Need Help. Graphic Desingers

[b84]

so should i drop an extra almost $300 for the 24' vs the 20'. Do you think that it would really be that neccisary. i have been used to using a 15' screen, so for me its really a plus to go to the twenty inch even.

 

[Dimwhit]

so should i drop an extra almost $300 for the 24' vs the 20'. Do you think that it would really be that neccisary. i have been used to using a 15' screen, so for me its really a plus to go to the twenty inch even.

Yes. It's a beautiful screen. I have a 24" at home, and we have the 20" at work. The 20" is nice, but the larger one is easily worth the extra money.

 

[stainlessliquid]

Oh, so he should just get a dell then since the computer does nothing. Actually I would say a good printer is even more important than the screen because that's going to create the final product that you show. Hence creating proofs, and checking the color throughout the process.

Considering Adobe programs are exactly the same in either OS it doesnt actually matter if he gets a Dell, they all do the same things. And a printer the most important? Get real. A professional quality printer will set you back thousands of dollars. There are places to go to get things printed at the clients expense, his school probably has a large format printer for him to use for free that would be extremely better than anything he can afford. After a few years of freelancing and getting bigger jobs then maybe he might consider investing in a home printer that print places use. A good monitor will save you many prints, and a lot of money/time if you do a lot of printing, it is a higher priority.

I call total BS to your idea that 2D doesn't use the processor. Try opening up a 75M photo and let me know when your processor stays a 0% usage.
Why are you all of a sudden comparing it to a G4 mini? (Which still is not as fast as a 2.4 iMac??????)
There's a big difference between write/read speed on a 5400 vs 7200, and it all does add up to more time waiting on the slower. Working off a USB or external is going to make it even slower.
A 2.0 mac mini runs as fast as a 2.0 imac!? WTF!? Now I know you have no idea what you're talking about. http://www.macworld.com/article/5977...icore2cuo.html That's also funny how the faster processors increase the speed in photoshop. What a concept!!!

Actually those times are based on filters. So you seem to be the one that doesnt know what hes talking about. Basing processor speed on the usage graph is pointless, it has nothing to do with how powerful your processor is, for instance scrolling cnn.com takes up more processor usage than using a 100px smudge brush on a 200mb file.

Photoshop and 2D programs like it use ram for most of the stuff they do, anyone will tell you that, the processor has been rather insignificant for a long time now. Like I said, the only time the mini will be slower is when opening/saving a file and running a filter (if you have enough ram then the scratch disk should rarely be an issue, the scratch disk is what slows down PS while working). Ive been doing this since the 90's and have gone through several computer upgrades since then, I think I know what does and doesnt affect Photoshop performance. My 2.6ghz Core 2 Duo with 2gbs of ram performs exactly the same as my ancient 2200+ Athlon XP with 2gbs of ram, the C2D smokes the old computer in many tasks but Photoshop is not one of them since they both had the same amount of ram. I saw a big performance boost in PS when I went from 256mbs to 768mbs, I saw a big boost when going from 768mbs to 1.5gbs, and I completely eliminated lag in reasonable sized files when going to 2gbs, I have never once seen improvement when upgrading the processor. Infact, a few years ago I made the mistake of upgrading my processor but I couldnt afford 2gbs of DDR2 ram for the new motherboard, so I went with 1gb instead, Photoshop ended up being much slower despite the faster ram speed and faster processor.

The processor does not matter enough in Photoshop for there to be a noticable difference between a 2ghz C2D and a 2.4GHZ C2D, they are simply too close in performance. I have a 1.8ghz C2D in my PC and I can overclock it to either of those speeds and prove it if there was a way to benchmark it.

so should i drop an extra almost $300 for the 24' vs the 20'. Do you think that it would really be that neccisary. i have been used to using a 15' screen, so for me its really a plus to go to the twenty inch even.

Considering youd just be flushing your money down the toilet by getting the 20" then yes its worth it. The extra resolution will also let you keep multiple documents open at the same time which is very handy. The 24" has an S-IPS panel and is pro quality like the Apple Cinema Displays. A lot of pros are moving from 2 smaller 4:3 monitors to one big 24" or 30" widescreen display.

 

[snickelfritz]

so should i drop an extra almost $300 for the 24' vs the 20'. Do you think that it would really be that neccisary. i have been used to using a 15' screen, so for me its really a plus to go to the twenty inch even.

You are dramatically underestimating the importance of a good quality display in graphic design.
The answer to your question is an emphatic yes.
I dunno why Apple chose that funky panel for the 20" model, but it's definitely not suitable for serious color work.

BTW, I find the previous assertion that 2D applications "don't use the processor" to be almost unworthy of a response.
This is pure hogwash, although some of the other assertions from that post, regarding RAM and I/O as they relate to Photoshop performance, are IMO, correct.
I think I would reword that post to the effect:
"CPU clock frequency is not as important as RAM and I/O in Photoshop."
Something like that is easier to swallow.

 

[DHart]

As a full time professional photographer producing high-end, high-quality work, I use 20" iMac Intel 2 GHz Core Duo machines (the original Intel iMacs), with the matte screens and maxed out with 2 gb of ram for Photoshop editing daily (CS3). My file sizes are all 33 mb before adding layers and I often have as many as a dozen of these files open at once. This is done while also running Safari, Mail, iView Multimedia, iTunes, and Excel simultaneously. I have no problems at all. Real time editing (cloning, healing, levels, curves, cropping, etc.) is plenty fast enough, UNTIL I RUN FILTERS and that's when things slow down a bit. The Imageogenic Portraiture filter is one I use on nearly every image and I must say that when running Portraiture, I do want for a faster processor, just to slog through the work more quickly. Other than when running such filters, these 20" 2 GHz iMac Core Duos with 2 GB of ram and the matte screens are awesome graphics machines... very accurate colors, no perceptible variation in color or brightness at different viewing angles.

