Photographic Dedicated Computer

[dgfassett]

If cost were no object, what computer and compatible software would be the most

preferred combination for the subject digital processing? What would the answer

be in the event that cost was an object? And, what is the most important

component?

[Ed_Ingold]

It doesn't take much of a computer to process digital images. Faster is better than slower, and it doesn't hurt to max out the memory (2G for a 32-bit processor). The monitor and calibration system is more important. Besides Adobe Photoshop, Bridge and possibly Lightroom...is there a "besides"?

 

You will also need a CD/DVD burner for transmittals, backup and archiving, and as much hard disk space as you can afford. No matter, you will fill any size hard disk quickly. That's what DVDs are for.

 

You can skimp on processor speed (not all that important unless you scan medium or large format (400MB and up), and the size of your monitor. I use a Viewsonic 19" LCD (VP191), which can be had for under $300 now, and an X-Rite Eye One Photo calibration system which cost more than my computer.

 

There is all manner of inexpensive or free software for editing photos. Unfortunately, you get exactly what you pay for. You might start with Adobe Photoshop Elements, and continue to eat macaroni and cheese until you can afford the real thing. At least the files are compatible.

[Hector Javkin]

If you're working with scanned images of even 120 MB, more computer power -- memory and CPU -- will help. I've got a fairly fast CPU, 2 Gig of memory, and multiple drives, but things do slow down with scanned files, as opposed to working with the smaller files captured on a DSLR. For faster backups, you might look for an external SATA capability for your external drives. Depending on your working environment, a monitor hood can be very helpful. The most important component? The knowledge of the person sitting at the computer.

 

BTW, either Mac or PC (at least under XP) will work fine. Several of my colleagues in signal processing complain about programs running significantly slower under VISTA than under XP, and there might be similar effects for photo editing, but I haven't tried VISTA yet.

[ronald_moravec1]

A computer with specs listed above. Most are not happy with Windows Vista, so that means direct ordering a Dell with XP OS or Apple.

 

Mac Apple is the industry standard for professionals.

 

Simple photo editing can be done with any number of programs. Nikon NX, Cannon Zoom brouser that came with my P& S Canon, Nero that came with the Sony DVD burner, and Photoshop Elements. Free to $130 gets you any one.

 

Elements has about 90% of what full photoshop CS has. What is missing is are the graphic design programs bundled with it that will be of little interest at this stage and never unless you go into graphic design.

 

Make sure whatever you get will process raw files if you will shoot raw.

 

Lightroom is very popular, but more geared to mass production than individual photos. It requires a "fast" computer. You need to transfer to photoshop to burn and dodge for instance. This makes it very incomplete and not worthy of a stand alone do everything program. What it does, it does very well.

 

If you get into large files like 4x5 and multilayer editing, 4000 ppi files from high resolution scans from 35mm or larger negs and panoramas, computer with slow processing will bog down and almost stop.

 

For 5MP files from a P&S, not much is required. 10MP from my Nikon or very high res files from a scanner start to tax my system.

 

My next computer will be a quad core MAC. You know what your requirements are.

[don_e]

This was probably an interesting question six or seven years ago.

[dgfassett]

Many thanks for the input relting to an area mostly reserved for geeks. I was laboring under the impression that special graphics cards or the like might be required. Thanks again to you all and Photo.net.

[richam]

I feel the monitor should be the hardware priority. The extra screen real estate you get

with a 20 inch or larger monitor makes image processing much more comfortable. Once

you get a fast enough cpu and adequate ram, I'd spend any extra on a larger monitor.

[patricklavoie]

Macpro (if you like Mac)

 

4gig of RAM

 

4x 500gig hard drive in RAID, 0 and 1; its fast, and secure since the info is mirrored. (i have a 2x2.33mhz that feel like a 2x 3.0mhz when working)

 

500gig external for daily backup

 

DVD MAM gold for regular finish job

 

Wacom Graphire 6x8 Graphic Tablet

 

2x 23inch Apple Cinema Display

 

Monaco Optix Calibration Device

 

APC battery backup

 

Epson 4800

 

CS3 suite, Lightroom, etc....

 

i have bigger dream, but its all i can get for my money rigth now ; ) this is my setup today as a professional.

[steven_clark]

Since future image editing software may be making use of the shaders on a 3d accelerator card for image processing getting a high-end graphics card may make sense for a money-is-no-object photographic computer.

[jennifer_durand]

Where money is no object I would suggest :

 

Hasselblad H3D 39Mp camera

Full set of H3D lenses

Image tank to shoot directly into (no cards no thether)

 

Computer

Power Mac G5 2.4 Ghz 6GB memory

Extra harddrives attached by firewire for image storage

Flexcolour for RAW file management comes with H3D

Photoshop CS3

Subscription to good online Photoshop tutorials and forum

Sypder Pro calibration kit and software,

Epsom Stylus Professional 9600 44" printer,

Hahnemuhle Photo Rag and PhotoRag Pearl by box loads.

Finishing deck with drymounting facility, matt cutters and trimmers.

Personal assistant who frames like a pro.

 

Professional studio with lights on overhead beams, rolls of background.

 

A good light meter - the on board meter in the camera is not sufficient.

Sturdy tripod.

 

Thats good to start with. Your other option? I'm not sure how little one can work with and

be really happy. You wouldn't be dreaming about the best if you were happy to settle for

second best, what do you think Dennis?