- The new 4-core MacBook Pro 17" to be introduced tomorrow hopefully (assuming that it comes with a matte screen option)
- The new 4-core MacBook Pro 17" with an external monitor that is not glossy/glass.
- The new Mac Pro to be introduced any day now. No way that this will lag. It's a sure thing.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Wife is photographer and needs a mac! Please help.
- Thread starter Fireproof!
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
... which is why if you are going to a Mac it should be a Mac Pro which is an 8 core machine as opposed to a MBP which is dual core only...
I'd add:
c) Going from a Desktop to a Laptop isn't going to speed things up.
FWIW, I have a pair of Canon 20D's and have waited a year for the 5D's replacement to finally ship. Given that I already have 3 TB of disks spinning away internally, and another 1.5 TB external, I'm not going to go with anything less than a Mac Pro tower.
-hh
Thanks for the additional comments folks.
Looks like we now have a plan - I appreciate the help.
Current stop-gap solution is to get her onto 64-bit CS4 with 8gigs Ram. Time to unleash the power of her current machine and eek a bit more out of that investment. That makes me feel good.
Then, I'm sure an 8-core Mac Pro is in our (her) future later on down the line. Without getting into a PC vs. Mac debate, I just love the elegance of the macs and they do many things very well. So we want to get there eventually.
In the meantime, I feel better about our short-term solution and this will prevent us from rushing into a lesser Mac only to be disappointed.
Looks like we now have a plan - I appreciate the help.
Current stop-gap solution is to get her onto 64-bit CS4 with 8gigs Ram. Time to unleash the power of her current machine and eek a bit more out of that investment. That makes me feel good.
Then, I'm sure an 8-core Mac Pro is in our (her) future later on down the line. Without getting into a PC vs. Mac debate, I just love the elegance of the macs and they do many things very well. So we want to get there eventually.
In the meantime, I feel better about our short-term solution and this will prevent us from rushing into a lesser Mac only to be disappointed.
I know that the OP is in Tx, but I mentioned it as many people in here are from elsewhereThat may be true- but please keep in mind that design houses are different places than four-color offset printers who put out large format "coffee table" books, and the original poster is listed as being in Texas, which while the residents like to think of it as an independent republic is still a part of the US.
I wasn't even thinking about Coffe table books, I was thinking of design/print houses for commercial work.
and viceversa, plus colour problems used to be an issue with Quark, not the OS. You cannot simply expect one OS's fonts to match, you can even have problems with fonts on same OS. Not all fonts are created equal!
Only way to find out is asking each one individually.
As for font issues, many places ask for fonts to be made into curves or artwork flattened to avoid copyright issues [they don't have to buy the font] as well as eliminating font problems.
AFAIK, color problems on OSX are only with Quark 7, and don't affect CMYK output if you set things up correctly. Did I missing something?
You want Quark issues, I've got one word for you- Qarkimmedia! Couple that with the single-highest circulation weekly on the planet, an AOL-format content contract and imagine the joy!
While it's true you _may_ have font issues on the same OS, you're pretty-much _guaranteed_ to have them on different OS's, even if you go to TrueType-only fonts on both platforms.
That's odd- while things can vary place-to-place over here most folks use a reasonably similar setup for reasonably similar presses here. Given the lack of color-management in Windows that must make switching printers a real pain, or does everyone standardize on application versions and proofing printers, or just calibrate a lot more frequently?
Generally I've found that buying the font works surprisingly well (and frankly copyright in the US would be infringed with rendered fonts as well.) Direct-to-plate pretty-much nailed the font problems that came with typeset layouts IMO, which is why doing all your own advertising on a Mac works so well here- no font issues going from your content to their pre-press 99.5% of the time.
Given the specificity that advertisers use for fonts (where sales are directly impacted by that choice,) it only makes sense to use the same pre-press OS as the printer- Windows or Mac unless you're going to outsource your design layout and additionally pay someone every time you modify it for a new run. We'll ROI the new Mac Pro in February even if the client still outsources all their new design work.
I'm not a Quark user - I hated the product. It was press people I was chating to who moaned about quark and it's iffy colour handling. I t may well be better in the latest version, but I've noticed press places use software that wasn't exactly the latest version.
Absolutley as they implement type differently.
It was printer's moaning about them having to buy fonts if I used one they didn't already have that I was thinking of - which technically is what they have to do. Plus even if they had a font called say Helvetica, who's to say it's the exact same version.
If that doesn't sum up the entire printing industry in one sentence, I don't know what does! I'm surprised they hit it with version 7 though- that's modern enough to get their credentials pulled!
That one version change did something to the Quark color management stuff- enough that I think there was a "backwards compatible" mode.Ah, most decent printers here tend to have good copies of what's needed- even in relatively small out of the way cities. Advertisers get bombarded with folks who over-analyze which fonts sell best, which are better for what markets... So ad copy, books and things that aren't all that far out tend to get done pretty well without sixty bazillion font disks. One of the advantages of sticking with the same system is that you can do the whole "You have to have this font" thing for "normal" fonts and "here's where you get this font" for "special" ones.
