What Mac Pro setup should I get for serious amateur photography?

[deconstruct60]

YMMV. It doesn't do one much good to have an "8 core" i7 if you're bottlenecked to get data to/from it.

How is a modern iMac going to get bottlenecked on photo storage? Thunderbolt evens the playing field for any reasonable "part-time"/"amateur" storage subsystem requirements. Same thing with the rest of the Mac line up.

The memory throughput and DMI links are clearly faster than 10Gb/s. The storage subsystem can top out close to 10Gb/s. So where is this bottleneck?

A lot can depend on how you want to manage your portfolio for how much data storage you want to have,

Which has little to nothing to do with which Mac model the person is using at the core of their set up. There is no single storage architecture imposed on any Mac user at this point with the modern models.

and similarly how responsive you want it to be.

Ditto for this class of performance requirements.


Bumping into less than or equal to 8GB RAM limitations can pose an issue with some Mac models

 

[liquid stereo]

more phooey

More scare tactics...

If one is semi-serious about photography here is what you will eventually want:
1. More ram (12 GB is currently great);
2. A large, color accurate monitor;
3. Good software (LR, Capture One, Aperture, Dfine, etc.);
4. A nice, well-lit, work area or desk.

YMMV. It doesn't do one much good to have an "8 core" i7 if you're bottlenecked to get data to/from it.

A lot can depend on how you want to manage your portfolio for how much data storage you want to have, and similarly how responsive you want it to be. At present, the price per GB for an SSD is still higher than a pair of HDDs in RAID0, so while one may choose to spring for 0.25TB or a hybrid, if your portfolio is large, even the simple "bulk storage" may become a consideration to maintain sanity and productivity for your workflow.

For example, for a "semi-serious" who is going to rely on iPhoto, when the image count gets high enough to put the iPhoto repository to around 1TB, what's the load time climb up to for initial start-up, etc? If it is unacceptable, the options are typically limited to cash for faster IT (hardware or software), some workflow changes, or some purging of "unwanted" images (drive to a smaller database to support)...choose your poison.


-hh

 

[SuperKerem]

I suggest you get a Mac mini. They are more powerful than you might think.

 

[RoastingPig]

Does everyone on this forum agree that at this present time no one with a serious workload should ever buy less than 4.1 mac pro?

 

[deconstruct60]

Does everyone on this forum agree that

Not going to get a 100% quorum on this forum for anything. Maybe high 80-90's.

at this present time no one with a serious workload should ever buy less than 4.1 mac pro?

The $/GB is higher for pre 4,1 Mac Pros. The memory is old of mainstream and legacy at this point. For photo work that tends to push RAM limits somewhat that isn't an advantage.

The pre 4,1 four cores can't keep up with 4,1 and up 4-6 core models. 3,1 8 core folks always pick on more modern 4 core boxes to show they still got performance chops.

Pre 3,1 have been dropped from OS X upgrades. 3,1 is on last legs for hardware support. 2009 + 5 --> 2014. http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1752 Everything currently supported is suppose to move to 10,9. Likely means 10.10 will be another culling of the legacy herd. 10.10 will get released after 3,1's vintage birthday. It will be on a slippery slope.


PCI-e 1.1 slots for the two x4 instances. Adding in something like USB 3.0 or 3.1 isn't going to be very effective. Same for affordable eSATA at current speeds.

So not particularly a good long term investment for money now. If already have one, it isn't dead but there better longer term options.

 

[Apple fanboy]

More scare tactics...

If one is semi-serious about photography here is what you will eventually want:
1. More ram (12 GB is currently great);
2. A large, color accurate monitor;
3. Good software (LR, Capture One, Aperture, Dfine, etc.);
4. A nice, well-lit, work area or desk.

I'd disagree with number 4. Better to have a more controlled low light situation when looking at a properly calibrated monitor. Strong ambient lighting is not what you need, unless you are talking about looking at prints, in which case get a portable daylight lamp.

 

[GXPvince]

I shot 28 weddings last year and Post processed on my Mac 1,1 16gb ram 3 SSDs using 1.) Lightroom 2.)Photoshop 3.)Photo mechanic(A MUST HAVE).

