2018 setup for photo editing

[ccrnnr9]

Hello all. I'm in the market for a new photo editing machine. I'm typing this from a base model mid-'12 macbook pro (2.5 GHz i5 w/ 4GB RAM). I'll cut to the chase with my question: I'd like some opinions on the right model (a much more detailed explanation of my needs and wants below). I'd like to spend about $1300 or less on a machine and have the option to upgrade as needed. My thoughts are that I can go the direction of either the 3.2 GHz i7 w/ 8gb RAM and 128GB ssd drive ($1099) OR the 3.0 GHz 6 core i5 w/ 8GB RAM and 256GB of storage. Any opinions on which would be more valuable since this is not user upgradeable? Just will be running LR/PS (sometimes simultaneously), maybe a web browser window and maybe spotify. The other option is waiting with the hope that the 2019 iMac will also deliver a similar setup with that beautiful display to boot. In short, I've read many of the posts on the 2018 mini for photo editing here and elsewhere and while I've picked up a lot of good advice, much of the sentiment seems to come from folks with the mindset of what model will be the best without regard to budget. I'm truly on a budget that's not going to expand - furthermore, the machine I go with is a tool that is necessary but ultimately cannot eat into my budget for film and otherwise.

Additional details: I am not a commercial photographer and thus I do not need a machine able to process and store large batches of work. I sit on the opposite end of the spectrum of most buyers I've looked at, primarily working with 4x5 and 8x10 film scans (80% black/white). While these files tend to be larger tiff files they do pale in comparison to the RAW files high res digital cameras of which I don't often use (but would like capability of tackling).

In short I'm on a tight budget by machine standards and would like to have a machine that realistically can last 4-5 years and hopefully have a use after that as well. I've long had my mind set on a 27" iMac but cost and lack of a package that meets my needs without going way over budget makes that unlikely.

I'm leaning towards the latter mini option mentioned above as it has a larger hard drive. I don't anticipate my storage needs exceeding 100GB (my current workhorse just holds a few files, my OS, and apps/programs totaling less than 90GB). I have an older mac mouse and keyboard that will be suitable until I can afford an upgrade. I also have an older Dell 2209WA 22" monitor that, while not sexy, has proven itself serviceable and more importantly, accurate for color and bw work. This is key as I primarily print through an Epson7890 and for smaller work, an Epson 3880.

The '18 mini speaks to me as it's within my budget and allows for upgrades over time. I'd like to see what 8GB feels like while knowing that after a bit I'll install 32GB (OWC's kit is far more affordable than direct from Apple and the install is simple).

I don't plan to, nor do I need to do video editing. I'm not a gamer. This machine will solely be used for photo editing, occasionally playing music, and some light web browsing. I don't care if the machine doesn't spark jealousy in the eyes of others nor do I mind having a machine that isn't the best money can buy. I'll never have that - I just need a competent tool. I appreciate all help/advice ahead of time.

 

[F-Train]

Like you, I shoot 8x10 and 4x5. I also use a Mamiya 7 II, a Leica M3 and a digital M (Typ 240).

I have now owned two 2018 Mac mini’s, both of which I’ve used for Lightroom and Photoshop processing:

Base i5, 8 GB of RAM, 256GB drive; and
Built to order i7, 8GB of RAM, 512GB drive, 10Gb Ethernet, RAM changed out to 32GB.

I have no doubt whatever that the base i5 will fully meet your needs. I purchased the i7 for reasons unrelated to still photography, and would have stayed with the i5 if that was my primary focus, especially since, like you, I don’t have a need for batch processing, etc.

Looking to the future, I think that 16GB of RAM, when and if you decide that you want it, will be more than adequate. Because of that, and budget allowing, there’s something to be said for adding the RAM now. The fairly small cost saving from doing it yourself, combined with the hassle and risk involved, do argue for purchasing it from Apple as part of the order. I think that most people who are installing their own RAM are doing so because they want 32GB, where there is a strong cost incentive.

Nice to come across someone else here who shoots film

 

[ccrnnr9]

Like you, I shoot 8x10 and 4x5. I also use a Mamiya 7 II, a Leica M3 and a digital M (Typ 240).
...
Nice to come across someone else here who shoots film

Thanks for the advice and yes, always good to meet someone with similar tools/workflow. I also shoot with a Mamiya Press (6x7 mainly) and would love to be shooting on a Mamiay 7II.

I'm inclined to go the direction you say with the base i5. The difference between the i7 and i5 seem like they won't make much a difference at all for my workflow but I'd like to hear what others chime in.

