What computer set up do you use for photo editing?

[wheelhot]

At the moment I use a Macbook Pro 15" 2.4 i5 with 4GB RAM which has two 500GB HDDs, one dedicated to Aperture Libraries and a scratch disk. Upgrades I will be doing is 8GB of RAM and later on I might get the high-res matte screen version. If you go Macbook Pro, get the most expensive/high end CPU you can as you can always upgrade the RAM and HDD later.

You swapped your optical drive to HDD?

I played around the new iMac 27", really love it and its really tempting with the 1gb GPU Memory. I wonder when we will see MBPs with 1gb GPU memory

But I need the portability right now, so I guess my next machine will be another MBP (max everything, hopefully SSD) and hooked up to the new 27" Apple Displays

 

[juicedropsdeuce]

Please back them up. I lost a year of photos from a drive failing on me and it was pretty much heartbreaking. I was left with what I uploaded to Facebook, Flickr and Picasa, most of which being low res uploads.

Now it's a local backup, as much as I can fit in dropbox and I'm going to buy an external drive to keep at my fiancée's so there will be an offsite backup on another continent! (I'd rather get an Acer Revo and leave it running at hers, but I'd need to spend time setting it up and everything.)

Honestly, I used to do this. I also kept an extra backup HD in a fireproof safe. Backing up to there was a pain and not done often. Then I signed up for CrashPlan. For the price of an external HD I can backup unlimited data for 2 yrs. It takes a while to upload all that initially but then it is like an off-site Time Machine.

I fail to see the point of local backups when a theft, fire, or natural disaster that takes out your computer will also take out your backup.

 

[snberk103]

...

I fail to see the point of local backups when a theft, fire, or natural disaster that takes out your computer will also take out your backup.

Because even a little backup is better than none? Most loss of data, I would imagine, is due to drive failure/file system corruption in anycase. Fire, Theft, Flood is actually pretty rare - at least in most places.

However, I will agree that local back up should only be the start of a complete back up plan. After getting a local plan up and running, then it's time to start looking at an off-site plan.

 

[sprtnbsblplya]

I'm just a hobbyist that does some messing around in LR3, PS CS5, and some Photomatix. Learning more about CS5 and LR3 every week.
Do it on a Penryn 2.4ghz Macbook Pro, 4gb RAM, 640gb HDD, 256mb 8600gt connected to a 23" 1080p Dell monitor, Apple bluetooth keyboard and Logitech MX518 (using steermouse). Its old but it holds its own, gonna keep using it for hopefully the next 2 years.

 

[Cliff3]

Because even a little backup is better than none? Most loss of data, I would imagine, is due to drive failure/file system corruption in anycase. Fire, Theft, Flood is actually pretty rare - at least in most places.

The only data loss I've suffered in the nearly 30 years I've been using personal computers has occurred either due to drive failure, OS errors, or pilot error (oops! ).

Back on topic, I mostly use an 8-core Mac Pro with 14GB of RAM, 3.6TB of internal disk, and a 30" ACD for photo editing. The machine was configured to host a virtual Windows Server-based development environment via VMWare and not specifically for PS/LR. My MBP (mid-2009: 2.53GHz/15.4 anti-glare/8GB RAM/250GB drive) is more than adequate for casual editing. I have an additional 11TB of storage in a storage server along with several bare drives that are used to back up the server and which are stored in a secure location.

 

[npropes]

As most of the folks here, I'm just a hobbyist photographer. Currently I'm using my Mid-2009 17" MacBook Pro (2.8GHz, 8GB RAM, 1TB Hard Drive). I'm hoping to upgrade to either a 27" iMac + 27" LED Cinema Display; or a MacPro driving 2 24" displays.

Any newer Apple product is more than sufficient to run any photo products that most non-pros use. You can get bogged down using PS if you're doing a complex process though.

 

[Jett0516]

avoid the 13 and 15 inch screen MBP as they are too small to work on any photo editing.

