS (probably comes that way) and apps, and then get a one large super fast drive for all the data? Then you'd still want a back up drive that doesn't need to be as fast, right? And the backup drive could be internal or external - right?

 

[jwt]

So when I buy my Mac Pro, does it make sense to use the default 320gb drive for the OS (probably comes that way) and apps, and then get a one large super fast drive for all the data?

A lot of people swap the stocker, claiming it's not fast enough, but I kept mine and it opens 200 MB images like they're jpegs. No complaints on speed despite the poor benchmarks relative to other drives.

 

[JeffTL]

I run Lightroom on a 2.2 GHz MacBook Pro and it's plenty fast. My catalog is on a Western Digital RE2 disk in an Icy Dock FireWire 800 enclosure and it's very fast indeed. On today's MBP or MacBook it'd be faster yet.