Is there a difference in Mac or PC-workflow

[taffy_johnson]

Hey Everyone,

I shoot weddings occasionally, that's why I am posting this here. I use both PC [Custom Made] and Apple [24'

iMac]. I been using PC for most of my editing all these years, then in order to be 'cool' among my photog buddies

got myself an apple [i was the only dreaded PC guy among them]. I have heard many sayings that mac is better for

editing and other processing. In my case I don't see any difference in my work flow. Both PS and Lightroom work

pretty much the same. Excluding proprietary apple software [iWorks, iLife and all] I can do anything on PC that

I can do on mac. So are there anyone with the same experience or better. My question is, what is so better for a

person with PC switching to mac, what advantages he/she has as far as work flow or performance [not taking the

whole 'virus' issue into consideration]. Personally, it was a waste of $2300 for me. It would nice to hear from

everyone with your thoughts on this.

 

This post is not to bash any mac users since I like my iMac [iLife rocks] as much as my PC [ACDSee Pro rocks

too]. Cheers

[christopher hartt dallas]

We have both Macs and PC's here at our lab. Each has its place.

 

I shoot Canon 1D3 and 1Ds3 (large RAW) files. While the workflows are similar on each machine, the Mac Pro actually works (quickly, efficiently and quietly). If you haven't noticed a difference in what each machine does best, I suspect it's because you haven't bumped up against the performance limits of a PC versus Mac in processing image files. For higher volume, higher resolution image files, my Mac's 'run circles' around the PC's. I'm not "anti PC", I think that for a number of software packages, I prefer PC's. I even like editing single image files on a PC better than on a Mac. But for batch processing large numbers of large files, running PS actions, etc; the Mac is clearly superior in every respect IMHO.

[rosina_dibello]

I had the same battle... but I decided to spend extra money on a rocking workhorse PC and that leaves funds left over for photo equipment....

[peter_berger]

One important difference is backup workflow. The Mac has Time Machine, which in my mind is reason for any photographer

to prefer the platform. It's not a substitute for off-site backup, but it's another layer of protection, and it's approximately zero-

effort.

[steve_c.5]

Yes, there's a difference. PCs have a right mouse button. Macs annoyingly do not. PCs are a fraction of the cost with blazing speed these days. There is nothing you can do on a Mac that I cannot do on a PC cheaper and just as fast. With raid arrays and multiple drives, backup is just as easy as their system. There is 10 times the software available for PCs than for Mac. Mac users I've known tend to be kinda snooty about them too. And Macs experience bugs and errors just like PCs do; their users just don't like to talk about it.

 

Now Vista, that's another story. I don't know WHAT the heck they were thinking about when they invented THAT. I still use XP and love it.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Macs are more Goober proof if you are a Goober; ie if you roam the internet nude; like to click on things; assume things; its more of a cult or religion. Macs are used by a subset of computer users; the cocoon of protection helps Goobers and Non Gobbers from wasting time with futzing. For folks who are toolers using a PC means you build your own custom dragster; and if one is not too careless it will run a long life. IF the tooler has a tad of Goober DNA then he sinks into the abiss of futzing. In good running clean hot rod PC's there is little difference than a good Mac; BUT the canned dogma/religon spreeched is that most PC's are troublesome.

[joshua_shaw]

I just wanted to comment on a few things I read. Note that I am not neither anti-Mac nor anti-PC.

 

Christopher Hartt: Now that Mac's also use Intel processors, I would assume that both PCs and Mac's have the same speeds. I am curious to know whether both the PCs and Mac's where the same specs when you were comparing the speed differences? I've also seen a lot of PCs become slow because some of the software that people install. For instance, Norton AntiVirus products are notoriously slow and can cause major slowdowns. I've compared Mac and PC systems with similar specs and found that they both work at about the same speeds. I was actually surprised to find that in some situations, things ran faster on Vista because of a new technology called "SuperFetch" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista_I/O_technologies#SuperFetch) which basically helps fully utilize all the memory you throw at it instead of remaining idle.

 

Peter Berger: Vista includes a feature called Previous Versions/Shadow Copies that function very similarly to recover a file (it does however require either the Business or Ultimate version). You basically right click on a file or a folder, go to Properties and you access the Previous Versions tab to recover a previous version of the file of folder. Both OS's allow the user to recover from a problem with the computer using Time Machine on the Mac vs System Restore on Windows. One advantage of Vista's recovery feature is that it doesn't require another hard drive like a Mac. However, since the Mac requires you to use another hard drive, it offers the advantage that you can recover from a failed hard drive. The same can be done with Windows if a backup is created/scheduled, but backing up to an external hard drive has to be manually set.

