This is probably a bit too nebulous, however, I am interested in purchasing a dedicated computer for better workflow/editing. Currently I used an HP notebook with 2 gigs of ram and it tends to get bogged down easily if I have a few things going on at the same time. It has an Nvidia graphic card (not sure the model number). I would appreciate suggestions or experience with video cards or brands of computers that have eased your workflow. There are a lot of good packaged deals now at Costco, etc. - any thoughts?
Barring other considerations, I'd go for a desktop. For the same amount of money, you can get more machine for the buck, plus laptop monitors tend to be better for color consistency.
What are the machine requirements? Strictly photoediting, gaming, office, video work, other? That makes a big difference.
Strictly for photo editing, any stock video card is sufficient. If you do a lot of gaming or video editing then upgrade, but if things aren't jumping around on the screen, spend the money elsewhere.
More currently processors are multicore - they are fast enough unless you are working with 4x5 scans. The files from even the 1Ds Mark III won't challenge the current processors unless you have many of them open, which brings me to the next one...
Get 4gb of RAM in the machine. That will help a lot. There is a trick to get PS to recognize 3 gig but I don't know it offhand. There is a thread on NatureScapes which details it.
Get big hard drives, 300 GB or bigger. I'd opt for 2 for quick backup.
There is a short article on Adobe's website indicating that the next release of Photoshop will be 64 bit, or at least a 64 bit version (look under the description of CS3 on the first page you naturally come to). So should you go for a 32 bit machine or a 64 bit? As I understand it, the current versions of Photoshop will run on 64 bit machines (someone PLEASE correct me if I am wrong). It might be worth looking at 64 -bit machines and operating systems, depending on your budget. My next machine will probably go this route, but that won't be for at least another year. BUT many of your peripherals may not have drivers that work with it.
Mac or Windows? I'm Windows. Mac use to have a major edge in the ability to color manage, but that gap has long since closed. Now it is merely a religious difference.
If you go the Dell route, look at the business machines. Those won't come preloaded with all sorts of software you'd never pay for by choice.
Most modern desktop computers are powerful enough for photo editing. Put as much memory as you can into it (4GB would be great), and make sure to complement it with a good monitor and color-calibration device.
You don't really need a fancy video card since you'll be working in 2D and with static images so any kind of 3D or video acceleration will not buy you much (unless, as Dan said, you also plan to use it for games or other things).
Thanks Dan and Guy. I am a Windows user and not a gamer so you are right I do not need a ton of bells and whistles. I will add to the ram or buy a stand alone without the preloaded software - great suggestions. I think I saw a previous thread on monitors with some consensus (I think) that the Dell 24 inch was a good product. I have a Viewsonic 26 inch monitor that doubles as my tv but in any event I will need to calibrate my monitor - what would you recommend for a color-calibration device?
Thanks again you guys.
Tony
Posted by Dan Borzynski on June 12, 2008 at 11:51 PM
I'm using the Colorvision Spider2 from maybe 2 years ago. I've never had a complaint with the color, and it matches what comes out of the printer so I am happy with it.
From a technical point of view, I don't believe that it is the best out on the market, not by a longshot. But for cost vs performance, I don't think you can beat it, especially for nature photography which is not absolutely critical for color accuracy to the extent it would be if you specialized in something like product photography. I'd start looking at a calibration unit at this level.
Check driver compatibility if you decide to go the 64 bit operating system route.
Posted by Tony Norton on June 13, 2008 at 10:53 AM
Discussion
5 repliesThank you.
Tony Norton
San Diego
What are the machine requirements? Strictly photoediting, gaming, office, video work, other? That makes a big difference.
Strictly for photo editing, any stock video card is sufficient. If you do a lot of gaming or video editing then upgrade, but if things aren't jumping around on the screen, spend the money elsewhere.
More currently processors are multicore - they are fast enough unless you are working with 4x5 scans. The files from even the 1Ds Mark III won't challenge the current processors unless you have many of them open, which brings me to the next one...
Get 4gb of RAM in the machine. That will help a lot. There is a trick to get PS to recognize 3 gig but I don't know it offhand. There is a thread on NatureScapes which details it.
Get big hard drives, 300 GB or bigger. I'd opt for 2 for quick backup.
There is a short article on Adobe's website indicating that the next release of Photoshop will be 64 bit, or at least a 64 bit version (look under the description of CS3 on the first page you naturally come to). So should you go for a 32 bit machine or a 64 bit? As I understand it, the current versions of Photoshop will run on 64 bit machines (someone PLEASE correct me if I am wrong). It might be worth looking at 64 -bit machines and operating systems, depending on your budget. My next machine will probably go this route, but that won't be for at least another year. BUT many of your peripherals may not have drivers that work with it.
Mac or Windows? I'm Windows. Mac use to have a major edge in the ability to color manage, but that gap has long since closed. Now it is merely a religious difference.
If you go the Dell route, look at the business machines. Those won't come preloaded with all sorts of software you'd never pay for by choice.
You don't really need a fancy video card since you'll be working in 2D and with static images so any kind of 3D or video acceleration will not buy you much (unless, as Dan said, you also plan to use it for games or other things).
Guy
Thanks again you guys.
Tony
From a technical point of view, I don't believe that it is the best out on the market, not by a longshot. But for cost vs performance, I don't think you can beat it, especially for nature photography which is not absolutely critical for color accuracy to the extent it would be if you specialized in something like product photography. I'd start looking at a calibration unit at this level.
Check driver compatibility if you decide to go the 64 bit operating system route.
Tony