Digital Dark room - MAC or PC?

[shineofleo]

I am a long-time PC user, but recently my laptop is kind of broken... So I am

considering change a new one. I have kept my eyes on MACbook for a long time but

never dare to buy it...

 

In general, which platform is more suitable for Digital Dark room? And by the

way, between Photoshop and Aperture on MAC, which one is better?

 

Really need some comments from their users... thanks a lot.

 

 

Leon

[paulh]

Either will do the job equally well.

 

It'll be more down to $$$ and religious beliefs :-)

[peterlyons]

I'm a Mac user myself, and I agree with P C... either platform is likely to perform equally well. You may bear in mind that Mac usage seems to run especially high among people in visual arts, but I couldn't personally explain why that is. Maybe someone in the know could enlighten all of us!

 

To step out and throw in my two cents, though...

How essential is portability to you? Must you have a laptop? Laptop monitors tend to be very particular about viewing angle. If color management is very important to you, maybe it's worth considering a desktop machine, or at least, an auxiliary monitor for your laptop.

[andrew_rodney1]

As said, either will do but now you can have both the Mac and Windows in one machine

(nice).

 

I'm not a big fan of Aperture in this release but Apple could totally turn it around. It's

really nothing like Photoshop (you still need that). Right now, Aperture sits idle, I'm using

Lightroom instead (and Photoshop of course).

 

OK Scott, let her rip....

[ellis_vener_photography]

A Mac user question has been posted for 4 hours and Scott E. has yet to start another anti-

Mac rant. That has to be a record! Hope he isn't sick.

 

Aperture isn't Photoshop CS2 but it is kind of interesting. So is Lightroom, but both are in

some sort of beta devlopment stage. As things stand right now, I'd stick with PsCS2 and start

trying out the (free) Lightroom beta.

[robert_m3]

If you buy the Macbook Pro, you get OS X and can run XP in a window using virtualization

software from VMWare or Parallels. You can also dual boot into XP with Apple's own Boot

Camp software. Worst case, you find you don't like OS X you just run XP native on it full

time.

 

Buy a Dell laptop and you don't get OS X.

 

I use Parallels to run XP on my Macbook Pro from time to time - it just works. As soon as a

Universal binary of Photoshop is released, I shouldn't need Parallels much anymore.

Photoshop Mac version is slower running under emulation on the Intel Macs than the PC

version running in Parallels. Virtualization is orders of magnitude faster than emulation.

[Brad_]

Hello. I'm a Mac. And I'm a PC...

 

Mac: So PC, looks like you're working on some photos there. What's up?

 

PC: I'm super-optimizing this picture of a sunset I took with my Canon 9DS MK VII, using

Photoshop. I think it'll look really boss as a background in my one of my piecharts I'm

putting together. As soon as that hourglass goes away I'll be able to make some test prints

and iteratively get the colors just right.

 

Mac: That's cool. But that hourglass. What's up with that? It's been there for a couple

minutes now.

 

PC: Oh nothing. I put in this new CD of Tony Bennet's Greatest Hits I just bought - it just

takes a little time for the os to figure out what to do next. You know, I work much better

in Photoshop when I can get down with Tony in the background.

 

Mac: Ok, but if you had a Mac, you'd just slip it in and kersnickzip - you'd instantly be

listening and importing your tunes at the same time. And doing other neat stuff while

that's happening. But wait, you can even get iTunes on your machine, why don'tcha just do

that?

 

PC: A big No Thank You on that. I want full and absolute control over what's going on

with my machine AND my tunes. Oh damn, I seem to be locked up now. And I can't get

the CD out. You know how it is.

 

Mac: Uh, no, I don't. Now what?

 

PC: Not a problem. I'll just call Scott the IT tech and he'll get me up and running with a full

system reinstall - he lives for this sort of thing - said he's done close to a thousand of em

in the last six months. And a bobby pin will get the stuck CD out. In 48 hours I should be

good to go, tweaking my sunset, and getting tight with Tony!

[don_e]

"In general, which platform is more suitable for Digital Dark room?" Leon

 

Neither.

 

Whether I used a Mac or a PC, I'd be using the same digital darkroom: Lightroom and Photoshop.

 

"...between Photoshop and Aperture on MAC, which one is better?"