I'm interested to hear more about the self install. I've watched the instructional video thoroughly on OWC's site and seems like a relatively easy, albeit slightly tedious, process. I don't see anything that would trip me up as I'm pretty mechanically inclined but I'm hearing that perhaps 16gb of RAM will be suitable and thus worth just outfitting that from the start. Interest to hear some other opinions about the self install of the RAM. While I don't think 8gb would be ideal long term I am interested to run the stock i5 and see what I think. So often information gets pushed as fact on forums and while I have no doubt that more is better, I truly am on a budget and am looking for a suitable tool. Given that I've been working on my current setup for years and I'm still able to get my work done, I feel like the above decision would be suitable and usable for awhile.

 

[F-Train]

There is no question in my mind that you will be fine with the i5 and 8GB of RAM. If you want to defer going to 16GB, and you decide later that you want it, it will cost a bit less to install it yourself than getting it as part of your original order. The OWC video is easily the best video on what’s involved.

For more views on 8GB vs 16GB of RAM, maybe raise the question on largeformatphotography.info in addition to here, or do a search there. I imagine that you’re familiar with that forum, and I suspect that it’s been discussed a few times.

 

[F-Train]

The other option is waiting with the hope that the 2019 iMac will also deliver a similar setup with that beautiful display to boot.

There was a fair bit of consternation when Apple decided to support only DCI-P3 for the current iMacs, and one of the questions about the anticipated 2019 iMac is whether the monitor will support Adobe RGB. For printing colour photographs, I think that Adobe RGB is important, although views vary on its importance when printing black and white/grayscale. For printing, personally I would not purchase an iMac, or a monitor, that lacks Adobe RGB.


[doublepost=1550933296][/doublepost]You haven’t raised the question, but there’s also an issue about what the best monitor resolution is for printing photographs. Some people believe that 2560 x 1440 is a better choice than 3840 x 2160 on the ground that the former better reflects what a print will look like. Recently, I was talking with a sales rep at B&H who, knowing that I could afford a 4K monitor, advised me to go with 2K for this very reason. His view was that 4K is the right choice if one is shooting 4K video, but not for still photographs that will be printed.

 

[Fishrrman]

i5, get 16gb of RAM pre-installed so you don't have to mess with it.
A 256gb SSD, or, if you feel like splurging, 512gb.

 

[ccrnnr9]

i5, get 16gb of RAM pre-installed so you don't have to mess with it.
A 256gb SSD, or, if you feel like splurging, 512gb.

Thanks for the input - that's my inclination but I'd be curious your thought process.

 

[Fishrrman]

"that's my inclination but I'd be curious your thought process."

Look at my avatar. That explains it.

 

[ccrnnr9]

You haven’t raised the question, but there’s also an issue about what the best monitor resolution is for printing photographs. Some people believe that 2560 x 1440 is a better choice than 3840 x 2160 on the ground that the former better reflects what a print will look like. Recently, I was talking with a sales rep at B&H who, knowing that I could afford a 4K monitor, advised me to go with 2K for this very reason. His view was that 4K is the right choice if one is shooting 4K video, but not for still photographs that will be printed.

That is interesting. Good tip. I'll have to dig into this issue. My current monitor has been good but my today's standards it's a dinosaur but seems to be a decent monitor for the task. I'll likely look to upgrade that soon but I'm content with it for the time being. I'm using a Dell 22" Ultrasharp 2209WA w/ a max resolution of 1680 x 1050 at 60 Hz so not even 2k but has been good for me thus far. As usual I'm a decade behind the times.

 

[F-Train]

My current monitor has been good but my today's standards it's a dinosaur but seems to be a decent monitor for the task. I'll likely look to upgrade that soon but I'm content with it for the time being. I'm using a Dell 22" Ultrasharp 2209WA w/ a max resolution of 1680 x 1050 at 60 Hz so not even 2k but has been good for me thus far. As usual I'm a decade behind the times.

Last week, I helped a friend make a Kickstarter/YouTube video about his upcoming portfolio box of large and medium format prints. He processed the scans on a LaCie monitor. As far as I know, LaCie doesn’t even make monitors anymore, and my friend had to recalibrate the monitor frequently, but the prints are wonderful. I have an old Eizo ColorEdge, 1920 x 1080. I no longer use it as my main monitor - it’s at my summer place - but it’s still very capable for processing photographs.

 

[ccrnnr9]

I didn't think this would be the case but refurb'd 2018's are already available - that's probably the direction I'll go if I decide the base i5 model is the right way to go.

 

[F-Train]

If you can get a refurbished i5 at a decent discount, I would go for it and add RAM when you decide that you need it. The cost of RAM has been coming down, and is widely expected to go lower. Maybe keep an eye out for a refurbished i5 with 16GB of RAM included, too.