Went well, and I am still using my 1,1 with 30in ADC and 23in ADC. I run into Ram issues (not enough RAM) when importing 20-25 D600 images into PS.

I did have a 12 core 2.4 Mac Pro with 28GB ram and I rarely ran into RAM issues. Although the 2.4 was a noticeably a bit quicker it wasn't worth the money over the 1,1 IMO. However, once she gets into photography more and more she is going to want her time back- And the only way to reduce time spent on PP is getting tasks done quicker. She will find herself wanting equipment/computers to do your tasks faster or wanting to hand the PP off to a third party. Before the third party comes in I suggest you do everything in your power to make her faster and faster whether that be buying software, hardware or what have you.

In here you are going to see all different types of angles! Buy what you can afford and be ready to start upgrading things eventually as she understands whats going on.

 

[chrono1081]

A nice 27 inch iMac would be plenty for the OP, and as others have stated even a Mac Mini with the right configuration would suffice.

I used to do tons of image editing (yes with raw files because I know someones going to ask) and as long as you have a decent processor, lots of ram and a good amount of storage you're good.

I'd save the Mac Pros for more demanding workflows and use the money saved on some camera gear.

 

[phrehdd]

There is no perfect Mac for Photoshop and related software but a lot of different Macs that can do the job so to speak.

For Mac Pro - hex core 3.33, 24 gig RAM, reasonable video card and whatever combination of drives that offers you a fast swap/scratch location.

iMac - fastest you can afford. Negatives for the iMac (sorry as this will bring up some debate) is the screen itself. I have used iMacs and don't find them really a good choice for either colour calibration or looking at for long sessions. As others mentioned - NEC is a good example of a fine monitor (27 or 30").

Mac Mini - Quad and fastest you can afford. Ideally, replace drive with SSD or better - 2 SSD (see OWC and other companies who offer the service to install the drives unless you are savvy at this type of thing - gets expensive if you make critical mistakes).

I think the Mac Pro hex is a really excellent choice and you can add USB 3 cards if desired. Just be sure to investigate the performance of each USB 3 card before making your final purchase. Other forums on line here have discussed which chipset works best along with supported drivers for OSX.

After the Mac Pro, I would get a Mac Mini and invest in a good monitor. Over time, you may find you are still using the monitor for photo work and relegate the Mac Mini to other stuff when you decide to upgrade down the line. Mac Mini is btw a good option for an HTPC so, you can hook it up to your TV as an example of re-purposing.

Just an opinion and yes I have worked on Mac Pro (1,1 and above), iMacs and presently have a Mac Mini quad 2.0, 16 gig RAM, SSD installed and do Photoshop and will be moving forward with Lightroom (again). This Mac Mini is reasonably fast. There are faster models now and of course, there will be the new Mac Mini "Pro" under the name of Mac Pro 2013 (grin).

 

[ApfelKuchen]

Considering the cost of cameras, lenses, and the like… Is an over-speced computer system the right investment?

I'd argue (though some would disagree), that a super-quality, calibrated monitor is overkill unless it's part of a super-quality, calibrated exhibition printing system, pre-press for coffee table books, national advertising, theatrical motion picture release, etc. Calibration is most necessary when the result on-monitor has to be precisely reproduced. If your wife has crossed that threshold, excellent, get the monitor.

Otherwise? I'd put the money into lighting gear, a better tripod, sharper lenses… whatever will make the fundamental image better. In the old days, it meant, make the negative the best it can be. Today, it's the RAW file. You can always go back and re-edit the file if changing circumstances dictate. You may never get a chance to re-shoot the photo.

Everyone thinks they need a hot rod. For most, lots of RAM in a mid-upper range desktop is all they really need. Why? Software developers have to keep the performance of the end-user's hardware in mind. Otherwise, too many users have an unsatisfactory experience. Video, animation? Rendering 30 frames per second... Heavy-duty work requires heavy-duty hardware. Fractions of seconds per frame add up very quickly. Still images barely scratch the surface.

