Need Help. Graphic Desingers

[IgnatiusTheKing]

I run CS3 on a 24" 2.4GHz Al iMac with 2GB RAM and have never noticed any slowdown, even when running Bridge, Photoshop and Illustrator (plus Mail and Safari).

Of course, it cost a lot more than $1500. Also, do you have CS3 already? Because if you don't, that's going to set you back several hundred, too, even with the education discount.

 

[b84]

Some 3D features in Adobe Photoshop CS3 Extended require an OpenGL 1.4 capable graphics card with at least 64MB of VRAM

That is on the Adobe Design Premium Requirements
That is the same as the mini correct?? I used a MBP 2.4 and it was great so im sure it is the same on the iMac.

How much is the differcence is if i have upgraded the mem on a iMac w/128video card vs. the 256video card with 1gb. Would it be better???Lets say upgrading from 1gb to 3gbor 4gb on the iMac 128video card


Also i noticed that i could get a refurbished MacBook for 900 the lowest configuration but with core2duo. is it the same as a mini regarding video graphics??

 

[motoxpress]

Some 3D features in Adobe Photoshop CS3 Extended require an OpenGL 1.4 capable graphics card with at least 64MB of VRAM

That is on the Adobe Design Premium Requirements
That is the same as the mini correct?? I used a MBP 2.4 and it was great so im sure it is the same on the iMac.

How much is the differcence is if i have upgraded the mem on a iMac w/128video card vs. the 256video card with 1gb. Would it be better???Lets say upgrading from 1gb to 3gbor 4gb on the iMac 128video card


Also i noticed that i could get a refurbished MacBook for 900 the lowest configuration but with core2duo. is it the same as a mini regarding video graphics??

Overall, you will not notice the difference in video memory unless a) you are a serious gamer or b) you hook this up to a 30" monitor.

A Macbook will work just fine but, I think you will find that for design work the small resolution of the screen will become an issue. I would opt for a 20" iMac before a Macbook for graphic design.

-mx

 

[b84]

so i am now pretty much set on a imac 20'
and i am thinking of getting a 2.4ghz refurbished.

How reliable are those refurbished machines should i not be worried?

 

[motoxpress]

I have had a few refurbed macs and have not had any issues with them. Even if you did, Apple treats them as they were new so you would be fully covered. I see no reason not to get one. You will love it.

-mx

 

[b84]

just wondering..could i use a projector instead of a monitor or are projectors just not meant for graphics?

 

[killerrobot]

so i am now pretty much set on a imac 20'
and i am thinking of getting a 2.4ghz refurbished.

How reliable are those refurbished machines should i not be worried?

I haven't check the refurbed prices lately, but I bought the 20" 2.4 iMac from amazon in October and it was cheaper than the edu discount from apple (no taxes are charged and I think they are still giving a $75 refund).

 

[stainlessliquid]

Do not get a 20" aluminum iMac for graphic design. Just dont. Very bad idea since the LCD's are TN panels, these cause gradients depending on what angle your head is at. This makes getting things accurately done in Photoshop virtually impossible since theres is no way to know which "shade" is the correct shade. The contrast with darker images is severely messed up as well. Our school got a set of 20" aluminum imacs for graphic design last semester and they are just terrible compared to the old white imacs, everyone was complaining and we couldnt gather around computers anymore because the viewing angle would be so terrible that people standing up could barely make out what the image was.

The monitor is one of the most important things in graphic design, and the 20" aluminum imac monitor is garbage. The old white 20" iMac has a great LCD though that isnt a TN. The 24" aluminum iMac is also good quality.

The Mini is fine. You would be much better off getting a Mini (+2GB ram at a place like newegg.com), and then buying a nice quality IPS or PVA monitor like this one: http://accessories.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=ca&l=en&s=dhs&cs=cadhs1&sku=320-4688 The image quality and color accuracy on an IPS/PVA monitor will be a godsend for graphic design or any kind of 2D art.

 

[b84]

Well now i am back to the mini. So you're saying the 20' iMac is no good???

 

[killerrobot]

Well now i am back to the mini. So you're saying the 20' iMac is no good???

The 20" is the best bang for the buck - a wide variety of MFA students and professionals I know use them and never have had any complaints.
IF one's only using photoshop, they're not really doing graphic design work. Also if one can't figure out that a shade is different on the screen next to another shade, one probably needs to have their eyes checked or needs to calibrate their screen.

EDIT: Given your budget of 1500, you can get the 20" and upgrade to 4g of RAM and stay within budget.

 

[motoxpress]

I don't agree with the previous poster and that's ok

If you are after color accuracy, your not going to get it on any LCD available for under $3k - they are all inaccurate so it's a rainbow your chasing. If you are concerned about accuracy (and you should be) in print, use Pantone guides - best money you can spend. They provide Pantone color specific for spot colors as well as CMYK conversion. For professional video, you should be on a MacPro with a good video card and a color adjusted monitor.