 

[sprtnbsblplya]

Any newer Apple product is more than sufficient to run any photo products that most non-pros use. You can get bogged down using PS if you're doing a complex process though.

Too true. I occasionally run a complex filter on CS5 on the 2008 2.4ghz MBP and it can slow it down for 10+ minutes on a 15.1mp image from a RAW image from my T1i.
I'd rather wait the 10 minutes than pay almost $1000 to upgrade to the latest though.

 

[autacraft]

My set up (semi pro photographer, pro graphic designer):

MBP 17", 2.66 core i7, 4gb ram, 500gb 7200rpm ATA drive, Antiglare Screen, 30" ACD, 1tb time capsule, 500gb ext. hard drive.

Main daily software used is CS5 suite and Aperture 3.

To the OP, I couldnt recommend this set up more, its absolutely perfect for what I need and do and I'd say easily powerful for most photography needs.

Both Aperture 3 and P.S CS5 absolutely fly, no problem what-so-ever working on raw files up to 30mg (I shoot with a canon 40D, so around 10 megapixel on highest res) and I cant envisage even needing to upgrade beyond this.

I dont really notice anything RAM wise - can easily run plenty of programs in tandem, and the read/write speeds are plenty fast enough for me. Was considering am SSD from the outset, just to store apps on, but honestly I dont need one! It zooooooms!

Its a fantastic system to take on shoots - the anti glare high res is astonishing and I often use it hooked up to the cam to shoot remotely from (great fun and clients especially love having a peek straight away!) and as a desktop alternative, I cant recommend enough. I'll stick with this for a good few years!

If money was no problem, have a gander at this website, its incredibly informative for mac specific photography set ups (as well as general photography discussion!)

If the computer I own flys, this guys spec. will completely blow it away. would love to try it!

http://mpgprolaptop.com/

Good luck!

P.S - unless you are mainly taking photographs for online use, give all the glossy screens a miss - they will boggle your mind in terms of getting accurate colour for print. Total pain to collaborate and never 100%

Antiglare / matte are your friends!

 

[aaaaaaron]

hmmm....

what if i decided to hold off on the MP until my workload really demanded that kind of power, and got a mini or mini server instead?

i am not really interested in a laptop or an imac, i want to get a stand alone monitor, one built for the kind of work i do. and getting a mini would help me get a nicer one. the extra cash would also help me upgrade my software.

can the mini server be used as a regular computer? i am less interested in the regular mini because of the 5400 rpm hdd and lower clock speed. the slightly higher clock speed of the server, 1tb of storage (dual 500gb 7200 hdds), and the extra 2gb RAM all seem like they are worth it if i can use it like i would any other computer. i really don't know anything about "server" computers, so any info on that would be helpful.

what do you think?

 

[TheReef]

hmmm....

what if i decided to hold off on the MP until my workload really demanded that kind of power, and got a mini or mini server instead?

i am not really interested in a laptop or an imac, i want to get a stand alone monitor, one built for the kind of work i do. and getting a mini would help me get a nicer one. the extra cash would also help me upgrade my software.

can the mini server be used as a regular computer? i am less interested in the regular mini because of the 5400 rpm hdd and lower clock speed. the slightly higher clock speed of the server, 1tb of storage (dual 500gb 7200 hdds), and the extra 2gb RAM all seem like they are worth it if i can use it like i would any other computer. i really don't know anything about "server" computers, so any info on that would be helpful.

what do you think?

Sure, the mini server would work fine.
The only difference is it's running OSX server, the disks and lacks the Superdrive (which could be an issue...I rarely use mine, but when I need to use it, it saves a lot of hassle).

I use an '09 mini (2.0Ghz, 4GB ram) with Aperture, and edit 16 meg raw files, it goes fine.
You could probably go with the regular mini and buy a large fast external FW800 drive for it (that's what I've done).
Build to order the base mini, and upgrade the components you want there instead.

