iMac Pro for photography

[high heaven]

Well, I have Mac Pro 2010 with two BenQ monitors for photography uses but I feel that Im start having limitation from my computer. Also, updating OS is quite risky at this point since Im using custom parts like Nvidia gtx 1060. Right now, Im not able to use Mac Pro 2010 cause I updated to early while Nvidia didnt release the latest updates yet.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfhW84xfA6gEc4hDK90rR1Q

I saw this landscape photographer today who inspired me a lot. He used only one simple iMac and yet he created wonderful images.

I just doubt about the cooling performance since I usually create 11~30gb of PSB files per each time for fine art works.

For my uses, iMac 5k cost $3600 and iMac Pro basic cost $4000(in Queens, NY) I would stick with iMac pro due to its price tho.

Will it be worth it to have iMac Pro for photography uses?

 

[Strider64]

I have an iMac Pro, but I have seen benchmark tests that an iMac 5K is just as good (if not) better than the iMac Pro when it comes to single core tasks. Unless you are doing some tasks already that require multitasking or plan on doing so in the future then maybe save some $$$ and go with the iMac 5K?

 

[MCAsan]

Indeed.....much depends on the apps you run. Are they designed to fully take advantage of multicore architecture? Our iMacs with 4.2GHz CPU and Radeon 580 seem to be able to handle Lr and Ps very well. I suspect the big improvements are from using SSD for boot/cache/scratch/apps and having lots of memory. Even Adobe is suggesting a minimum of 16GB. We are have 24GB in our machines.

 

[The Bad Guy]

That money would be much better spent on a Windows machine.

 

[high heaven]

That money would be much better spent on a Windows machine.

Windows is not my option as I moved everything to Mac.

Indeed.....much depends on the apps you run. Are they designed to fully take advantage of multicore architecture? Our iMacs with 4.2GHz CPU and Radeon 580 seem to be able to handle Lr and Ps very well. I suspect the big improvements are from using SSD for boot/cache/scratch/apps and having lots of memory. Even Adobe is suggesting a minimum of 16GB. We are have 24GB in our machines.

But both iMac 5k and iMac Pro can boost up to 4.5ghz. Also, I need 8 cores.

I have an iMac Pro, but I have seen benchmark tests that an iMac 5K is just as good (if not) better than the iMac Pro when it comes to single core tasks. Unless you are doing some tasks already that require multitasking or plan on doing so in the future then maybe save some $$$ and go with the iMac 5K?

Well, I would go for iMac 5k if it's much cheaper. However, I can get iMac Pro basic model just for $4000. I just wonder if it can handle cooling performance or not.

 

[Alexander.Of.Oz]

That money would be much better spent on a Windows Linux machine.

Fixed that for you, Adam!

 

[robgendreau]

But both iMac 5k and iMac Pro can boost up to 4.5ghz. Also, I need 8 cores.


Well, I would go for iMac 5k if it's much cheaper. However, I can get iMac Pro basic model just for $4000. I just wonder if it can handle cooling performance or not.

Not sure that the iMac Pro is gonna speed up Ps and Lr work that much, as say compared to video work, but that depends on how much speed you wanna get considering the extra cost. See these comparisons: https://macperformanceguide.com/iMacPro_2017-diglloydPhotoshopBenchmarks.html Note you don't get above a 50% increase in speed till above 50GB Ps memory usage.

And if you go to the next page you'll see that the regular iMac does BETTER than the iMac Pro even with the ten cores. For stuff like lens corrections and denoising. "Trounces" is the word they use.

Overall the conclusion was no real benefit for Ps and Lr work over a 2017 iMac.

 

[high heaven]

Not sure that the iMac Pro is gonna speed up Ps and Lr work that much, as say compared to video work, but that depends on how much speed you wanna get considering the extra cost. See these comparisons: https://macperformanceguide.com/iMacPro_2017-diglloydPhotoshopBenchmarks.html Note you don't get above a 50% increase in speed till above 50GB Ps memory usage.

And if you go to the next page you'll see that the regular iMac does BETTER than the iMac Pro even with the ten cores. For stuff like lens corrections and denoising. "Trounces" is the word they use.

Overall the conclusion was no real benefit for Ps and Lr work over a 2017 iMac.