 

Steve C.: To be fair, any regular mouse can be plugged into the Mac to enable right click functionality. On a Mac laptop however, it's a little harder because you have to carry an extra mouse around. But a workaround is to use Option+click, which is the Mac equivalent of a right click.

While I agree XP is a great OS, I've actually been very pleased with Vista. I started using it after SP1, and I've had very good experience with it (perhaps you tried it before SP1?).

[fotografz]

Nikon v/s Canon ... Zeiss v/s Leica ... Kodak v/s Fuji ... Mac v/s PC ... and so on.

 

I'm on a Mac because in the entire graphics/design/advertising/pro-photography/printing/film-post-editing industries, PCs are the exception

and Macs are the rule. Compatibility with those industries is critical

for me, where it may be meaningless to others. In some cases a PC locks you out of certain pro gear ... for a specific example, the

Profoto D4 studio generator box can be controlled from your computer as long

as that computer is a Mac ... and some software for pro MF digital cameras is Mac based and PC have to wait, or never get their version

because there just aren't enough PC based studios to warrant

software development.

 

For wedding photography it probably doesn't matter. However, the one event photographer I know with an uber sophisticated PC is always

amazed how swiftly my Mac downloads CF cards or processes

batch work and final tiff or jpeg conversions.

[jo_dinning]

I have used PC and Mac for photography and graphic design. I've used the same software on both platforms, often working between the two. As with most things one is really not better than the other - if you have a modern system whichever you choose will be fine. I find folk tend to fall into the camp that they most use - presumably because like many things, they prefer what they are comfortable with. Of course there are some differences - right-click, interface, pricing etc. but unless you are still at chimpanzee status in the world at large these are not big issues.

 

This is the same debate as Nikon/Canon; film/digital etc. One is really no better than the other - it's what you do with the medium and the results you get that counts.

 

Having said that, if the rivalry did not exist between companies such as these, perhaps we wouldn't all be benefitting from the technological advances that such rivalry brings as one company tries to outwit the other.

 

So to summarise - is there a difference in Mac or PC workflow? No.

[chezmojo]

Since photography is a money sucking hobby for me, I would rather sink money into lenses than expensive Macs with expensive software...

 

Thus, I do everything in Linux (Gentoo specifically). Before you roll your eyes: all of the benefits of processing in Linux can be had in OS X except the speed advantage--all you have to do is get familiar with Python and Fink. There are a gazillion free tools available for *NIX (that is, OSX, Linux, FreeBSD, etc.) that are all infinitely scriptable. The magic of cron + rsync + python (or any scripting language) allows completely seamless backups, organization, batch processing, file naming, EXIF modification, geotagging, etc. I personally use Bibble for the actual RAW processing which isn't free, but is a nice cross-platform program that comes with Perfectly Clear and Noise Ninja. My girlfriend (a Linux convert) uses Raw Therapee which is completely free.

 

I drop my CF card in (it opens automatically of course) and copy the NEF files to a directory. A script then sorts them into "raw" "preview" and "processed" folders automatically; raw contains the NEF files and preview is populated with small JPEG previews that are generated from the NEF files using dcraw (which does an amazing job of making exposure/white balance of the previews uniform). I then run Bibble and point it's batch output at the "processed" directory which becomes filled with full-size JPEGs/TIFFs/whatever I happen to be exporting from Bibble. Then a python script resizes and sharpens everything (using Imagemagick) to whatever size I want for emails, blogs, etc. When I'm all done my computer happily clones my /home directory (which contains all my photos, settings, scripts, etc.) to an external hard drive without me even noticing (that is where cron/rsync come in). And this is just scratching the surface... GNU/Linux loves manipulating, categorizing, and searching large numbers of files :)

 

The only drawback for me is printing. I have a Canon i9900 with Windows-only drivers and the reverse engineered drivers for Linux aren't free and don't support all of the features, like ink-level monitors. For this I sometimes run a virtualized Windows installation (which runs in a window--no rebooting involved), but I don't print stuff very often.

 

A huge advantage is that Linux is considerably easier on your hardware than Windows XP and blows Leopard and Vista out of the water in that regard. If you're not a geek and don't want to compile everything from source, you can stick Ubuntu on a partition and give it a whirl--the speed difference will amaze you (you can run it off of a CD, but of course CD-ROM drives are slow, slow, slow compared to hard drives).

 

PS I completely understand that some people are deeply rooted in specific software packages that are not available for *NIX. I do, however, think you'd have to be crazy to voluntarily put Vista on a helpless PC :)

[annealmasy]

FWIW, the Apple's "Mighty Mouse" has right-click. :)

[steve_c.5]

To clairfy my Vista angst, I haven't had crashes, bugs, or software issues with it (it's on my HP laptop, not my regular workstation), I just don't know why they had to alter SO many aspects of managing the system. They changed the names of most all the control panel icons, buried familiar tools in unfamiliar places, and turned the very friendly Windows Explorer into a very unfriendly and arcane file manager tool that's so much harder to navigate and find things. It's really frustrating.