How large are the images you're editing?

 

[OreoCookie]

hmmm....

what if i decided to hold off on the MP until my workload really demanded that kind of power, and got a mini or mini server instead?

i am not really interested in a laptop or an imac, i want to get a stand alone monitor, one built for the kind of work i do. and getting a mini would help me get a nicer one. the extra cash would also help me upgrade my software.

Even though you are sceptical, I'd still suggest you get an iMac: 3.5" harddrives are much faster, the processors in the iMac are considerably faster and you can connect a second screen if you like. The built-in screen is actually quite nice, they use IPS panels and I've had no trouble calibrating the glassy screen of my ProBook.

Regarding the Mac Pro, in many instances, they are overkill if you want to edit photos, graphics pros no longer push the envelope.

 

[mlblacy]

How much do you want to spend?

I am in the market for a new computer, after being on a MacBook (1.83 ghz Core Duo, 2gb ram) for the last couple years, anything will be an upgrade , but i still want to make the right choice.

I was originally interest in a MBP or iMac, but then people made me interested in a Mac Pro, maybe 3.2 quad or the 3.33 hex, pricey i know (is the hex too powerful?), but I still am not sure what my next computer purchase will be.

So what do you all use to edit images (computers and monitors)? Any help is great and appreciated, thanks.

A number of years ago, I was at the same point you are at now... Pro or iMac. The white 24's were just released, and I already had the money set aside for the Pro (about $7500). At that time it was sort of a gamble, I had always had towers for the usual reasons, and use the equipment professionally. It was a no-brainer really, the iMac set-up cost around $3500, and if it turned out to be a mistake, I could either buy another newer, faster, more powerful one in around 2 years (as opposed to the roughly 4 year cycle I use for my primary workstations). I did not regret it at all, and since that point have been telling others that the top of the line iMacs really edged into the "pro-sumer" category. The mantra has always been, if you are a pro get a Pro... I say sure, but I bet you can find other things to do with your money.

I am just replacing the 24" now, and it still works great, although the max 3gb of ram is an annoyance. I held off Snow Leopard, and Aperture3 too. Now, my new workstation is on its way (currently somewhere between NJ and California), and I went with a 27" iMac, i7, 2 TB. The current total setup is around 4k, but there are a lot of extras. 16gb of ram (under $500 third party), another 4tb quad interface HD ($389), a new 13x19 canon printer which will replace my Epson 2200 (a steal at $299, and ink is around $9 per cartridge from Amazon. I loved my Epson but it was dog dog slow, and the ink kept drying up). New software, etc. etc.

Expandability is overrated, and honestly my towers lasted as long as my iMac. At some point hardware limitations (due to age) will start to constrict you, and the new stuff will be SO much faster, that you will want to upgrade... and the question will be... do you want to spend 3-4k or 7-8k?

Buy AppleCare, get an external hardware calibration device, back up your stuff, get the fastest, most powerful iMac you can get (or afford). If I can run my business on an iMac, I would wager you can too...
cheers,
michael

 

[Tanto]

avoid the 13 and 15 inch screen MBP as they are too small to work on any photo editing.

I use my 15" MBP for my photo editing and find it to be perfectly fine running at 1400x900 resolution.

I do agree with you on the 13" screen though.

 

[someoldguy]

2009 mac mini C2D 2.0 , 4 gig ram , 500 HDD , 2 1T firewire backups , CS4,23"ACD ( the nice matte one ) . I'm hardly a pro , but this works for me .

 

[aaaaaaron]

Sure, the mini server would work fine.
The only difference is it's running OSX server, the disks and lacks the Superdrive (which could be an issue...I rarely use mine, but when I need to use it, it saves a lot of hassle).

I use an '09 mini (2.0Ghz, 4GB ram) with Aperture, and edit 16 meg raw files, it goes fine.
You could probably go with the regular mini and buy a large fast external FW800 drive for it (that's what I've done).
Build to order the base mini, and upgrade the components you want there instead.