Money spent on off-site backup will more likely pay off than smaller amounts spent on local redundant storage, as it protects against more hazards. Back when I worked in network TV, we ran redundant commercial reels for insertion in live events (1" analog videotape, in the Stone Age). Otherwise, if a VTR crashed, we'd lose at least one $250,000 spot. That's a reason for redundancy. The ability of an advanced amateur to continue editing a photo without interruption should a disk fail, when a hard drive failure is likely to occur about once every 3-5 years?

 

[Tesselator]

Does everyone on this forum agree that at this present time no one with a serious workload should ever buy less than 4.1 mac pro?

Not going to get a 100% quorum on this forum for anything. Maybe high 80-90's.

Yeah, there's too many other good options. For example a half-priced Hackintosh overclocked can be almost twice as fast as the fastest MP 4,1 or 5,1. And there's way too many different user profiles with different workflows - some of which can make even a MacMini more than good enough.

If I were a pro photog I'd not select a MacPro myself, I'd go for the Hackintosh at about 4.5GHz air-cooled or 5GHz water cooled (4 to 6 cores), the fastest RAM available, and SATAIII and/or TB with all SSD drives except those used for backup and off-line storage. I would spend all the money I saved (probably about $2k) by going with a DIY system, on SSDs - probably four 800GB in RAID0 for a 2.4TB volume.

As it is I'm just a hobbyist but I average about 2,000 RAW images between 16mpx and 36mpx a month anyway. So far the MP1,1 with x5355 CPUs, 32GB Ram, and 4 Barracuda 3TB in RAID0 (plus TM) is cutting it fairly well. I guess it would be different however if I had the two other things that matter in these kinds of calculations: Office Hours and Deadlines.

 

[RoastingPig]

theres something about overclocked unsupported hardware that i don't like

 

[liquid stereo]

misunderstanding

By well-lit I don't mean bright. I mean properly lit, considering the monitor — reflective or anti-reflective coating, etc. — position of lights and so on.

Cheers!

I'd disagree with number 4. Better to have a more controlled low light situation when looking at a properly calibrated monitor. Strong ambient lighting is not what you need, unless you are talking about looking at prints, in which case get a portable daylight lamp.

 

[Apple fanboy]

By well-lit I don't mean bright. I mean properly lit, considering the monitor — reflective or anti-reflective coating, etc. — position of lights and so on.

Cheers!

Monitor hoods are your friends!

 

[thekev]

By well-lit I don't mean bright. I mean properly lit, considering the monitor — reflective or anti-reflective coating, etc. — position of lights and so on.

Cheers!

Well ideally you would want the least ambient light possible. It's easiest to get consistency that way. The downside is that it's extremely unpleasant. Displays have used a range of coating types, but none of them are completely unaffected by ambient lighting. Of course the other aspect is that anything in your peripheral view has a tendency to bias your eyes somewhat as human vision is highly contextual.

Yeah, there's too many other good options. For example a half-priced Hackintosh overclocked can be almost twice as fast as the fastest MP 4,1 or 5,1. And there's way too many different user profiles with different workflows - some of which can make even a MacMini more than good enough.

If I were a pro photog I'd not select a MacPro myself, I'd go for the Hackintosh at about 4.5GHz air-cooled or 5GHz water cooled (4 to 6 cores), the fastest RAM available, and SATAIII and/or TB with all SSD drives except those used for backup and off-line storage. I would spend all the money I saved (probably about $2k) by going with a DIY system, on SSDs - probably four 800GB in RAID0 for a 2.4TB volume.

As it is I'm just a hobbyist but I average about 2,000 RAW images between 16mpx and 36mpx a month anyway. So far the MP1,1 with x5355 CPUs, 32GB Ram, and 4 Barracuda 3TB in RAID0 (plus TM) is cutting it fairly well. I guess it would be different however if I had the two other things that matter in these kinds of calculations: Office Hours and Deadlines.

I don't know that you would even need to do that. The ram is what really helps. CPUs don't have to be overclocked to offer adequate results for your uses.