While you are in school, the iMac will work just great. I know several freelance designers that use them and with no complaints.

-mx

 

[motoxpress]

I should state my view more clearly...

As a student, you should not be obligated to pursue these issues. Wait for an employer/client who will pay the expense of accurate color. Get a machine that will fit your needs and budget and don't sweat it. You should be aware of color issues but, for more important issues you should be focused on in studying graphic design - like generating a visual concept.

-mx

 

[IgnatiusTheKing]

I use my iMac for design and it has been pretty accurate, colorwise. You just have to calibrate it and make sure you know what colors you are using.

 

[errol]

I've had a Mini running photoshop CS3 and quark 7.3. It works great, just make sure you get a C2D and let it have 2Gb of ram (best situation would for it to have 1x2gb stick and 1x1gb stick for a total of 3GB)

 

[stainlessliquid]

Calibration isnt going to do a damn thing to a TN panel LCD. They simply cannot handle dark colors and the color shifting will be a big hassle since theres no way to tell which color is the "real" color without another monitor to use as reference, its especially difficult when working gradients since youll have to deal with the "fake" gradient the monitor is giving. I have an IPS panel at home which has practically perfectly even color, Ive noticed numerous mistakes when taking my school work done on the 20" imac to my home computer, like gradients I added which I thought were strong enough on the imac not even being noticable on my home monitor since I was fooled by the color shift.

TN panels also dont display as many colors since they are 6bit instead of 8bit. TN panels that claim to be 8bit are only interpolating extra colors through tricks, like an upscaled dvd vs bluray.

more info: http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/27/apple_imac_display_problems_reported/

I guarantee that if you get a high quality monitor and then come across a 20" alum imac that youll be thankful you went with the good monitor. There wasnt a day that went buy I didnt get pissed at that piece of crap screen since I was so used to working with a good one. To really understand the difference between them you need to use both, people who have been using TN their whole life will say that the 20" imac has a great screen for design, but its completely false and its never more apparent until you look at your work with a good monitor.

The Mac Mini is not going to be slower in Photoshop/Illustrator/Indesign/Quark/etc than the iMac if you get 2gbs of ram. 2D programs arent affected by processor speed except when running filters, they only consume large amounts of ram because file sizes can be so big.

 

[snickelfritz]

Calibration isnt going to do a damn thing to a TN panel LCD. They simply cannot handle dark colors and the color shifting will be a big hassle since theres no way to tell which color is the "real" color without another monitor to use as reference, its especially difficult when working gradients since youll have to deal with the "fake" gradient the monitor is giving. I have an IPS panel at home which has practically perfectly even color, Ive noticed numerous mistakes when taking my school work done on the 20" imac to my home computer, like gradients I added which I thought were strong enough on the imac not even being noticable on my home monitor since I was fooled by the color shift.

TN panels also dont display as many colors since they are 6bit instead of 8bit. TN panels that claim to be 8bit are only interpolating extra colors through tricks, like an upscaled dvd vs bluray.

more info: http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/27/apple_imac_display_problems_reported/

I guarantee that if you get a high quality monitor and then come across a 20" alum imac that youll be thankful you went with the good monitor. There wasnt a day that went buy I didnt get pissed at that piece of crap screen since I was so used to working with a good one. To really understand the difference between them you need to use both, people who have been using TN their whole life will say that the 20" imac has a great screen for design, but its completely false and its never more apparent until you look at your work with a good monitor.

The Mac Mini is not going to be slower in Photoshop/Illustrator/Indesign/Quark/etc than the iMac if you get 2gbs of ram. 2D programs arent affected by processor speed except when running filters, they only consume large amounts of ram because file sizes can be so big.

I totally agree with this post.
I recently calibrated (or attempted to calibrate) a 20" iMac for a friend of mine.
After three trips through the OSX calibration software, I decided there was no point.
It's a decent computer, but not appropriate for graphic design or color critical work of any kind.
The 24" iMac is significantly better in the regard.

 

[IgnatiusTheKing]

Well I can't comment on the 20" iMac because I've only worked on the 24", but I can say that I've designed on it (the 24") and have had zero issues with color, nor have my clients.

I have a pair of 20" monitors at work (I do freelance design from home and also have a "day job"as a graphic designer) on a Dell and honestly think the color is better on my iMac.

I'm trying to talk my boss into letting me switch to Mac and think I've got him broken down. It's a non-profit, though, so we don't have a lot of change laying around to just go nuts on a Mac Pro, so we'll see.

