Serious Photographers - How would you budget your upgrade?

[Macshroomer]

iMac or MacPro? It depends, are you doing this for an income or a pass time? I am often dumbfounded in how amateurs spend incredible amounts of money on gear....and time spent in gear mode rather than photographer mode.

I had a 24" iMac in the main office area, it ripped, I could get lots done on that because I don't really juice up my work like many do, I am a photographer, not a graphic artist. But the Mac Pro I have in the lab handles an Imacon Flextight that I use if I am not printing in the darkroom. So I appreciate those twin raptors and 4 TB of internal storage for big jobs in which I have to use digital or those big 200-800MB scans.

And I don't at all have near the problem with reflections on the screens as much as I did with hazed over low contrast / low specularity of the non-gloss screens, so that is not an issue either, but we are all different...

I'd say don't sell this guy more hardware than he needs unless it is for work and is a tax write off.

 

[Macshroomer]

Understandable. This is why I do my photo RAW processing in Lightroom/Photoshop CS4 on my i7 Windows rig. I leave my MBP to the light weight/iPhoto/Facebook stuff. Nevertheless, the iMac is very sufficient to processing what you describe.

I just built up and use a 13" MBP for travel work which I do a lot of. It is the 2.53 with an Intel 160 SSD for boot and apps and a 320 GB WD Black in the optical bay for files, it has 8GB of ram.

I can blast through D3X raw files or 800 MB large format scans near instantly it would seem, so I would not be so quick to dismiss a portable for professional level photo work. I have a lifestyle shoot in a couple weeks, the job will be in the hand of the creative before I even leave the hotel.

 

[compuwar]

I find your statement about batch processing interesting, as damnit, that's a CPU task at which the iMac excels.

It's also a disk task, and that's where the difference is for me- I often convert all my shots to a different file format depending on usage, and in my experience Photoshop likes the extra drive. I can tell the difference if I just use the system drive versus moving the images and scratch area off to a different one. If I shoot all day, I can tell the difference between USB2 and Firewire 800 card readers, let alone adding internal and external drives after download. Plus, all the iMacs in the OP's range are dual core, so if your batch task is multi-threaded you still lose out. For me, I often work on images while I have batch conversions (either Photoshop, RPP or Capture NX) going on- so the extra cores are in use. If you go with the quad-core iMac, then you may as well just pony up and get the extra disk spindles, as they'll do more for you in terms of performance than anything- you have actually looked at the difference in data transfer rates haven't you? The Quad-core iMac isn't that much less than a Mac Pro if you don't mind going with a 22" Dell UltraSharp monitor.

As for the 2TB hard disk limit? Meh. If I fill the internal drive, I'll archive older work onto externals for access when needed. Easy enough.

Once you've got more than four externals laying around, you may see how well that plays out- because I've got probably fifteen+ external drives from when my Powerbook and then MacBook Pro were my only options, and it works pretty poorly for me. I've got eight years or so of digital files and I'm still trying to locate one original image from 2003 when my backup scheme wasn't worked out well (which is probably on one of the externals that was going bad which was replaced with another external that's also going bad...)

But once again, if you really want external performance, eSATA is going to be well over twice as fast as FW800- both read and write speed- my files are getting larger, not smaller so I find it to be more of an issue today than even a year ago. I also tend to go from raw to TIFF as masters with JPEGs as working and printing copies- if you're just moving JPEGs around, then that may change how important fast disk is to you. If you're saving PSD layers to re-work or re-version, then it becomes critical. TIFFs from my new camera are ~145M each, 2TB isn't nearly as big as it once was.

The main point is that for the OP, the iMac is within budget (and not massively over like a Mac Pro...) and will most certainly do the job.

A Mac Mini will "do the job," the real question is how much processing the OP does and what their time is worth to them. If you're not de-wrinkling faces from portraits, doing panos, working with HDR or doing anything in Photoshop that requires a Scott Kelby book, then you're probably about as well off with a Mini and doing either an external SATA or eSATA hack if the price factor is that much of an issue:

http://www.erebos.net/34/
http://katastrophos.net/andre/blog/2006/11/02/the-mac-mini-external-sata-hack/

Since the Mini will boot from eSATA, you could even go with 10K RPM drives, or you could remove the DVD drive and do RAID-0 with one of these:

http://www.ifixit.com/Apple-Parts/12-7-mm-Optical-Bay-SATA-Hard-Drive-Enclosure/IF107-079

Performance comes in many flavors, but spreading the load out over multiple drives is one of the easiest and best all-around throughput changes you can make to a system, and that's simply not easy to do on an iMac. Only the OP knows if their workload warrants rebudgeting, hacking hardware or simply compromising.