 

Jo did make a great point that without the rivalry, we wouldn't benefit from all these advances. True.

[joshua_shaw]

Steve: That's true. A lot of changes were made. Personally, I stopped looking for items in the Control Panel (for the reason you mentioned - the names are different). Instead, I just do a quick search. For instance, open up the Control Panel and do a search for something like "Remove" for Remove Programs, "Display" for the Display options, etc. I actually find this much easier than XP now. But yes, definitely a change from XP.

 

I personally liked the new Vista explorer, but I know a few people who didn't. Here is what I would recommend to try to get (if you haven't already):

1. Click Organize | Folder and Search Options. In the General tab, under "Tasks", select "Use Windows Classic Folders. This brings back the menu bar (along with some other stuff).

2. In the same window, click the View tab, and select "Display full path in the title bar" to get back the traditional title bar.

 

Ryan: Wow, your probably the first Linux user who I know that is a pro photographer (most of the other Linux people I know are computer pros). Congrats for getting that set up - that must have saved you a lot of money in both hardware and software!

[hal_a]

Ryan: I think its great that you're using Linux for photography. Linux is great, but its strange that your printer driver isn't free, unlike almost every thing else in the Linux world. I'm currently running both windows and ubuntu on my pc. Until now I hadn't considered post processing in linux, but, I'll look into it. Thanks. It will save me lots. What softwares do you recommend?

[kelly_flanigan1]

With a PC if one has VISTA and uses the canned bundled CD writting software; the CD you send out often cannot be read with Win2000; Win98SE etc; but it can be read if one uses Nero as the burner program. Thus in print work we often get CD's from clients they cannot read with their system(s); and we try our zoo of 2 dozen boxes to find one that can read the bastard disc. Maybe Vistas replacement will burn discs thatt cannot be read by XP; and its upgrade one that cannot be read by Vista? :)

[joshua_shaw]

Kelly: The reason why this occurs is that by default Vista uses something called "Live File System". It

basically allows you to write things to it like it is a USB drive allowing you to add/delete/rename things. If

you've used Roxio, it's like DirectCD (I'm sure Nero has something equivalent). The reason the disc is probably

working from Nero is because you are creating a standard type of disc and not a "live" one. You need to create

what Vista calls a "Mastered" disc which is the older way where you basically add files and then burn it (like in

Nero). Here is what Microsoft has to say

about this:<br />

<a

href="http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/Windows/en-US/help/b47eb51a-ea6d-4d97-97b0-2d07a59316981033.mspx">Windows

Help: Burn a CD or DVD</a><br />

<a

href="http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/Windows/en-US/help/2af64e60-60aa-4d79-ab6c-3a5db5806cbe1033.mspx">Windows

Help: Which CD or DVD format should I use</a><br /><br />

 

However, I usually avoid using Vista's burning mechanism because I prefer using Roxio since it allows me to span

large amounts of information across multiple DVDs (when I am backing up an entire event). So to keep things

consistent, I use Roxio for everything.

[chezmojo]

Haleemur: The generic printer driver is free, but if I want to print at high-quality I need to use turboprint's

reverse engineered driver. If you're running Ubuntu, I would suggest installing the following packages (all of

which are available through synaptic/apt): dcraw, exiftool, imagemagick, python imaging library, raw therapee,

ufraw (and ufraw-gimp), the gimp, and you can test-drive bibble to see if you like it (bibblelabs.com). There are

a zillion rsync/cron tutorials out there--just google around. If you want to check out a couple of my python

scripts that use these tools you can download them here (http://tinyurl.com/62a5jc), but you will probably have

to edit them for your needs. I use the Spyder2Express to calibrate my monitors, which a program called Argyll

supports. Once you generate the monitor profiles you can load them with xcalib. Glad to hear that there are other

Linux users floating around this place!

 

Joshua: I'm definitely not a pro photographer, but I do take lots of pictures! If I made money with photography I

could probably afford Photoshop and a fancy Mac :)

[kelly_flanigan1]

Joshua; HERE its my customers and the US Government too that are the ones that are writting these ill/ba*tard

CD's with Vista; I have no control over this issue. CD's are sent out with pdf's and jpgs to bid on a

construction job; I get alot of bitching from customers who cannot open them; or I create another disc that can

be read on all systems; or I post the info on one of my websites; since Cd's do not work on all computers. Some

of these ill CD's are from NASA; created by some fair haired golden boy that doesnt give a damn if the discs

cannot be read on a contractors computer. What happens is sometimes less folks bid on construction jobs; thus the

taxpayer pays a higher price due this jackassery. Writting a CD that reads on a subset of computers for a bid job

is then work of an i*diot; or a dolt. The purpose of creating these CD's for bidding was to reduce printing

costs. In some cases the government duffuses are creating ill Cd's; also they have no drawing trees or indexes of

what the zillion photos are for; they basically poop out files on a CD and can be read on a subset of computers;

and let printers like me sift thru their manure and try to make logical sense of it so it can be printed for

bidders. They want to put as man on Mars and cannot even get plans for a gas station or toilet on a CD correctly.