 

[orph]

if your not relying on the computer for an income you can afford to wait, you dont need an SSD you just want one
if your a pro then money is time and time is money etc

a mac min is fast, has USB3 and a i5/i7 16GB of ram, it's cheep (do RAM DIY dont pay apple)
most tasks will use 1-2 cores so both the i5/i7 have turbo hyper threading is not important, any more than 4 cores is overkill at the mo and GPU is not a player in stills right now.
macperformanceguide.com recons the GPU acceleration his glitches http://macperformanceguide.com/OptimizingPhotoshopCS6-configuring.html

if your just Dslr shooting, RAW files and working in adobe camera raw (is it jpeg or RAW she shoots?) and not doing big jobs with lots of layers you dont need the fastest setup.

USB3 external drives are cool and cheep at the mo + future proof for a while so thats cool.
internal backups are a bad idea in case something kills the computer, my backups/library are over 8 external drives (4 are mirrors of the other 4 ) which are labeled/dated so i only plugin the drive i want to use when i use it then it lives unplugged so no power serge will kill all 8 drives in one go

lights not to bad unless your doing real/expensive printing just dont have a window behind your screen, do you have a hardware calibrator or know some one you can borrow one from ? if not you may want to pick one up.
the NEC P241W is a nice looker for the price do you need something like that? (or look at eizo)

ps dont try to calibrate by eye, just use the default if your not using a hardware calibrator

this site is worth a look http://shop.colourconfidence.com/section.php/10210/1/monitor-calibration

ps, if your not a pro use sRGB for post.

if your serious a screen and calibrator are more important than the CPU, dont get a 'Pantone Huey PRO' look at spyder4's (any one know if x-rite color munki are any good?)

 

[orph]

and for the amateur a colour card/Gray card may be a nice present
http://shop.colourconfidence.com/product.php/2686/x-rite-colorchecker-passport

 

[-hh]

How is a modern iMac going to get bottlenecked on photo storage?

If you buy a basic iMac, it comes with the Fusion HDD, so as soon as your OS + image databases are larger than the SSD portion, you're back to the performance I/O limitation of a single platter spinning disk.

Thunderbolt evens the playing field for any reasonable "part-time"/"amateur" storage subsystem requirements. Same thing with the rest of the Mac line up.

True, within reason...which is also why I mentioned the YMMV here based on how responsive you want your system to be and how large of an image repository you have.

The memory throughput and DMI links are clearly faster than 10Gb/s. The storage subsystem can top out close to 10Gb/s. So where is this bottleneck?

Simplistically, any time that the intended workflow has to fall back to a single spindle HDD. Since the iMac's OEM drive isn't an SSD, nor is it really user-servicable, this factor may be an initial purchase factor/consideration.

how much data storage...
Which has little to nothing to do with which Mac model the person is using at the core of their set up. There is no single storage architecture imposed on any Mac user at this point with the modern models.

Sorry you missed the point: the point is that if the user's plan is to employ the iMac's internal storage as their primary data repository, then they have to trade-off the Fusion drive vs the varous sized SSDs .. and their respective costs .. at the planned time of initial purchase. True, a factor that can adjust this is what their plan is what they want to do if/when they outgrow that basic capability ... but this decision needs to be done cognizant with what that plan is going to be, and to what degree the Mac that they're looking at is compatible with user upgradability (and how).

And GRANTED, this is also going to be somewhat of a moot point once the new Mac Pro ships ... but it hasn't shipped yet, and the current (old) Mac Pro is still an option for the OP.

And case in point through a personal example: I've learned that single spindle HDDs are too frustratingly slow for my workflow requirements, which pragmatically necessitates either a RAID0 or an SSD. As of even today, none of Apple's iMacs in OEM form offer internal SSDs large enough for my present library...at any price ... which forces me into an external solution for it on the outset, regardless of if I choose a RAID0 or SSD, and which protocol (TB or USB3) I choose to put it on.

FWIW, all of the above is merely hypothetical for me ... I did this research last year and ended up choosing to get a 2012 Mac Pro last year and took care of my data repository needs (12TB) internally. At the time, this approach was more cost-effective for my use case vs the iMac; YMMV and not any BS "Scare Tactics" whatsoever: just sharing what I learned for my own application.


-hh

 

[liquid stereo]

However its arrived at...

The OP can figure out what works for him (or her). A well sorted out workspace is quite valuable. IMHO, it is more valuable/useful than more GHz, GB/TB, etc.