 

[compuwar]

I can blast through D3X raw files or 800 MB large format scans near instantly it would seem

What's your workflow, because my D3x NEFs don't seem to be able to do anything instantly! Maybe I should look at RAM Disking my scratch areas...

(Maybe I should just shoot skinny folks with no wrinkles.)

Paul

 

[Razeus]

I just built up and use a 13" MBP for travel work which I do a lot of. It is the 2.53 with an Intel 160 SSD for boot and apps and a 320 GB WD Black in the optical bay for files, it has 8GB of ram.

I can blast through D3X raw files or 800 MB large format scans near instantly it would seem, so I would not be so quick to dismiss a portable for professional level photo work. I have a lifestyle shoot in a couple weeks, the job will be in the hand of the creative before I even leave the hotel.

Point to where I said I dismiss using a laptop for the pro level work? Or did you mistake my personal preferences as such?

 

[compuwar]

iMac or MacPro? It depends, are you doing this for an income or a pass time? I am often dumbfounded in how amateurs spend incredible amounts of money on gear....and time spent in gear mode rather than photographer mode.

Leica would hardly still be (barely) in business if it were otherwise. But the gear affects what you do- I know pros who shoot lots and spend two minutes on a print, and I know amateurs who shoot more and spend two weeks on a print- who's to say one is worth more than the other? Adam's printmaking was stellar, but he'd spend a lot more time in the darkroom after the early years than he did before (mostly after VC papers were invented.)

And I don't at all have near the problem with reflections on the screens as much as I did with hazed over low contrast / low specularity of the non-gloss screens, so that is not an issue either, but we are all different...

It comes at the price of shadow detail, I can see the differences between my matte Macbook Pro and my LED-backlit screen on some images more than others- but it's really a matter of "can I proof well enough?" to me.

I'd say don't sell this guy more hardware than he needs unless it is for work and is a tax write off.

It's all dependent on what they need- which isn't clear at all. The last time I shot a golf tournament, I was *very* happy to have the extra spindles, the last time I shot product it didn't matter much at all. but since we don't know what the OP shoots, how much, with what... it's difficult to say what's "more hardware than he needs," as it may be that anything is overkill, or that an 8-core fully-loaded system is the most optimal choice because their bent is focus-stacked HDR panos (and let's face it, we probably all know about three photographers combined making money on panos.)

Paul

 

[pdxflint]

...(and let's face it, we probably all know about three photographers combined making money on panos.)

Paul

I met one of those guys, David Bergman, a couple of months ago. Some incredible panos...inauguration and world series, who knows what else. The inauguration one he actually used a point and shoot zoomed all the way out, and let 'er rip. I'm not sure how many images were stitched, but over 1000. He said it took all night on his Macbook Pro. Anyway, enough trivia...

 

[compuwar]

Actual numbers

I met one of those guys, David Bergman, a couple of months ago. Some incredible panos...inauguration and world series, who knows what else. The inauguration one he actually used a point and shoot zoomed all the way out, and let 'er rip. I'm not sure how many images were stitched, but over 1000. He said it took all night on his Macbook Pro. Anyway, enough trivia...

The guy I got my D2x off of does about 15% of his income off of one pano- right time, right place, right market. It's definitely not the usual pro forte.

Ok, so I took the last batch I did and redid it several times to see if my assertions on speed were correct. I processed 110 TIFF files (LZW compression) and 2 NEF files (D3x, no compression) to JPEG using the following process: Nuke the target JPEG directory, go into Bridge and select the files, then chose Tools->Photoshop->Image Processor, Photoshop will open up a dialog box, Settings are "Save in Same Location" or save to a different location depending on the test, "Save as JPEG" Quality 12, with some Copyright text (My name and year with a C) and "Include ICC Profile."

This is a fairly routine thing for me, but most of the time I'm dealing with 3x to 5x the number of files. I'm moving my hosting from Imagekind to Zenfolio, so I'm using a smaller batch size than if I were actually processing images for the first time, and I'm not dealing with the raw front-end stuff that would have an even larger effect (reading NEFs and writing to large TIFFs- the write speeds would be the key.)

Here's the "iMac-alike times" Read from, write to OS disk, Photoshop scratch on same disk:

6:13, 6:10, 6:08 average 6:10.3

Here's the Mac Pro different disk times:

5:57, 5:51, 5:51 average 5:53

Now, if you roll off to a USB2 drive (my firewire external is down) you're at over 12:30 (and I didn't have the heart to do that two more times!) If you want to roll from the USB2 to to the internal drive, the transfer time alone is around 7m, so you're still around 12-13m if you have to go the external route.

As I said, these are small numbers for me- and the times with larger items like panos and HDRs are really going to show up more, but the simple fact is that more disks are generally faster. If you do a lot of image processing, you'll see the difference in terms of saving 5-10m per session if you're a heavy user, or just waiting for things to move around, for me that can add up to about 4-5 hours per month if I shoot a lot of images that need processing.