How large are the images you're editing?

usually 10-14mb a piece, and that is raw. but next year, i'm looking into getting a 5d2. would you think the current mac mini could handle raw images from that camera well?

and if i did go mac mini, it would probably 2.6ghz, upgrade to 8gb ram, and i'd swap out the hdd for a 7200rpm one. could that work?

 

[snberk103]

usually 10-14mb a piece, and that is raw. but next year, i'm looking into getting a 5d2. would you think the current mac mini could handle raw images from that camera well?

and if i did go mac mini, it would probably 2.6ghz, upgrade to 8gb ram, and i'd swap out the hdd for a 7200rpm one. could that work?

Which ever route you go, it's the amount of RAM that makes the biggest difference in working on images. Photoshop, iirc, wants x5 to x7 of memory for each image. i.e. in your current case 14mb x ~6. This is on top of the memory needed for the OS and the PS and background stuff. Open up a few images, and you can start to see the memory slipping away like sand in an hour glass. Start adding layers, and there goes more.

If PS can't find enough memory it starts writing to disk - and can completely bog down a system. Once you have installed just enough memory to edit one image without writing to disk, then every Gb of memory you add afterwards can be used to PS to do more things without having to write to disk. This is a bit generalized and simplified.... but I'm a photographer, dammit, not an IT pro. But I think you get what I am trying to say.

I'm pretty sure 8 Gb of RAM will be plenty unless you like lots and lots of layers. But do the math. Open up the programs that you think you will be using and check to see now much real memory the OS and programs are using, and then add in the image size x6 for 4 or 6 images and see where you're at.

Tough choice. There were some good deals for Minis and Mac Pros today on the refurb store.

 

[fridgeymonster3]

Once you have a good backup going, then start getting paranoid and thinking about what hazards can take out the MBP and the external. But first.... start with just a backup of any sort. The first step is the hardest.

I went down the paranoid rabbit hole. I have a local backup of all my drives (about 4-5 TB worth of backups), but then I have an off-site backup in a bank safety deposit box. Just a small 500 GB drive that houses my priceless info (wedding pics, personal pics & info, etc). Every month I drop by the bank and update the hard-drive and then return it back to the bank. This is basically just in case of a worse-case scenario where all my equipment was ruined via a fire or something. But there are some things you just never want to lose.....

 

[Flash SWT]

I use all three machines listed in my signature plus a G5 on occasion for newspaper work. My wife the wedding photographer's primary machine is a 24" 2.8 GHz C2D iMac and she doesn't have any trouble chugging through 5D Mark II raw files, 80+ gigs at a time, except for the initial sort (she can feel the 4 GB ram limit).

.

 

[chrono1081]

The machines I use are in my sig.

The laptop used to be my main rig but now the mac pro tower is.

I do MUCH more then just photo editing though.

 

[Matty-p]

I use all three machines listed in my signature plus a G5 on occasion for newspaper work. My wife the wedding photographer's primary machine is a 24" 2.8 GHz C2D iMac and she doesn't have any trouble chugging through 5D Mark II raw files, 80+ gigs at a time, except for the initial sort (she can feel the 4 GB ram limit).

.

There's no way a 5d raw file if 80gb a photo there not even 80meg either

 

[Flash SWT]

There's no way a 5d raw file if [sic] 80gb a photo there [sic] not even 80meg either

Go back and re-read what I wrote: "chugging through 5D Mark II raw files, 80+ gigs at a time"

You'll notice the word file has an s on the end making it plural. This means she has a folder full of raw files from her 5D Mark II's that in total equal over 80 GB. This single folder from a wedding will be open in Photo Mechanic, hence the reference to at the same time.

For example, at recent wedding I shot with her we came back with 4,080 photos between the 5D Mark II's and 1D Mark IIN's for a total of 85.43 GB ingested to a single folder for sorting, tagging, etc.

.