Well, both iMac Pro and iMac 5k are much faster than my Mac Pro 2010. But iMac Pro perform well on other programs. It's not that different but iMac Pro seems to have more features with multi-cores such as exporting. I def need 8 or 10 cores for my workflow.

 

[MCAsan]

Then if you have the budget, go for it!!! On regular iMac you can save by only ordering 8GB of memory installed and adding more yourself. Not sure if that is also possible for iMac Pro. Apple usually charges a very high premium for their memory.

 

[robgendreau]

Well, both iMac Pro and iMac 5k are much faster than my Mac Pro 2010. But iMac Pro perform well on other programs. It's not that different but iMac Pro seems to have more features with multi-cores such as exporting. I def need 8 or 10 cores for my workflow.

What workflow is that? The testing on the macperformanceguide.com site also tested some coding and I think a couple of other workflows, where the iMac Pro did improve on speed, as opposed to a still photo workflow where it did not improve speeds much, if at all. But I think in only a few cases was it slower, and then not by much. So yeah, if you did something like transcoding video or 3D it wouldn't matter that it's not the greatest for still photos.

 

[fathergll]

• Do you need two monitors?
• Do you want a glossy display?

 

[high heaven]

• Do you need two monitors?
• Do you want a glossy display?

I already have two monitors and it's quite helpful.

I prefer matte unless I turn off the light in my room so it wont be that matter.

 

[ericwn]

I fail to see much performance gain for photography tasks from a Pro iMac. In my opinion the standard 5K iMac is already a nice work machine and its RAM can be upgraded by the user.

 

[fathergll]

I already have two monitors and it's quite helpful.

I prefer matte unless I turn off the light in my room so it wont be that matter.

Your best bet will be a new Mac Pro but thats probably not going to ship until Q4 2019. If you need 8+ cores and you are married into the MacOS then you basically have little options. iMac Pro now or Mac Pro in 2019(not guaranteed when it ships).


You'll have to decide how much your current system is limiting you and weigh that against what you could do with $4,000 puts towards something else.



*edit* Make sure you don't need more than 32GB of ram. I would suspect you do based on your post history using massive files. The base line iMac Pro is a no go for you as it is limited to 32GB and the actual cost will be much more that $4000. I would seriously look into a custom Windows machine unless you have the funds for this because Apple has no high end multi-core consumer chips and you will be forced into paying for workstation grade components which is not needed for photography. Workstation grade components are needed if you are running 24/7 mission critical applications where downtime costs a company money, not for Photoshop.

 

[Robotti]

Some of the recent problems with Windows are making me consider moving to the iMac Pro. I have a Macbook Pro for travel, but my workstation is a Windows PC, and I will always need Windows for some of my work. But moving to the iMac Pro would allow me to also move all of my photo and video work to Mac, which is an interesting opportunity.

My biggest concern is Boot Camp, since I have heard the drivers are not very good for iMac Pro. Maybe they will be, in a few months. Some of the other concerns are the GPU’s, which are not very good for other types of work I do, and the price. These are just my thoughts, when thinking out loud.

 

[Richard Peters]

I swapped my 2012 i7, SSD iMac for a 10c Pro, 64gb RAM, Vega 64 and running Lightroom with my files stored on an external Sandisk Extreme 900 SSD. I shoot with the D850 and find for the most part the Pro flies through the 45mp files very easily. Imports and exports are so fast I had to double check it was doing them properly the first time.

Editing and moving through the files in develop is pretty quick. I very very rarely experience lag in develop, regardless of what I'm doing although 'sometimes' I get the beachball but that's because Lightroom isn't the best regardless the machine.

One of the best things is the ability to start editing files whilst the machine is still importing. My old iMac would see the develop module and remaining import grind to a halt if I tried to open the develop module as images were coming in.

Overall I am very happy with how much more efficient my workflow is with the iMac Pro as it makes me forget just how big the D850 files are (but keep in mind that the jump from a 2012 to an upgraded iMac Pro is huge, and I have nothing else to compare it with, such as a regular 2017 iMac).

 

[BigJohno]

Just get a 8 core imac pro and attach the two benq monitors and be done with it. It will be fine for your needs for the next 5-6 years.

I owned a 2015 5k imac maxed out and hated it for PS work. The GPU was a real bottleneck. Cooling was bad as well as if i even pushed the machine for more than 1 min it sounded like a jet engine.

in early 2017 I built a Ryzen PC to hold me over until the next Mac Pro.