With all this, I just realized I spend way more time on group and fine art images than I do on commercial or most of my portrait work except where I'm de-wrinkling someone.

Paul

 

[seedster2]

I would wait for a MacPro refurbished deal or a macbook Pro w/ external Dell IPS monitor. Skip the Mini and the iMac.

I say to skip the mini because nothing is upgradeable without potentially risking your warranty and it's not up to huge file PP. The iMac, although an incredible bang for the buck, has some serious shortcomings with respect to upgradability and QC. Both of these computers require you to plug in externals to expand (and no e-sata) and neither are portable.

The MacPro I picked up last year was under 2k and I am looking for NEC monitor from my 20 inch IPS Dell. Im not rich and work on a budget but by the time you work out the costs of settling for the lesser offerings, you will end up spending much more.

Many will say that the new glossy screens are useable and color calibratable but I have been to various printing shops and PP spots around and while I see new MPs I dont see glossy screen apple monitors. I am sure the 27inch monitors will be offered by dell soon if money is tight.

 

[hoya87eagle91]

A great budget system for our OP would be a 21" 3.06 base iMac for $1000 + extra 4 gigs ram $100 + whatever 24" matte screen he wanted next to it $600 and up (Dell U2410?) + 2 TB external FW800 drive $200 + a good color calibrator (say, Spyder 3) $300 = less than the price of a stock/base model macpro and 5X as fast as his G5 (faster than a $700 mini too) add another $400 for the ATI 21" iMac for the larger drive and faster video (important for Lightroom/Aperture)

Again, we all have different needs, and Im thinking the OPs arent as demanding as yours...

Thanks for laying out the ways to spread out the budget, Badger. This is very helpful.

I'm definitley a weekend amatur photog here, but what I should have added in my original post is that I've got loads of HD video amassed on mini DV HD tapes that I'd lke to edit into small five to fifteen minute shorts using imovie HD, Imovie 08, and or FCE, and I expect the library will only grow with two young kids around! How would that change a potential set up, given that it might be easier to have multiple drives for editing video?

I also have a growing library of medium format slides and negatives that i may eventually scan (either myself or will outsource) and store digitally.

I would wait for a MacPro refurbished deal or a macbook Pro w/ external Dell IPS monitor. Skip the Mini and the iMac.

I say to skip the mini because nothing is upgradeable without potentially risking your warranty and it's not up to huge file PP. The iMac, although an incredible bang for the buck, has some serious shortcomings with respect to upgradability and QC. Both of these computers require you to plug in externals to expand (and no e-sata) and neither are portable.

Thanks Seedster. I definitely agree that refurbs are they way to go no matter what machine you buy. I tend to agree with your expandability comment ( I'm maxed out at two drives and 4Gigs in my G5), and in the short five years I've been looking at Macs, the latest Pros seem to be far more expandable vs other Mac offerings that ever. Bumping RAM and drives is a draw for me to the pro, but perhaps i won't notice much diference between three drives and 16G? and one drive and 8GB?

 

[hoya87eagle91]

apologies for consecutive posts. my newbie error

 

[seedster2]

Thanks Seedster. I definitely agree that refurbs are they way to go no matter what machine you buy. I tend to agree with your expandability comment ( I'm maxed out at two drives and 4Gigs in my G5), and in the short five years I've been looking at Macs, the latest Pros seem to be far more expandable vs other Mac offerings that ever. Bumping RAM and drives is a draw for me to the pro, but perhaps i won't notice much diference between three drives and 16G? and one drive and 8GB?

yeah doing authorized upgrades yourself is a huge plus. I upgraded my ram to 10GB and I use 4 1TB WD in RAID 0 and back up externally.

If you're planning to work on video and/or multitask you will certainly notice the difference with internal RAID drives.

 

[Macshroomer]

What's your workflow, because my D3x NEFs don't seem to be able to do anything instantly! Maybe I should look at RAM Disking my scratch areas...

(Maybe I should just shoot skinny folks with no wrinkles.)

Paul

I only shoot in raw to cover my rear if something was off in the shoot, which is next to never, so I simply export to tiff or jpeg and get other things done As it is chugging along. It seems to move instantly to me.

But I really only use digital for certain gigs when I can't use film, which thankfully is less and less these days.

Everything else, landscapes, monthly magazine articles and the like are on film Now.

 

[Jaro65]

I would get a 27 inch imac and you can easily calibrate those with software, they have IPS panels in them and can deliver excellent performance

+1 vote for a 27" iMac. Plus, you can use it to drive another screen with it. Dual screen setup can be quite useful. I love using Lightroom with 2 screens.