When people report color problems with the 20" iMacs, they must be referring to the new glossy screen iMacs, because the previous version matte screen 20" iMacs are excellent for critical color work! (When calibrated.)

I would suggest that you buy a used or refurbished matte-screen 20" iMac Core Duo machine (20" is fine, if it has a matte screen) as you will get a lot more machine for your money than buying a mini and keyboard, mouse, monitor.

As for the newest iMacs with the glossy screens... it sounds from what I've read here that the 20" glossy screen is made with a different technology than the 24" glossy screen is. Is this definitely true?

I had heard that all the new glossy screens (20" and 24") were problematic with regard to reflection issues and inconsistent color/brightness across the entire screen area.

Am I to believe that the new 24" screens have the same evenness of illumination and color consistency as the older 20" matte screens on the earlier iMacs? If so, what about the reflection problems that have been commonly reported... obviously ambient light in the workplace must be much more carefully controlled when one is using a glossy screen.

I, for one, think Apple made a big mistake going from matte to glossy screens with the iMacs, even if their justification was that iMacs are just consumer machines... a LOT of professional imaging people use iMacs for professional work and the older matte screens were perfect for that... BUT I am totally leery of buying a new iMac with a glossy screen for professional image editing. Is the 24" glossy screen iMac truly up to the job of displaying color images as evenly, consistently, and accurately as the older matte screens were?

 

[b84]

well now i am wanting the 24' model, but running all the way up to that price range i was even thinking that a MBP might be a better deal in the end if i just end up buying a monitor 20-24' to attach it to the laptop. any remarks?

 

[snickelfritz]

well now i am wanting the 24' model, but running all the way up to that price range i was even thinking that a MBP might be a better deal in the end if i just end up buying a monitor 20-24' to attach it to the laptop. any remarks?

The MBP is $2699.00 with a 7200rpm drive and 256MB of videoRAM.
(as close to the $1799.00 iMac spec as possible)
That's a $900.00 difference.
Not sure I see the value here; you end up with a smaller 15" display and half the storage.
The only real advantage is that it's portable.

You'll have to decide for yourself if the shiny glass iMac display is too reflective for your environment.

 

[b84]

Well i could get a 2.2 MBP for 1699 refurbished with an extra 200 or 300 for a monitor that would be around 2300. I have and 120gb and 500gb external harddrive. That gives me both worlds at a slightly higher price. I just do not want any screen issues with imacs.

 

[snickelfritz]

Portable computers are great for poking at projects on vacations, and alleviating boredom on long flights.
Sounds like a great solution.

 

[stainlessliquid]

You might want to consider a WHITE 20" Core 2 Duo iMac, you can currently get a refurbished one at the apple store for 1099. Those things pop up on the refurbished area all the time and are much better machines than the newer 20" imacs.

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?nplm=FA589LL/A (they also have a 24" one for $1399)

That will be better than the mini thanks to the faster HDD and ability to use more ram... and you cant go wrong with the display (unless it comes faulty of course).

When people report color problems with the 20" iMacs, they must be referring to the new glossy screen iMacs, because the previous version matte screen 20" iMacs are excellent for critical color work! (When calibrated.)

Yes, The old white 20" iMacs had a great screen, it was an IPS like their standalone monitors. The backlights on them were not as bright but thats not nearly as important as the LCD panel itself. The new 20" imacs in aluminum (glossy screen) use a TN LCD panel in them, which is for budget displays and is horrible for picture accuracy.

The 24" inch aluminum imacs are fine and are just as good as the old white imacs. They use IPS panels instead of TN.

 

[killerrobot]

Actually those times are based on filters. So you seem to be the one that doesnt know what hes talking about.

Actually, it says the test is based on 14 scripted tasks - that could include opening the 50M file, saving it as, changing the dpi, etc. etc. Did you see anywhere that they were all filtered tasks?

@b84
I'd recommend against the MBP - it gets pricey in the high end and even the 17" still leaves less palette room, plus you're gonna have a smaller HD capacity. It does provide a lot better portability however.

Since everyone's down on the 20" aluminum as being "unsuitable" screen wise - what if the OP bought the 2.4 20" then took the extra $300+ saved and bought another 20" external IPS that stainlessliquid mentioned earlier - thus giving him a "good" color monitor plus the imac's. I personally would take two 20" over a 24". What do you guys think?

 

[b84]

thnkx for the input. i really preciate everyone

I am getting the ipod touch so i am reconsidering my option for the MBP, although i like the portibality/power it has. I could get the money togther but i would like to be reasonable as i am a begineer not expert. I do plan on keeping this machine for 3-4years. I like being at a desk to work so a desktop is what i would perfer. i have access to school computers. So this what i had in mind, the pervious gen imac as the pervious person mentioned, 20' or the current 20' 2.0 or 24' 2.4 is what i have all refurbished. i am just trying to do some budgeting to get the best machine that i can.

 

[b84]

Do you think i could get by with a macbook w/cs3? it is basically a mini laptop right??
i have a friend selling one for a good price.
current 2.o base model for 700. it would save money. any comments?

 

[snickelfritz]

Reality check: all modern Macs will run CS3 acceptably, assuming there is enough RAM and HDD space.

Personally, I think the MacBook for $700 would be a very flexible solution for graphic design if you connect a decent >20" display to it. (for daily work)
This especially true if you do photography in the field or take lots of vacations or business trips; you can take your Mac with you!
Just be sure to load it up with as much memory as it will hold.
(you cannot have too much RAM for graphic design)