Switching to a Mac - some questions re. PSCS, QImage & IMatch

[vandit]

My laptop HD just died and as its keyboard was getting pretty flakey after 2.5

years of heavy use, I am in the market for a new machine. Have decided to

switch to a Mac.

 

Now, to prevent any heated discussions - I am not really asking whether this is

a good choice or no. I realize there are people in both camps, and I agree that

both PCs and Macs do quite well.

 

However,I would like to get some info from current users:

 

1/ I have a bunch of plugins for PSCS - can I simply copy them onto the Mac and

install them, or will I need to buy Mac versions of those plugins?

 

2/ Anyone using QImage and IMatch on a Mac? I assume these would work under

some sort of a Windows emulator, but how well do they work?

 

3/ How does the LCD screen of a Mac compare to the TrueBrite type of screens

found on Vaio, Toshiba & Acer laptops? Same degree of color fidelity? As I

travel a lot, I do most of my image processing on the road and so need a decent

screen that can be color-calibrated.

 

4/ Would 1GB of RAM be enough to run CS3 and possibly Lightroom as well?

 

5/ Any other tips that I should know, from an image processing/digital darkroom

standpoint?

 

Thanks,

Vandit

[wogears]

1)No. Mac versions are different. Don't think manufacturers will substitute one for the other. You'll have to buy new ones, I suspect.

 

2)I would not try this at all. Get iView or use Lightroom's DAM features. iPhoto is actually fairly capable and free.

 

3)Mac screens are quite good. The BriteView type screens are very colorful, but INCREDIBLY sensitive to viewing angle. For photo work, I would prefer the Macs.

 

4)Depends on file size, but I would go for more if I could. Macs use standard PC memory now, so there should be no problem.

 

5)Just as on Windows, you may need some guidance in getting color management to work correctly.

 

I use both Macs and PCs. If you have a LOT of money invested in Wintel software, you may want to consider staying with it. I have a slight preference for my Mac--GUI is more grown-up, now that the Taskbar, er, uh, Dock is tamed--but my Winboxes are newer and faster, so I use them for photo work. Taking an image from one to the other is simplicity itself.

 

Les

[patricklavoie]

1_dont think so.

 

2_no, use Lr or Iview...i suggest Lr.

 

3_Dont know anything about PC, but MAc screen are pretty, if you intend to do color corection and photoshop stuff, i suggest PC or Mac that you buy also a side screen to accomplish that.

 

4_1 GIG is pretty limit. any mac come with at least 512, so add another 1gig to get 1.5 minimum.

 

5_read so good book about CS and Color management, make some new friend that will help you with your Mac.

[phoneguy]

Vandit, I have recently made the switch to Mac. I can't answer all of your questions, but, I can

tell you 1gb of ram will not be enough for Lightroom. Lightroom crashed on mine with 1gig. I

upgraded to the full 3 gigs and have yet to see a problem.

 

Mac screens are great screens. It is probably the first screen I have had that made me realize

my previous screens were not as good as I thought. I had a couple of nice Dell's, but the Imac

24, and the MBP both have beuatiful screens.

[godfrey]

> 1/ I have a bunch of plugins for PSCS - can I simply copy them<br>

> onto the Mac and install them, or will I need to buy Mac versions<br>

> of those plugins?<br>

<br>

The binaries are different. If they're commercial software, check with the vendor for a

platform switch. <br>

<br>

> 2/ Anyone using QImage and IMatch on a Mac? I assume these would<br>

> work under some sort of a Windows emulator, but how well do they<br>

> work?<br>

<br>

Only if you run Windows XP using Boot Camp or Parallel. No point to that. <br>

<br>

I use Lightroom and Photoshop CS2 on my PowerBook G4 with 1.5G RAM. They work

perfectly, if not as fast as they would be on a current MacBook. You'll definitely want

Photoshop CS3 for performance on the MacBook. <br>

<br>

> 4/ Would 1GB of RAM be enough to run CS3 and possibly Lightroom<br>

> as well?<br>

<br>

Upgrade to 2-3 G of RAM. 1G is bare minimum for any kind of image processing today.