Cheers!

Well ideally you would want the least ambient light possible. It's easiest to get consistency that way. The downside is that it's extremely unpleasant. Displays have used a range of coating types, but none of them are completely unaffected by ambient lighting. Of course the other aspect is that anything in your peripheral view has a tendency to bias your eyes somewhat as human vision is highly contextual.

I don't know that you would even need to do that. The ram is what really helps. CPUs don't have to be overclocked to offer adequate results for your uses.

 

[thekev]

The OP can figure out what works for him (or her). A well sorted out workspace is quite valuable. IMHO, it is more valuable/useful than more GHz, GB/TB, etc.

Cheers!

I would certainly agree with that.

 

[deconstruct60]

If you buy a basic iMac, it comes with the Fusion HDD,

Since when? Fusion Drive is a BTO option for the 2012 iMac. Initially not even offered for the entry level one ( it is an option now ).

Simplistically, any time that the intended workflow has to fall back to a single spindle HDD.

Same refrain. Which Mac model significantly limits you to just one HDD spindle?

It is actually your imposed storage architecture limitations that is the root cause of the issues. Not those driven by the Mac models' capabilities.

Sorry you missed the point: the point is that if the user's plan is to employ the iMac's internal storage as their primary data repository,

I didn't miss the point at all. Liquid stereo's post didn't loop in the odd constraint of being a self contained media server hub and a tool for non-pro photography. It was about tools for non-pro photography.

Frankly for the vast majority of folks if looking for a computer to do non-pro photography it is better to avoid a computer with alot of hats to wear ( "hobby photography" + foo + bar + baz + fred + barney + wilma computer is going to create issues. )

FWIW, all of the above is merely hypothetical for me ... I did this research last year and ended up choosing to get a 2012 Mac Pro last year and took care of my data repository needs (12TB) internally. At the time, this approach was more cost-effective for my use case vs the iMac; YMMV and not any BS "Scare Tactics" whatsoever: just sharing what I learned for my own application.

Chuckle. Fusion Drive didn't even come up in this thread till you brought it in as a misdirection. The photography repository in the first post is no where near 12TB. Multiple HDDs spindles are very doable with good performance and for reasonable money on any Mac.

 

[Tesselator]

Yeah, there's too many other good options. For example a half-priced Hackintosh overclocked can be almost twice as fast as the fastest MP 4,1 or 5,1. And there's way too many different user profiles with different workflows - some of which can make even a MacMini more than good enough.

If I were a pro photog I'd not select a MacPro myself, I'd go for the Hackintosh at about 4.5GHz air-cooled or 5GHz water cooled (4 to 6 cores), the fastest RAM available, and SATAIII and/or TB with all SSD drives except those used for backup and off-line storage. I would spend all the money I saved (probably about $2k) by going with a DIY system, on SSDs - probably four 800GB in RAID0 for a 2.4TB volume.

As it is I'm just a hobbyist but I average about 2,000 RAW images between 16mpx and 36mpx a month anyway. So far the MP1,1 with x5355 CPUs, 32GB Ram, and 4 Barracuda 3TB in RAID0 (plus TM) is cutting it fairly well. I guess it would be different however if I had the two other things that matter in these kinds of calculations: Office Hours and Deadlines.

I don't know that you would even need to do that. The ram is what really helps. CPUs don't have to be overclocked to offer adequate results for your uses.

Ya, I've compared and practiced on a few different systems including an OverClocked Hackintosh. Trust me, anyone shooting quantities of RAW images over 8 or 10mpx will be happier with the 4.5 to 5GHz procs (in conjunction with speedy RAM)! The amount of RAM matters too but in my tests 24GB or over is all about the same. Under 16GB and there starts to be OS X phenomena. Interestingly Win7 and Win8 at 12 and 16GB didn't show a difference when compared to 32GB - so I guess it's just OS X.

If a person is shooting JPegs you're right tho. If JPegs are their workflow acquisition format then really even a Mac Mini is fine! Something like a MacPro would be overkill and they probably couldn't actually make use of an overclocked system. Similarly if they often switch between shooting JPegs and RAW or are shooting small RAWs under 12mpx then the OC'ed system may not be needed.