 

[killerrobot]

@stainlessliquid

I understand your concerns with TN panels - but so what if the dithering used by the 20" mac tricks the eye into making it look 8 bit. As far as your shifting concern, the viewing angle is 160 degrees, and unless one for some reason one decides to choose their design color palette from looking at the screen from a weird angle, the color is not going to change when looking at it head on. If you're that worried about it looking the same on two or more screens, you need to professionally calibrate them all and then professionally calibrate all the output sources (printers etc.) I also think that the article and problems that everyone had been having were more on the early releases of the 20" imac - You're the first I've heard complain about it in nearly 4 months now.

The mac mini IS going to be slower because it has a slower chip (2.0 is the highest) with a slower FSB (only 667), a slower disk RPM (max @5400), a horrible integrated graphics card that has 64 M of DDR2, and is maxed out at 2G of RAM. Of course it will run it all, but it is always going to be much, much slower.

 

[Z.Beeblebrox]

Just to weigh in, I'd agree with getting an iMac. The 20" is fine for color accuracy (I have one at home and do work perfectly fine with the screen). If someone's having issues with glare or gradients, they need to evaluate their office environment and lighting before criticizing a perfectly good computer. It gets the job done (I run between 7 and 9 apps at any given time with no drag). If you have the money, get the 24", but if you don't the 20" will do just fine.

You are a student, so you need a decent machine, but don't get all caught up in the monitor debate because chances are when you get out of school the computer you bought will be out dated and you'll (hopefully) be working in an professional environment where you can opt for the MacPro and a high-quality monitor set-up. Not to mention I went to one of the top design schools for graphic design and exact color calibration was never an issue in regards to getting me an A on an assignment. I printed everything at a print lab and they always made sure my projects printed correctly.

I would advise against the Mac Mini. Better to go with what you really need rather than get by with what's cheaper and will slow you down eventually.

 

[snickelfritz]

My assertions regarding the color and brightness shifts on the 20" iMac are from personal experience with this computer.
The maximum viewing angle might be "160º", but the color/brightness shift progresses continuously over that entire range.
ie: there are no two angles more than 5-10º apart that have the same color and brightness with this panel.
It's essentially useless for commercial photo editing or DTP.
Advanced photography and video hobbyists are also going to want better accuracy than this.

The 24" panel is significantly more consistent in this regard if calibrated carefully using the OSX colorsynch tools.

BTW, I've compared the last 8 or 10 commercial CMYK print jobs with the 24" iMac display, and found the color matching to be virtually perfect.
The 24" imac is certainly the most accurate display I have ever used in the 11 years I've been using a Mac for graphic design.

The 24" iMac is a phenomenal value at less than the original base price of the 23" ACD.

 

[benpatient]

i just wanted to concur with the guy telling you not to get the 20" imac.

it is a fine computer, but the screen is no good at all for color. To argue that there is no point in getting something better than a cheap TN panel if you can't afford a pro NEC LED-backlit display is silly. There is a huge in-between area where colors are at the very least consistent when you turn your head from side to side. I was shocked when I saw the new 20" imac next to the new 24" imac...seriously? Did they think nobody would notice?

A mac mini is basically a macbook with a power supply instead of a battery, no screen or keyboard, and in a different shape. My wife does graphic design for a large company from home on a macbook connected to a big S-PVA display, and it was easy to color-match to actual printed product, not to mention half the price of the 23" cinema display.

You can get a good 20" monitor (make sure it is S-PVA or S-IPS and 1600x1200) for a couple hundred bucks now, a keyboard and mouse for 100, and a mini with upgraded RAM for less than 800 bucks. Look at the viewing angle to make sure it isn't TN (should be 170 degrees or more)

Buy the faster mini but get the RAM from somewhere else (other world computing, for example).

Believe it or not, Dell has a couple of very good monitors that are also very affordable.

Unless you are working at an ad agency out of college, or somewhere that does nothing but creative work, you'll probably walk in knowing more about color and stuff like that than anyone else in the building. Don't expect to have an employer who can tell the difference between TN and S-IPS displays, or one that wants to pay the premium required to get one. And then certainly don't expect them to also be willing to buy you a colorimeter. I had to pull teeth to get a Mac Pro, and then pull some more teeth to get 6gb of RAM for it. Most of the machines in my office are old dell boxes with 1gb or less of RAM, so it is hard to explain why I should get big IT upgrades all the time when most machines in the building are cheaper to buy than the software licenses that are needed to get them running windows+MS office suite.

Eric Clapton once said that anyone can learn to make a good guitar sound good, but you have to be a good guitar player to make a bad guitar sound decent. His advice was to buy the best guitar you can afford and learn to play on that. I think the same is true with monitors. You can't spend your entire education career looking at crappy, inaccurate color and then one day magically be able to properly judge skin tones when you have a good, calibrated display at your disposal. you will develop crutches and bad habits trying to compensate for inaccurate color densities and hues, and it will only hurt you in the long run.

