Does a better computer give better photographs?

[atlatling]

If I purchase a new computer will it give any better images than the

one I use now? What if I just replace the graphics card -- will

that improve the images I crank out? Are computers all equal, just

some faster than others? Just wondering, as I am changing my

graphics card, but not to improve images, but rather to fly my

flight simulator more effectively. But it got me to wondering.

Thanks all.

[lwg]

No.

[ac_gordon]

ansel adams was just a regular guy with a good computer (just kidding for those clueless sorts out there). but seriously, what do you mean by "better photographs." a properly calibrated cheap computer/monitor should display an image exactly like a more expensive and properly calibrated computer/monitor. a more expensive computer might give you more options to realize your particular vision. it might not.

[jamiew]

A better computer and software will (might?) allow you to work faster and more effeciently, but it in of itself will not improve the quality of your photos. A better (and calibrated) monitor will allow you to edit colors better.

 

That's about it.

[pvp]

To the extent that your existing computer cannot cope with manipulating your images, a new computer might improve them (IOW, if you can't see what you've done, it stands to reason that you'd do better if you could.) But seriously, unless you are still using VGA graphics or a Pentium 90 CPU, what you'll gain with a new machine is speed. Faster CPUs, more RAM and bigger drives all contribute to faster, hence easier, image processing. But it won't improve the image if you do the same things to it. Faster computers are simply, well, faster...

[jonathan_lin1]

I would argue that yes ... in digital photography better computer/software does make better photographs. Look at the current sad state of RAW conversion ... if you can't afford photoshop RAW or some specialised software, and instead use the crappy raw software supplied by the major camera companies, either because of ignorance, or having a bad PC, your final images will not look as good. On the other hand, if you do want the look associated with bad raw conversion, then you would have a better photograph.

 

Digital photography is tied so closely with computers it's like asking ... can I take a better film photograph with a sucky lab and process with bad chemicals and super crappy paper? There's a reason it's called "digital darkroom" Yes, ansel adams, et al had access to much poorer quality materials than we're used to, but unless you've got the skills (and I don't think such skills are trivial, ie you can't just say ... ansel adams did it ... why don't you use some of that Lucky Dragon Chinese film to take some great pictures!)

 

To compare everyday photographers to Adams, Bresson, et al would be to diminish the strength of their will to create the best pictures under any circumstances. I don't think any of us are entitled to saying that if Bresson did it, I can too!

[nomade]

I mainly agree with the last poster. A "better" computer CAN give you better quality photographes or, to say it more precisely, to increase the quality of the final product.

 

And a better computer is not only about speed, is also about the size of files you can handle (and then available RAM). Think on this: if you want to print high quality images and assuming that your scans or original files are decent good enough, and the size you want to handle is 11"x14" or bigger, then you'll need 3000dpi or bigger images. Not every computer has the ability to handle such file sizes, specially if you add to it 3 or more layers in Photoshop.

 

Like with any other instrument, you have to know how to use it. If you didn't reach the limits of the equipments that you are already using, then just don't bother in spending more money in new one. Reach those limits first, then you'll know the answer w/out doubt of the question that you posted here.

[lwg]

Once a computer meets the minimum requirements to run the apps you want (Photoshop, RAW conversion) spending more money will only get you speed. This does assume a calibrated workflow. Spend the money on a better lens if you want to see a difference.

 

In other words, if your pictures are bad it is most likely your fault and not your computer's. If you can't load your image into memory, or calibrate your monitor, then it is time for an upgrade.

[og]

If you can get the computer to go around, frame and press the shutter for you... Yes: a better computer will get you better photographs! ; ) Happy New Year...

[scott_eaton]

According to our Matrox fans here you don't even need a processor on the motherboard, or color profile hardware, or accelerated 3D hardware. The card does all this for you.

[peter_rivard]

Some guys talk as if Adams were drawing in the dust with a bent twig. He was using

good quality optics -- not up to today's standard in resolution tests, but more than

made up for by the size of the negative and by very careful and precise exposure and

processing control; artistic concerns aside, no one would examine one of his prints or

negatives today and say it isn't up to modern technical standards. Whatever

technology you think he was using, don't think you can get the same amount and

quality of data out of a mere 10-15 megapixels that you can find in one of Adams'

4x5 negatives.

[michael_flaherty]

Based on what I read "between the lines" in the origiinal poster's questions, I see a

person who knows pretty much zip about digital imaging. That's OK. That's fine (I

was there once, too), but I strongly suspect he is currently not handling his digital

images properly and, in his ignorance, thinks maybe it's his computer's shortcomings

that are causing his poor results. More likely, his inadequate skills are his "enemy"

and only a firm resolve to improve them will get him where he wants to be.

 

An upgraded computer, with properly installed and used digital imaging applications,

and in the hands of a knowledgeable user, can contribute to better image output. But

the world's fastest computer, in the hands of a novice, will produce the same junk

(albeit produced faster) as the old computer.

[van_camper]

." a properly calibrated cheap computer/monitor should display an image exactly like a more expensive and properly calibrated computer/monitor.

------------------

 

This is NOT TRUE, you pay more money for a better monitor because you want a higher contrast ratio, etc....anything to see deeper into the shadows. A spyder calibrator can match a good and bad monitor for color, but it can't make a cheaper monitor show detail that a better monitor can sho. Like an LCD, your not going to see it all on a 400:1 contrast ratio screen like on a 700:1 screen.

 

When your shooting 4x5, doing high end scans, only the fastest computer with the lots and lots of RAM suffices. But in this persons case, I think he is a beginner, I doubt he uses 4x5, so a basic computer should do, any Pentium 4 should get him by for now till he realizes he needs more RAM or speed.