 

For what?

 

A more reasonable question is 'between Lightroom and Apeture on MAC, which one is better?"

 

I don't have a Mac, so I've never used Aperture, but I like Lightroom a lot. The consensus of testers and reviewers I've read on the sites that a 'authoritative' for many here, the consensus seems to be that Lightroom is better -- at this point. Both are in development.

 

There will be no improvement in the quality of your darkroom work if you buy a Mac. You will still have learn how to use PS. Neither a Mac or a PC will save you from poor exposures, bad darkroom technique or blown highlights.

 

--

 

Don E

[KenPapai]

That is like asking, "Who makes a better crop-factor DSLR, Nikon or Canon?"

 

(it is loading the desk if you ask who makes a better DSLR because Canon makes the best, easily; but if you qualify with "crop factor" then the issue and argument is real aqnd both are nearly equal...)

 

Mac vs. PC? If you were a neighbor or a good friend of mine I would definitely recommended the PC because you'll get superb support.

 

Photoshop blows Aperture out of the water. PS CS2 is Industry Standard . Aperture is a division gutted by Apple.

[adrian_byng_clarke]

If you have to run Photoshop right now then probably you want a PC -- at least until CS3

comes out. Then again you can use bootcamp to run Windows on any intel mac. So if you get

a macbook, you'll have to option of switching between Windows and OSX. Apeture is nice.

Bibble is another interesting offereing which is available on Windows, OSX and Linux.

[gv]

Where is Scott Eaton? I cannot imagine that he would pass up another opportunity to bash

Mac owners...

 

Seriously though... Macs are Plug and Play, Windows boxes are Plug and Pray. Enjoy

dealing with over 100,000 viruses? By all means stick with Windows... Do you enjoy using

hardware that is more easily "broken?" Windows Wins Again!

 

Digital darkroom suitability isn''t the real issue here: it's the overall experience of Mac OS

X and its hardware compared to Windows. Check out the new Mac ads at http://

www.apple.com/getamac/ads/. They tell the story and they're funny too... (The little

arrows next to the thumbnails lead to more ads.)

 

BTW, it is now possible to run Windows software on Macs without having to use the

Windows OS installed. Find out more at http://www.codeweavers.com/products/cxmac/.

[mark_richards]

I'm sure Scott will turn up if the Macheads (G. V. etc.) keep posting their usual nonsense.

 

If you can, find someone with a Mac and have a play with the OS etc. and see which one you prefer. You can't rely on other people to make that decision for you.

[William Kahn]

I am the lord thy MAC. Thou shalt have no other OS before me.

 

There.....that oughta do it. :-))

[erik scanhancer]

One huge advantage of the Mac is that you can select monitor profiles from a list and see

their effect instantly. This way you can profile your monitor to different target settings and

swap from say 5000K to 6500K with a mouse click. Any time. Also, Apple's image viewer

supports embedded colour profiles, as does Safari, Apple's web browser. The viewer also

allows for applying or conversion of colour spaces outside Photoshop. I'd say these are

interesting advantages for digital darkroom workers.

 

Photoshop on the Mac or on the PC is about the same. In addition: on the Mac you can

choose between Aperture and Lightroom if you want a RAW developer/organiser. On the

PC you will only have Lightroom. I think it is always good to be able to choose between

competing systems. It keeps their makers more awake and their prices more competitive.

[StuartMoxham]

I use both macs and pcs at work and a pc at home. I I am really honest your input as a user will have far more effect on your finished images than mac or pc.

[steve_bingham]

Neither is best!

 

However, here are a few considerations. Running the PS CS2 speed test, it turns out that the current Intel E6800 CPU runs this elaborate test over 100% faster that a G5 quad (what Mac folks consider their speed demon). Both machines with their fastest everything. Also, using virtualization software from VMWare or Parallels really slows PS CS2 down - even more!

 

If you are used to PC, why switch?

[steve_bingham]

Why take my word for it.

Check out the test speeds on this site. Hundreds submitted.

http://www.driverheavendownloads.net/photoshop/results.php?min=0

[._._z]

Steve is a bit confused.

 

Virtualization software does not work on G5 Macintoshes of any kind. It is not designed for G5 processors.

 

Virtualization software works on Intel-based Macs, permitting Windows to work simultaneously with the Mac OS ... at near-native Intel speeds.