<BR><BR>The ill CD's cannot be read with our 20" iMac either; One trys several XP or vista machines and finds the

machine that day that can read the ill government Cd's; and moves the data to a more universal CD format.

<BR><BR>We also get wedding Cd's from customers that they cannot read; written by this dum Vista burner canned

software; or not so bright photographer!:) . We then copy the data on the ill CD to a hard drive and reburn it

with Nero; so a customer can see their proofs. If your are a wedding photographer and are using Vista; ponder

whether your Cd'sor DVD's can be read by your customer; or are they having to bring the CD to a third part to

create a CD or DVD that can be read on all machines. These "ill Cd's" often cannot be read here on all of my XP

machines either; its like rolling dice. <BR><BR>A deliverable item like a CD or DVD for a wedding; bid job; or

scan job should be written in a basic way thats readable by all machines; not a subset of machines. A disc should

be readable by a 2 year old 20" Imac; a 5 year old win2000 box; an ancient win98SE machine too; or all XP

machines; not jsut some. Folks that get these proof wedding CD's should not have to bring these ill Cd's to a

printer to have them converted to a universal CD readable on all machines.

[taffy_johnson]

Well, I thank everyone who had an opinion on this. Its good to know that there are benefits and to some none at all, BTW I noticed towards the end of comment postings that the whole discussion took a total diversion to some Vista OS issue. I will come back in few days and see what they are talking about now. Cheers to y'all

[vincedistefano]

One of the most overlooked benefits of running a Mac is that it is super, super easy to clone the entire system. Yes, the PC market has software like Acronis TrueImage and Symantec Ghost, and I've used them all because I use both PCs and Macs. But cloning OSX is hands-down simpler. Buy an external USB or Firewire drive. Download the free SuperDuper or Carbon Copy Cloner programs for OSX. Pick your source drive, pick your target drive, and hit "clone" - while you're booted into the running OS, even!

 

When it's done, you've got an exact clone of your entire operating system. You could boot from that drive and everything would be exactly the same. Eject it, and set it on the shelf (or take it offsite). If your main drive dies, boot from your clone rescue drive. You can work from it, process images, check your email - or clone it back to a fresh hard drive in your computer.

 

This does not replace normal file backups (because you wouldn't want to constantly clone, and it's not incremental) but it augments a good backup strategy very well. You would at least be up and running quickly, and then you could restore your data files.

 

Oh, and Macs can boot into Firewire target mode - making them in essence a giant hard drive instead of a computer booted into OSX. Why would you want to do that? Well, if your OS is corrupt and won't boot for some reason, just boot it into FW mode - and plug a working Mac into it via Firewire. Your working Mac will see your nonworking Mac as a mounted external hard drive and let you have full access to it. Pretty sweet. Also good if you need to copy mega amounts of data from one to the other and you want to do it at FW400 or FW800 speeds.

 

Yes, there are good things about XP and good things about OSX. But I do get frustrated by off-the-cuff hyperbole, such as "PCs cost a fraction..." What does that mean, really? That PCs cost 1/4th what a Mac does? I don't think so.

 

Or that there thousands more programs for PCs. OK, maybe. But how many programs will you actually purchase and use anyways? How many "frequently used apps" do most people have? Ten? Maybe 20? And most of the major photographic software is available on both platforms anyway, or at least very viable substitutes. My Mac runs Adobe CS3, Lightroom, and Noise Ninja, as well as Office apps. And if I need to (for example, to provide tech support) I fire up parallels and load in a suprisingly fast and functional Windows XP virtual machine. Firefox, MS Messenger, iTunes, Filemaker Pro, FTP programs - there's not one app I need not available for the Mac. And many are superior. If you're frustrated with burning CDs in Windows (I've been there) you should try Toast sometime, it blows away its PC counterparts.

 

OSX (for now) also does not have any product activation, and the family pack prices are very very reasonable.

 

What else? Disk defrag tools are totally unnecessary on OSX. All new Macs come with a mighty mouse, which actually has three buttons and the greatest scroll wheel (actually it's a ball) ever, that lets you scroll 360 degrees.

 

Just my two cents.