 

[ixxx69]

Some people believe that 2560 x 1440 is a better choice than 3840 x 2160 on the ground that the former better reflects what a print will look like. Recently, I was talking with a sales rep at B&H who, knowing that I could afford a 4K monitor, advised me to go with 2K for this very reason. His view was that 4K is the right choice if one is shooting 4K video, but not for still photographs that will be printed.

That "view" is just plain wrong or such a gross over-simplification as to be completely useless. I've seen similar on the internet - it's always by someone who is clearly lacking in knowledge about displays technology and how dpi/resolution works.

I think most would agree that for print photography in particular, a really high-quality low-DPI display is better than a crappy hi-DPI display. And maybe that's what the sales rep was really trying to say. But a high-quality hi-DPI display is under almost any scenario going to be better than a low-DPI display for any kind of photography editing and output.*

(* unless you're printing on a dot-matrix printer. )

 

[F-Train]

That "view" is just plain wrong or such a gross over-simplification as to be completely useless.
)

Some of the people who work at B&H are highly accomplished photographers, and this gentleman happens to fall into that category.

I don't know if he's right, but given what I know about his expertise I'm not about to dismiss what he says out of hand either. For someone who actually prints photographs, his view is interesting. It's a proposition that could, if true, or even close to true in the sense that the difference is marginal, save a photographer a lot of money*. It's therefore worth testing, which would be easy to do, and rather more instructive than a flippant, anonymous dismissal on an internet forum about computers.

I'm interested in testing this with scans of 8"x10", 6cm x 7cm and 35mm negatives, and a 35mm digital camera file, enlarged, to find out for myself. Would take maybe three hours of my time, some ink and a few sheets of good paper (e.g. Hahnemühle).


* When it comes to high quality monitors that offer Adobe RGB, which is what one wants for printing, the difference in price between 2K and 4K is substantial.

 

[F-Train]

I also shoot with a Mamiya Press (6x7 mainly) and would love to be shooting on a Mamiay 7II.
.

I have to come back to this, just for fun.

I'd own a Mamiya Press, or maybe a Speed Graphic, if I didn't already have a Mamiya 7 II. The leader of a photography workshop that I attended a few years ago, at which I was the only person with a film camera - the Mamiya - explained to the whole class what the Mamiya is about, starting with the significance of its use of leaf shutters, and told me that I should never, ever sell it.

Since Mamiya stopped production of the 7 II, it appears to have become a cult camera. Used prices are off the charts. Given that it's a rangefinder (often called the Texas Leica), I'm a little surprised at this. It's a niche camera; it's made of plastic; there are only ten shots to a roll of film; the metering is highly eccentric (I use a handheld Sekonic because it's easier than figuring out the camera's metering); the 150mm lens, which I have, requires a parallax correcting finder; and while it may be true, as many people say, that the 80mm lens is the sharpest lens ever made, this is not necessarily a blessing if you're shooting a portrait, even an environmental portrait, which given the minimum focusing distance is the only kind of portrait that one can shoot. Head and shoulders? Not with this camera.

But if you're into rangefinders (I think that the best camera that I've ever owned, hands down, is a 63 year old M3), the 7 II is fun to shoot; and if you're prepared to work within its limitations, the way that the camera handles, and the images, are pretty special.

 

[coachingguy]

Whatever you decide on, I'd get as much RAM as you can afford... 8 gigs should be the minimum you're thinking about, but I'd shoot for 16 as my base if I were you...

Good Luck,

Coachingguy

 

[ccrnnr9]

The leader of a photography workshop that I attended a few years ago, at which I was the only person with a film camera - the Mamiya - explained to the whole class what the Mamiya is about, starting with the significance of its use of leaf shutters, and told me that I should never, ever sell it.

Ya I've borrowed one from a friend who owns one and it answers my needs beautifully. I can't say that I'd pay the inflated current prices they go for these days. I should have bit the bullet 5 years ago when they could be had for $1200-1400 for a body. Maybe they'll come back down. In essence the press is a really good compromise. The 100mm lens offerings are both pretty great with the standard 'kit' still being acceptably sharp. I have to say a huge advantage is having a true system camera that's capable of 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, and 6x4.5. The film back for these are spectacular and create probably the flattest film surface I've seen from a roll film camera. I doubt I'd sell it but I'd love to add a 7ii to the stable. At the end of the day, I find myself picking up my TC-1 or 4x5 before anything else - something about hauling around a field camera and tripod or having a fast camera the size of a pack of cigarettes is appealing.

...regarding minis, I think the general consensus of the i5 and 16gb of RAM seems pretty spot on for me. Will probably hold out for a refurbished model and throw the money saved into a new monitor and another ssd drive sometime in the new future. Many thanks to those that chime in. I'll certainly report back with feedback either way.