 

Alternatively, Apple's free 'Boot Camp' software allows one to reboot into Windows or Mac OS as desired ... running Windows apps at full Intel speeds.

[adrian_taylor]

I've used both PC and Mac for digital photography. These days I'm almost exclusively Mac.

 

If you've been a life long PC user, why change? You're probably already productive and know what you're doing. Although Macs are regarded as being easy, etc, etc, there is still a learning curve for you to either get the Mac adapted to your way of working, or for you to adapt to the Mac way.

 

Photoshop CS2 is not Intel native. i.e. it runs in emulation on Intel based Macs. Read slower than it could be. (That's not the same as slow).

 

Aperture vs Lightroom. That's a whole other religious debate. Aperture needs some kickass graphics hardware to really fly (although I run it on my humble little iBook). When it's flying, it's a really very very neat product. It has some of the best highlights/shadows tools I've ever used, and the monochrome conversions come second only to RAW developer.

 

However, Lightroom is currently in Beta, and is already an excellent product, but not as full featured on the library/asset management as Aperture. Its RAW conversion side is superb, though. I particularly love the split toning you can do with monochrome conversions. (You can probably guess I like B&W!).

 

Although I like both Lightroom and Aperture for different reasons, I've elected not to use them to manage my images - probably because I like them both. I have several RAW converters (C1, RAW Developer, Bibble, Nikon Capture 4, ACR, etc), and like to choose different tools for different jobs, so being, effectively, locked into either Apple's RAW or ACR doesn't suit me.

 

Seriously, as much as I'd seriously advise anyone that Mac OS is just the "right choice", if you're happy with a PC, stick with it. There's nothing *wrong* with either platform.

[stephen_bay]

If you're using the same software there's not going to be much difference between Mac

and PC. I feel the Mac is more polished but otherwise the user experience is not too much

different. I switched primarily because I wanted to use UNIX and the equivalent

workarounds on windows were not satisfactory for me.

 

However, I was pleasantly surprised by Aperture, which I hadn't even considered in my

decision to switch. It is an amazing program has dramatically reduced my time for editing

a collection of images. Lightroom is not even in the same league (for editing) although it's

probably a little better for raw conversion. Aperture has a bunch of problems, but it is

worth it because it makes sorting and editing a joy (not quite as good as using a real light

table and loupe but comes much closer than any other software I've used).

[mona_chrome]

you know, if you know how to use a PC, it really doesn't matter which machine. Photoshop is

important for really finishing the work off.

 

Someone asked why the creative community is more Mac based than PC. Since that is where I

started and live, I think it can be answered easily, because they are easy to use and they were

the best graphics machine back when computers were beginning to be used in the industry.

Today, the graphics capabilities are probably closer, but because of the early days, and the

fact that most creatives are not computer people(geeks) and never had a corporation jam the

PC down their throats, the mac is, and will remain, the industry standard.

[photography by a.f. smith]

As most have said . . . It doesn't matter. Get whichever you get the best deal on. Make sure it's got lots of ram too.

 

Do not assume that running XP on a mac is the same as on a PC. Windows drivers for mac hardware do not exists (that I'm aware of anyway), and XP on a mac is run in an emulation mode(as far as I understand it). If that's true, it will run much slower than it would on an equivelent PC, even in direct boot mode.

 

I don't know this from personaly experience, just stuff I've read on the web, so I could be wrong. If you plan on going that route though you should research to find out how it actually works.

[._._z]

Funny, CNET has tested the Intel Macs running Photoshop (and other apps) under Windows, and didn't report driver problems....

[adrian_taylor]

Reply to Adam Smith...

 

Intel Macs can dual boot into Windows, using an Apple utility called Boot Camp. i.e. they're running Windows natively, with Apple provided hardware drivers.

 

Older PowerPC macs need to use emulation, like Virtual PC.

 

The Intel Macs can also use virtualisation software like Parallels to run Windows under Mac OS - but even then they're running native Intel instructions, so the performance is quite good.

[bieg]

Even if everything else was equal (and they are not) the simple fact that there are something

like 116,000 (known) viruses for PCs (waiting to destroy your files and make your life

miserable) and none for the Mac make it a no brainer for me.