PDA

View Full Version : Which Mac For Me? Photographer


MacBytes
Aug 17, 2006, 12:09 AM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Apple Hardware
Link: Which Mac For Me? Photographer (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20060817010956)
Description:: What Display, Mac, and Software should a photographer with a small budget/no limit on budget purchase?

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

DMann
Aug 17, 2006, 01:43 AM
Mac Pro, any configuration with at least 2G RAM,
23" Apple Cinema HD
Photoshop CS
That ought to do.......

WildCowboy
Aug 17, 2006, 01:45 AM
Did you even read the article? :confused:

This is a guide designed to help photographers pick a Mac. It's not a post by someone looking for a Mac.

Glenn Wolsey
Aug 17, 2006, 02:17 AM
Mac Pro, any configuration with at least 2G RAM,
23" Apple Cinema HD
Photoshop CS
That ought to do........ specifically what kind of photography
do you specialize in?

Read my article ;) I didn't ask what Mac I should be using, I wrote an article with suggestions on setups for photographers with different needs/budgets.

bep207
Aug 17, 2006, 02:38 AM
Apple displays are overpriced

Kilchzimmer
Aug 17, 2006, 03:12 AM
Good article (generally). The hardware choices are pretty straight forward – probably written for the person not that familiar with the line of Macs available.
Photoshop CS2 - absolutely.
Aperture vrs. Lightroom vrs. PhaseOne/CaptureOne involves more variables and personal preference (price, features, performance, etc.).
While the article focuses specifically on which Mac is best for a photographer, they might have at least mentioned (without going into detail) that there are THREE categories to consider in setting up a complete solution: (1) computer; (2) software; ...and (3) calibration system. A great computer and software are of little use without a calibrated system.
This coming from a budget conscious photographer who looks for areas to cut out ... calibration not being one of them.
If money was an issue and I HAD to choose between Aperture and calibration, I would invest in a "good" calibration system first before spending the money on Aperture. I can "get by" without Aperture (and use Adobe Bridge included with PS) but not without a colour calibrated system.

– My 2Cents

Eraserhead
Aug 17, 2006, 01:32 PM
Apple displays are overpriced
yes but they are colour certified, unlike other displays for a photography Pro they are worth the money, for someone like me who doesn't need the colour accuracy they are expensive, (though not as much as Apple's RAM ;) ).

wmmk
Aug 17, 2006, 02:23 PM
Great Article! Still, a good CRT is better than an ACD for real graphics work.

Glenn Wolsey
Aug 17, 2006, 02:26 PM
Great Article! Still, a good CRT is better than an ACD for real graphics work.

Thanks for the kind comments!

adamfilip
Aug 17, 2006, 02:53 PM
I have a Dell 24" LCD and a Lacie ElectronBlue IV 22" CRT
when i edit photos in Aperture on my G5
the Dell screen is more vibrant and rich but it doesnt handel the blacks well
and you can sometimes see in really dark areas blotchyness of the display.
this has nothting to do with the photos just simply how many shades of gray/black the display can render

my lacie crt does better for the dark areas. but if i had to choose between the two. lcd or crt (that i already own) i would stick with the lcd. the briteness and sharpness are far superior

i dont think it really matters if the Apple ACD's are calibrated anyways because. its more important how it prints based on how it looks on screen then anything. so you will have to adjust your colour settings to best reflect uncorrected printed output anyways

Kilchzimmer
Aug 18, 2006, 02:22 AM
i dont think it really matters if the Apple ACD's are calibrated anyways because. its more important how it prints based on how it looks on screen then anything. so you will have to adjust your colour settings to best reflect uncorrected printed output anyways

:) True...
I was amazed at how accurate the colours were on my Apple 23" Cinema Display before using a calibration system such as the GretagMabeth Eye-One. My second monitor is a Wacom Cintiq 18SX for doing illustrations and photo editing directly on screen with a pressure sensitive pen (love it!!). Good colour but not near as bright as my Cinema Display. I would expect the new Wacom Cintiq 21UX is brighter. Still would never part with using a Cintiq. Just waiting for Apple to some day create a similar pen display. :)

When I mentioned the need for calibration, I should have clarified that it is more crutial for the photographer planning to work with various outputs (inkjet - fine art prints, photolab machines, offset printshops, websites, etc.) and clients particular about the colours.
Example: I work with several print shops around the world so the methods vary greatly (ink, paper, etc.) so I prefer to get an ICC profile from them to have the image optimised for output and not have any surprises. Of course, items printed in parts of Central Asia, I'm happy if the facial tones reproduce semi-human in colour. :eek:

leekohler
Aug 18, 2006, 02:49 AM
Great Article! Still, a good CRT is better than an ACD for real graphics work.

I agree. Being in the design field, there is still nothinig more color accurate than a CRT. I know, I know- they're big and clunky. But I still have yet to see an LCD that is as accurate color-wise for my needs.