<br>

<br>

> 5/ Any other tips that I should know, from an image<br>

> processing/digital darkroom standpoint?<br>

<br>

For me, Lightroom and Photoshop CS2 are all the software I need for photography

specifically nowadays. I use iView MediaPro because I have it and have some things

that are based on a custom HTML template that I created for it, but in my next round of

web revisions I'll change that to a different layout. <br>

<br>

You need a screen calibration device. I prefer the Eye One Display 2. It does an excellent

job.<br>

<br>

I also use Econ Technologies "ChronoSync" application to perform automated backup for

the photo files to a pair of external hard drives. Highly recommended, and only $30. They

have other software that might prove useful. Their website is <a href="http://

www.econtechnologies.com" target=new>www.econtechnologies.com</a>.<br>

<br>

Godfrey

[vandit]

Thanks for the info, all.

 

Ok, so 2-3GB of RAM it is, then. I have an extra 1GB installed on my current laptop that I'll use, so that should get me started. Can upgrade to 3Gigs later, if need be.

 

For calibration, I already have a Spyder Pro, and it has worked well enough for me so far.

 

Now, the one potential glitch: cataloging software. I am particular to IMatch b/c of its complex relational structure which lets me do really complex searches without requiring a lot of keywording (things like "all sunset photos with a deer in them but no birds", and so on). I have tried Lightroom and it doesnt allow anywhere close to the same level of control over the searches.

 

So to me, not being able to use IMatch at all is a deal-killer. If possible, I'd prefer to continue using IMatch, even if that means using Bootcamp. Godfrey - you dont seem too thrilled by the idea of Bootcamp - may I know why? To me, it seems a perfect solution: best of both worlds...

 

Also, Mike - having switched to Mac, how fast is Photoshop on it, compared to Windows?

 

Vandit

[patricklavoie]

I have tried Lightroom and it doesnt allow anywhere close to the same level of control over the searches...>

 

maybe you didtn try it enough? if you are use to a software and you try another one once, it would indeed seem not as powerfull. It is.

[godfrey]

Vandit,

 

I run Mac OS X. IMatch isn't available on Mac OS X. No workflow

that requires two operating systems to accomplish is ever going to be as integrated or

productive as a workflow in one operating system that all the applications work together in

an integrated way. Lightroom does what I need and does it well. Prior to Lightroom, I used

iView MediaPro and it did this reasonably well, but was not as well integrated to my

workflow as I wanted.

 

I'm not sure how you encode the information in IMatch that allows you to perform a word

based search for something like the "sunset with deer but no bird". But regardless,

keywords are very powerful tools, and Lightroom makes it very easy to embed them into

your image files. One of the important things about having keywords and other metadata

embedded into the files is that it makes it easy for a variety of applications to be used

based on data which is intrinsic to the files themselves, reducing dependency on one

particular application.

 

That said, if you must use IMatch, I would imagine that running it under Parallels instead

of Boot Camp for work in this context would allow a more flexible workflow.

 

Godfrey

[vandit]

Patrick & Godfrey - it is indeed quite possible that I havent investigated Lightroom properly, and I agree with you about the benefits of embedding keywords and metadata into files.

 

Without sounding like an IMatch fanboy, what I like about it is that it lets do all the IPTC tagging for sending off to stock agencies, and also uses a categories-based tagging system. So from there, it is a matter of creating a Boolean argument that helps you find exactly the image types that you are looking for.

 

For example - I have categories for wildlife with subcategories for "deer & antelopes", "birds" and more; I also have categories for landscapes, with sub-categories such as sunsets, special lighting, forest, etc. For every image, I check every category that applies. To do the search I had mentioned earlier, I create a nexpression that looks for all images categorized under "deer & antelopes" and "sunset" and-NOT "bird". Takes me 3 seconds or less, and I can sort through tens of thousands of images on multiple hard drives.

 

This approach also does away with the question of exclusive categorization (is something a landscape or a wildscape, for example?) and has become invaluable to the way I find my files.

 

OTOH, I agree - having to switch between OSes just to catalog/find images is going to be real pain in the ar$e. I'd rather stick to Windows rather than give up IMatch, to be honest.

 

I'll try to email the IMatch people and see what they have to say on this.

 

Vandit

[patricklavoie]

Im not a big user of keyword, but Lr let you do the same thing, even define shortkey AND set to affix rapidly the same keyword to image, you can even add keyword to a set of image when you import them to Lr.

 

You can also add parent and child keyword set, and many more things.

 

Like i said i am not a big fan for keyword, as i already have all my image catalogue in a way that i remember the location, the years and the place. What i use do is the search by time fun ction in Lr, that is pretty awsome, a bit like Iphoto in a way, with muscle.

[godfrey]

I spoke to the author of IMatch some time ago. He told me at that time he had no plan

whatever to create a Mac OS X version of IMatch. If that is your bottom line, you will stay

on Windows.