This is all of course assuming that the photog wants the freedom to use any available IP app and not suffer any dramatic or noticeable speed bumps.

 

[VirtualRain]

I use Aperture and NIK plugins for my 5D Mark III RAW images and while I definitely prefer to work on my Mac Pro, I can be productive on my 13" rMBP and previously even on my 13" 2011 MacBook Air. Of course on the laptops, I'm only ever loading a day or two's worth of photos to work on... not my active 100GB library that resides on the Mac Pro. (I tend to keep my libraries to around 200-300GB maximum before archiving them).

My point is that while you probably want a workstation for major RAW work, you can get by on a much less capable machine when working with small sets of photos.

With my Mac Pro, I have 12GB of RAM but I'm finding it's regularly pegged. So I would agree with others that 24GB is probably ideal.

What made the biggest difference for me after RAM, was moving my active photo library to Solid State storage. Especially when working with NIK plugins, where the first step in processing a photo in NIK's tools is creating a 100+MB TIFF.

I'd like to see Aperture offer better support for GPUs... even dual GPUs in the next version if Apple wants a 2013 Mac Pro to be in my future.

 

[-hh]

Since when? Fusion Drive is a BTO option for the 2012 iMac. Initially not even offered for the entry level one ( it is an option now ).

Nitpicking on pedantic minutia doesn't change the facts that the basic trade off is the relatively slow I/O speed of a disk vs the relatively finite capacity of an SSD. The point in mentioning the Fusion drive is that it isn't necessarily any better at the task for this use case.

Same refrain. Which Mac model significantly limits you to just one HDD spindle?

Pedantic nit again, I see. Show us which models have OEM options for multiples on the Apple website ... And with it not being externalized as was implicitly obvious.

It is actually your imposed storage architecture limitations that is the root cause of the issues. Not those driven by the Mac models' capabilities.

Golly, and her I was under the impression it was because the I/O bandwidth of a HDD is <200.

I didn't miss the point at all. Liquid stereo's post didn't loop in the odd constraint of being a self contained media server hub and a tool for non-pro photography. It was about tools for non-pro photography.

Frankly for the vast majority of folks if looking for a computer to do non-pro photography it is better to avoid a computer with alot of hats to wear ( "hobby photography" + foo + bar + baz + fred + barney + wilma computer is going to create issues. )

Sorry that you chose to see only what you wanted to see (again): when I said data repository, I was specifically alluding to *only* said photographer's own works, not his iTunes collection. That's why I specifically included the example of an iPhoto directory larger than 1TB.

Overall, all you're really saying is that any Mac can be forced into a Use Case - - but that observation isn't helpful to the OP's real question which is what choice(s) represent the better *value*.

-hh

 

[orph]

i still use a macbook pro early 2008 2.6ghz 4gb ram with a 24" external display for photography, iv worked with large volumes of photos & batch exporting with no real problems with Photoshop/bridge/ACR Cs3/6.

apart from liquify or working with a lot of layers i have no real problems, most adjustments in say ACR are instant WB/exposure etc.. and batch export is fine (and dual core looked if i remember right)

shes an amateur so both the shooting and the post work is something you can take time with and have fun doing.
she wont be doing super complex for the deadline work so.. all the new macs are relay faster than they need for still photography

a mac min or imac will be much cheaper options, both have USB3 which is what she wants and will just work, usb3 HD's can be used for storage there cheep and fast.
an mac min with a slightly better screen for the calibration geek might be a thing but if your only making images for web and prints at your local photo shop you will be working in sRGB and people will not using a calibrated workflow so it may not matter.
the imacs have IPS displays (i think) which give a good viewing angle, if you want an mac min (or even mac pro) you will have to get a display so then it becomes more of a thing.

both mac min/imac will make less sound and look nicer.

but if you relay want a mac pro no app you use will use more than 2 cores (4 at the vary most) & macperformanceguide says photoshop needs the GPU disabled or you get artifacts so thats worth keeping in mind.
SDD's give fast boot times and for some jobs relay speed things up but for 99% of people it's not needed.

your an amateur i think the new glass option or calibration option might be worth thinking about