A bad monitor isn't weights on the end of a baseball practice bat, it's a baseball bat duct-taped to the back of your legs on a basketball court.

 

[killerrobot]

@benpatient & snickelfritz
I see where you're coming from about the 20" screen - it'll get the job done but it's not the best monitor wise.
However it dominates in all tech specs, and if one's not able to buy a new machine every year, the iMac will be able to handle the newer versions of CS and other graphic programs, bigger file sizes, etc. whereas I wouldn't put my money on the mini to be able to do so.
If the color is that important, the iMac will still support another monitor and buying the $300 monitor down the road that snickelfritz pointed out and hooking it up to the imac is still cheaper than having to replace the mac mini in a year or two.

 

[stainlessliquid]

Hes not just sending emails and looking at webpages here, hes getting into graphic design where a good quality monitor is more important than the actual computer.

As far as your shifting concern, the viewing angle is 160 degrees, and unless one for some reason one decides to choose their design color palette from looking at the screen from a weird angle, the color is not going to change when looking at it head on.

Thats not true, the color shifts at every angle unless you sit very far away from it (like 5'). There is no perfect angle, the top will always be darker than the bottom, and theres no way to tell which area of the "gradient" is the real color without a reference.

It is not a case of early shipments or anything like that. Its the properties of the TN panel, its impossible for a TN panel not to have these properties. As long as Apple uses TN then 100% of 20" imacs will exhibit these problems.

Software calibration doesnt fix the physical properties of the LCD (thats like expecting calibration to turn your 1000:1 contrast tv into a 10,000:1 tv). I know how to calibrate, it doesnt fix a single thing I hate about the 20" LCD, which involves messy handling of blacks and the terrible viewing angle.

The mac mini IS going to be slower because it has a slower chip (2.0 is the highest) with a slower FSB (only 667), a slower disk RPM (max @5400), a horrible integrated graphics card that has 64 M of DDR2, and is maxed out at 2G of RAM. Of course it will run it all, but it is always going to be much, much slower.

For the most part 2D programs dont use the processor, so no it wont be slower when actually working, youd have to compare it to like a G4 mac mini. The Mini's slower HDD will mean it opens Photoshop slower and saves large files slower (he will probably be working off a USB stick or external HDD anyways since its school work). The slower processor means filters will run slower, but I hope every good designer knows excessive use of filters is a bad idea. Everything else uses ram, so a 2GB imac isnt going to be faster than a 2GB mini, a 4gb imac will be faster but 2gbs is plenty of ram to work with a 11x17 sized 300dpi document and I doubt his school will have a project larger than that since anything bigger is too expensive to print. Whenever I have upgraded my PC's processor while keeping the ram the same I have never noticed a speed increase in Photoshop, upgrading the ram is what has always increased its speed.

 

[bijou]

I can confirm that the entire CS3 suite will run on a C2D Mac Mini 1.83, as I have one for my backup machine. You'll want to max out the RAM, and possibly use a faster external drive for those swap files. It'll run fine, however.

 

[killerrobot]

Hes not just sending emails and looking at webpages here, hes getting into graphic design where a good quality monitor is more important than the actual computer.

Oh, so he should just get a dell then since the computer does nothing. Actually I would say a good printer is even more important than the screen because that's going to create the final product that you show. Hence creating proofs, and checking the color throughout the process.

For the most part 2D programs dont use the processor, so no it wont be slower when actually working, youd have to compare it to like a G4 mac mini. The Mini's slower HDD will mean it opens Photoshop slower and saves large files slower (he will probably be working off a USB stick or external HDD anyways since its school work). The slower processor means filters will run slower, but I hope every good designer knows excessive use of filters is a bad idea. Everything else uses ram, so a 2GB imac isnt going to be faster than a 2GB mini, a 4gb imac will be faster but 2gbs is plenty of ram to work with a 11x17 sized 300dpi document and I doubt his school will have a project larger than that since anything bigger is too expensive to print. Whenever I have upgraded my PC's processor while keeping the ram the same I have never noticed a speed increase in Photoshop, upgrading the ram is what has always increased its speed.

I call total BS to your idea that 2D doesn't use the processor. Try opening up a 75M photo and let me know when your processor stays a 0% usage.
Why are you all of a sudden comparing it to a G4 mini? (Which still is not as fast as a 2.4 iMac??????)
There's a big difference between write/read speed on a 5400 vs 7200, and it all does add up to more time waiting on the slower. Working off a USB or external is going to make it even slower.
A 2.0 mac mini runs as fast as a 2.0 imac!? WTF!? Now I know you have no idea what you're talking about. http://www.macworld.com/article/59770/2007/08/macminicore2cuo.html That's also funny how the faster processors increase the speed in photoshop. What a concept!!!

So once again I say, the 2.4 iMac is the better choice because of it's tech specs and will last longer than the mini as a graphic design machine.