I find the opposite issue, which is the design firms tend to like to use fonts that their clients don't have so they lock them in for any changes.
Generally, the printers who work with those firms tend to have the right fonts, so it's just a matter of end-running the design firm for the six word change that's going to take three weeks and fourteen proof signings for the ad that's due to the mailers on Thursday with two days lead time for the press.
I am a photographer and have been quite happy with my late 2008 MBP. I am shooting with the Canon 1Ds2 and using the FW400 to FW800 adapter to shoot tethered to the MBP. If you are just getting into the Mac, I would buy the MBP and do a one time platform crossover with Adobe.
Later on, if she likes the OS and requires more speed she can move into a MacPro and monitor. The great thing about a notebook is being able to take it on location easily and preview images. The MacPro will be a challenge to transport and most photographers travel with a notebook. Myself, I have not owned a tower with display in years and do not miss it. I do not use multiple layers on my images and I use multiple external drives to keep my machines drive uncluttered.
Later on, if she likes the OS and requires more speed she can move into a MacPro and monitor. The great thing about a notebook is being able to take it on location easily and preview images. The MacPro will be a challenge to transport and most photographers travel with a notebook. Myself, I have not owned a tower with display in years and do not miss it. I do not use multiple layers on my images and I use multiple external drives to keep my machines drive uncluttered.
I would second this only for fact that you said "64 Bit"! However, if the OP see's this post, be aware that just because Windows CAN allocate a **** load of RAM doesn't mean it actually will, even for CS4.
the good news is Snow leopard will allow 64 bit computing for CS4. Also OpenCL will allow better usage of the multicore processors.
Get a mac, don't look back.
I personally use a 1 year old macbook pro with 500gb hardisk (upgraded it myself) and 3GB ram with cs3 & lightroom 2.
My experience is pcs seem to run alot of crap in the background which eats up your cpu and memory.
If you have the money I'd get the new macbook pro up the harddisk to 320 @ 7200rpm or think about upping it to 500gb but you'd have to pay someone or diy. It comes with 4gb of ram which is alot but if you have the cash I'd buy two compatible 4gb chips on ebay to put into the machine (apple are charging a stupid amount)
If you have any questions send me an email and I'll try to help
My experience is pcs seem to run alot of crap in the background which eats up your cpu and memory.
If you have the money I'd get the new macbook pro up the harddisk to 320 @ 7200rpm or think about upping it to 500gb but you'd have to pay someone or diy. It comes with 4gb of ram which is alot but if you have the cash I'd buy two compatible 4gb chips on ebay to put into the machine (apple are charging a stupid amount)
If you have any questions send me an email and I'll try to help
I can't comment on the processing speed of the new 17" Mac Book Pro, but otherwise it would appear to make a solid purchase, the only concern might be the $1200 to max out the RAM but depending on how easy it is to do yourself that may not be such a concern.
but depending on how easy it is to do yourself that may not be such a concern.What like Dashboard and widgets, oh wait that's Macs! A lot of the pointless and unnecsarry processes that run on my [pc] laptop are Apple products. Llike the iPodService programme - I don't own aniPod and have no inteest in doing so, yet it sucks the life out of my laptop without asking first.
Lots of crap also runs in background on my Mac, but as that's elsewhere I can't compare the two machines background progs fairly, but both run stuff you don't need.
The OP has already come up with a plan, and it's a good one.
Those of you who are recommending that the OP downgrades his computer from a desktop-level quad-core platform to a low power mobile-level dual-core platform, clearly have comprehension issues.
Those of you who are recommending that the OP downgrades his computer from a desktop-level quad-core platform to a low power mobile-level dual-core platform, clearly have comprehension issues.
My two bits here -
I use presently an older Mac Pro. It is a quad 2.66 with 9 gigs of Ram and 3 drives internally striped (raided) together. My 4th hard drive is a backup drive and I use Superduper for the back up (silly name but nice program).
My software - Lightroom, Photoshop CS4, DXO, Capture One, LightZone and AI Silverfast.
So, given I handle large files too, I can tell you that the Mac Pro 8 cores would work very well for your wife. The key is configuration with appropriate scratch files (she'll understand this) and reducing bottle necks such as drive speed and available RAM. A neat trick is to create a "RAM Drive" for a swap file. If you want more info on this pm me.
As for Vista - (my turn to play on the bandwagon)..I started with early versions of DOS, Pharlap Extended 32 DOS, OS/2, all flavours of Windows, Novel, early Slackware, various Linux distributions. When at work it came time to review Vista as it was coming out - I went to MAC. This was a choice based on how "good" OSX is vs just how terrible Vista is (both 32 and 64 bit). I did this in the capacity of being a) Technologist for the Desktop Enterprise and later as a business analyst for the Information Security department. Please don't take my word on how bad Vista is, see the changes made for Windows 7 <grin>. Microsoft knows they had a LOSER with Vista.
Back to the point -
Word has it you can up the RAM on Macbooks to one of each - 2gig+4gig sticks of RAM and exploit 6 gigs. You may want to check that out. In order of performance you would have Mac Pro, iMAC and last would be the Macbook Pro. (assuming that the iMac processor is equal or greater and ditto for the video).