 

Nothing wrong with that if it does what you need. If you wanted an Apple MacBook, just

install Boot Came, install Windows and run it as a Windows laptop. There's no penalty for

that, although you won't get any of the Mac OS X features. You'll just be running Windows

on excellent hardware.

 

From your description, IMatch sounds like it does exactly what Lightroom does with

respect to embedding and tagging files with keywords and IPTC information. And

searching, browsing, AND and XOR search capabilities, etc using metadata inclusions. If

the metadata is embedded into your files in the accepted industry standard matter, it

would likely be automatically available when you import into Lightroom.

 

I'm sure there are some differences: Lightroom is only in v1.0 at present and I know

Adobe's folks are already well into development of the next revision's new features and

capabilities. Since LR is a fully cross-Mac OS X/Windows application, you could run it on

either OS with identical UI and capabilities. That concept has a lot of power, to my way of

thinking.

 

Godfrey

[vandit]

Hmm, I think I'll investigate Lightroom more closely as well. If it lets me use Boolean-type logic based on parent/child keys as well as single-key assigns, I'm all over it.

 

And I gather that IMatch runs on Parallels on Macbooks as well - so that's pretty good news as well.

 

I think I am sold.. Macbook it is!

 

Thanks again for the help, guys.

 

Vandit

[neil_poulsen8]

I have a Powerbook, and I use it as my standard imaging computer. Here are a few comments that I would offer:

 

If you get 1 gb of ram, have it added as a full 1gb chip, not two half gb chips. That saves having to toss one or two chips if you want to upgrade. It's a little more expensive, but worth it later. I got lucky. Having done this, the store who installed the 1gb chip just left the half gb chip in the machine. So, I got 1.5gb for the price of 1gb.

 

For me, the biggest drawback to a Mac is the lack of availability of other software. For example, there's two effective options for accounting software. MyObs is difficult to use, and QuickBooks for Mac is a poor relation to the PC version. But from what I'm told, an Intel Mac, especially if it has Leopard, will resolve the software availability issue.

 

You're getting high quality hardware. Frankly, I wonder if PC users wouldn't be better off getting a Mac with Leopard (or BootCamp) and loading XP onto a separate partition. In spite of this, be sure to get Apple Care for three years.

 

I was told by an Apple Tech person not to get the biggest hard drive, the 200gb drive, that it doesn't perform as well, or something. Get the next one down. Ask about this. I think it was a reliability issue.

 

I like the Apple screens much better for imaging than those glossy things that come on most PC laptops these days. Still, better to use a graphics quality monitor for critical color editing. I color calibrate my laptop of course, but I get much better color on my LaCie monitor. It can make a difference in the quality of your images. The OSX allows one to use two different monitor profiles at the same time; one for the laptop and one for a connected monitor. It also has an easy interface for setup for two monitors. Can put pallettes on one screen and the image on the other.

 

It would be nice if you could wait for Leopard and get it free.

 

I still have problems where I get mad at my computer. It's when I'm using Microsoft Office!

[sfh]

1/ Only if you run your mac in bootcamp, in which case you might as well not get a mac.

 

2/ If they work on windows they will work in bootcamp. They will work just as well. There

are reports of some programs running better.

 

3/ As far as I know, you don't really need to calibrate a Mac monitor: I don't, and I get

perfect prints compared to what I see on the screen.

 

4/ Yes, but more is always good in case you feel like running photoshop, lightroom, listen

to tunes while editing, chat on msn, and don't feel like closing safari.

 

5/ Well, I find it way easier to organize my files on my mac. When I used PC it was always

default saving to places I never used and stuff. On my mac it just seems a lot easier - I'm

so organized I can find the edited photos of the grade 9 girls volleyball game from

September 22 2006 in like 7 seconds, even though there are hundreds of separate games

on my HD. And I'm usually not to organized!

[patricklavoie]

<..As far as I know, you don't really need to calibrate a Mac monitor: I don't, and I get perfect prints compared to what I see on the screen...>

 

one of the weirdess thing i have eard in a long time. Maybe its time you read a good book on the subject? ANY screen have to be calibrated if you want to have a well color managed workflow. Mac or PC.

[vandit]

Neils & Forest - thank you for your comments. The more I think about it, the more I think Macs are meant for me. And I dont have to put up with those stupid Sideshow Bob animations anymore. Bubye, Windoze... muuhahahaha. Erm sorry, got carried away a bit.

 

Vandit