One of the things to look for is a good video card as you will probably take advantage of open GL in Photoshop. (A newer setting in CS4)
In your shoes I would get the Mac Pro 2.8, minimum RAM and minimum hard drive. Do get the better quality video card but not the very top of the line one. After that, consider purchasing RAM thru OWC http://eshop.macsales.com/ and search around for larger hard drives on sale. Even Best Buy at times has 1 tb and 1.5 tb drives on great sales. The beauty of the Mac Pro is having 4 internal drive bays, ability to raid via software or add a raid card, additional slots for cards (like a PC) and easy access to RAM for upgrading. If your wife has to absolutely use a software in Vista, she can do it through Fusion or Parallels software and call it from inside of the OSX system. I have XP running in virtual mode on two machines without problems.
Last - I can't emphasize enough how configuration of Photoshop really does make a difference. Please check the internet on "optimizing for Photoshop" or some similar search.
As for me, as I have left for the most part IT world, I have for months been working doing digital photo restoration. I can at times can at 600 dpi or greater (depending on what will be done with the scan and the size of the original) and end up with large files in TIF format. The Quad 2.66 doesn't blink at all while working.
Hope this helps a bit.
- Phrehdd
I use presently an older Mac Pro. It is a quad 2.66 with 9 gigs of Ram and 3 drives internally striped (raided) together. My 4th hard drive is a backup drive and I use Superduper for the back up (silly name but nice program).
My software - Lightroom, Photoshop CS4, DXO, Capture One, LightZone and AI Silverfast.
So, given I handle large files too, I can tell you that the Mac Pro 8 cores would work very well for your wife. The key is configuration with appropriate scratch files (she'll understand this) and reducing bottle necks such as drive speed and available RAM. A neat trick is to create a "RAM Drive" for a swap file. If you want more info on this pm me.
As for Vista - (my turn to play on the bandwagon)..I started with early versions of DOS, Pharlap Extended 32 DOS, OS/2, all flavours of Windows, Novel, early Slackware, various Linux distributions. When at work it came time to review Vista as it was coming out - I went to MAC. This was a choice based on how "good" OSX is vs just how terrible Vista is (both 32 and 64 bit). I did this in the capacity of being a) Technologist for the Desktop Enterprise and later as a business analyst for the Information Security department. Please don't take my word on how bad Vista is, see the changes made for Windows 7 <grin>. Microsoft knows they had a LOSER with Vista.
Back to the point -
Word has it you can up the RAM on Macbooks to one of each - 2gig+4gig sticks of RAM and exploit 6 gigs. You may want to check that out. In order of performance you would have Mac Pro, iMAC and last would be the Macbook Pro. (assuming that the iMac processor is equal or greater and ditto for the video).
One of the things to look for is a good video card as you will probably take advantage of open GL in Photoshop. (A newer setting in CS4)
In your shoes I would get the Mac Pro 2.8, minimum RAM and minimum hard drive. Do get the better quality video card but not the very top of the line one. After that, consider purchasing RAM thru OWC http://eshop.macsales.com/ and search around for larger hard drives on sale. Even Best Buy at times has 1 tb and 1.5 tb drives on great sales. The beauty of the Mac Pro is having 4 internal drive bays, ability to raid via software or add a raid card, additional slots for cards (like a PC) and easy access to RAM for upgrading. If your wife has to absolutely use a software in Vista, she can do it through Fusion or Parallels software and call it from inside of the OSX system. I have XP running in virtual mode on two machines without problems.
Last - I can't emphasize enough how configuration of Photoshop really does make a difference. Please check the internet on "optimizing for Photoshop" or some similar search.
As for me, as I have left for the most part IT world, I have for months been working doing digital photo restoration. I can at times can at 600 dpi or greater (depending on what will be done with the scan and the size of the original) and end up with large files in TIF format. The Quad 2.66 doesn't blink at all while working.
Hope this helps a bit.
- Phrehdd
I guess I'll jump in and add something I don't believe anyone has talked about. While your wife is working on large Photoshop files, I don't think the solution is to buy a bigger/faster machine. I think it's a matter of adjusting the workflow. For example, you say she is working on coffee table books. With what program? If she is using Photoshop for layout, therein lies the problem. She should be doing all layout in inDesign or Quark (ouch). Remember, the right tool for the right job. If she adjusts her workflow, then pretty much everything can easily be done on a Macbook Pro. There is so much more benefit for her to have a portable if she is out in the field (for example being able to shoot tethered). However, if her primary photography is in the studio, a Macpro is plenty of machine. You don't need to wait for the next mega-machine to come out because for what she needs the current machines are awesome.
I was discusing workflow with a friend a couple of days back, he does weddings and for the album layout his software made him use PS to do the template pages or something daft like that.
I made the same suggestion as you, use InDesign for layout, that's what it is designed for and you can still edit/tweak your individual images if necessary in PS whilst they still in InDesign. Use the right tool for the job and your life is much easier. I recommend LR to most photographers now over PS as it does 100% of what most photographers need.