Computer Attributes for Digital/Photoshop Manipulation

[neil_poulsen1]

What are the attributes of a computer who's primary purpose is to work with digital images (e.g. 250megabyte scans) using Photoshop? I've been thinking about upgrading my computer, and I want it to have the capability of digital. For example:

 

<p>

 

Monitor: Screen size? Does one really need an ultra-high resolution monitor, or an ultra-big monitor? It seems monitors that come with computers these days are pretty good. What characteristics are important with respect to the monitor?

 

<p>

 

Graphics Card: How much memory? What kind of memory? How fast must it be? I'm not interested in a gaming graphics card and monitor, I'm interested in one designed for still photography. What's important in the Graphics Card?

 

<p>

 

Memory: What kind of RAM, or SRAM, or RDRAM, or etc. How much? I would think about 512M for 250megabyte files.

 

<p>

 

Processor: It must be Intel. Is 1.6GHz enough? Are there special chipsets that one should have? Pentium IV is the most recent CPU. How much cache?

 

<p>

 

Mass Storage Device: I imagine a read-write CD.

 

<p>

 

I ask on this forum, because I'm sure there are other LF photographers who have vigorously pursued finding a computer for their photography. So, I'm asking about what kind of computer that can meet LF PHOTOGRAPHIC needs. And, customers (i.e. LF Photographers) are the best judge of those needs.

 

<p>

 

Don't feel that responses need to encompass all of the above. If you have good info on a graphics card, the type of memory, etc., then your reponse on that portion would be appreicated.

 

<p>

 

I hope I've asked a question that relavant to other photographers, as well as myself. I think the possibilities are really expanded by combining the best of digital and silver, and I want to consider how I might explore those possibilities.

[john_hennessy]

I'd venture that your estimates of what you need are correct except

the monitor. I finally went to a 21" and would not go back. I use it

at a medium resolution for everything but photoshop and high

resolution for PS. Some PS users use two monitors: one small cheap one

for the tool palettes etc and the big one for the image. One thing you

have not mentioned is monitor calibration hardware and software. You

need them but I can't offer much help on specifics.

 

<p>

 

You may find the 512 memory a little anoying with that size of file.

Dell sometimes has two for one memory sales on new computers.

 

<p>

 

Have you tried your question on:

 

<p>

 

http://www.adobeforums.com/

 

<p>

 

This whole set comes up often there.

[bill_glickman]

Neil... I work with big files and can offer some insight...

 

<p>

 

First you have to deal with Mac vs. PC... I don't want to start a war

here, so my comments will be breif...both will work fine, there is

still a small % of the graphics users who beleive that Macs color

engine, Color Sync, is superior than Windows.

 

<p>

 

Monitor - The most important issue is screen size. If you plan to

use PS a lot, it is much more economical to use two monitors side by

side vs. one huge one. The larger the monitor, the more

disproptioniate the cost is... The top of the line CRT monitors is

still Barco, at about $5k, whereas the Mitsubishi line, or LaCie is

considered the next best and cost a whole lot less, < $2k. If you

use two monitors, only one needs to be an expensive one. In PS you

can put your palletes on the second smaller monitor. If you do

landscapes, the difference in these monitors is not an issue, whereas

if you do color matching work, like trying to produce Coke reds for

advertising work, then you may want to consider the more expensive

monitors. I personaly swtiched over to LCD's as they are much more

friendly to my eyes, they do NOT inflict the "sub concious flicker"

effects which cause headaches and fatigue. All CRT's are vulnerable

to this effect and effects many people after viewing them for 10

hours straight. New LCD's are close to the color capabilities and

Dmax of CRT's, but CRT's are still a bit superior in this area.

Almost all high end graphic card will suffice, this is never a

bottleneck in graphics... this issue becomes critical when doing 3d

modeling and gaming. If you are considering the two monitor

approach, then if you use a PC, they make dual head monitor cards to

drive two monitors. I beleive in Mac, you still need two graphics

cards.

 

<p>

 

PC, the new dual processors seem to speed things up a lot in PS. But

not double. Processing speed is usually not the bottleneck, its

memory! The rule of thumb is 4x the amount of your file sizes, so

if 250 MB is the norm, I would get atleast a Gig, or 1.5 gig to

prepare of future use. As for the type of memory... which ever type

runs the fastest in the machine you are buying

 

<p>

 

Hard Drive, get the fastest one made...accessing large files is very

time consuming. If you plan to store a lot of images on your hard

drive, you can fill 40 GB real fast! Consider a larger HD or a

second one... A fast CD burner will be mandatory... or if you want

to be bold, get a DVD burner...but the industry still needs to shake

out the format of choice for years to come. CD readers are on every

PC...

 

<p>

 

You should consider in your budget, how much you will spend on

your profiling package. As all the expesnive gear is useless with

out good profiles... this includes, monitor, scanner and printer. In

addtion to profiling, you should utilize monitor software package

that can keep your monitor calibrated. There is many packages on the

market.

[glenn_kroeger]

Neil:

 

<p>

 

I use Intel machines at work for remote sensing image processing, and

at home for photographic work in PS.

 

<p>

 

I would recommend at least a 1.8G Pentium IV. Clock speeds between

Pentium III and IV cannot be compared since the IV takes about 1.3

times as many clock cycles for many instructions due to a longer

pipeline. You pay a real premium for the fastest processors (>2G) so

the "sweet spot" in price-performance is usually the middle clock

speeds. I have a couple of 1.8G machines and find them quite

responsive.

 

<p>

 

More RAM is better, but 512 will do nicely if you are planning to

work in PS without much else going on at the same time. Right now,

RDRAM is faster than SDRAM, but Intel is releasing the new 845D

chipset this month which will allow the use of DDR SDRAM with Pentium

IVs. Look for machines with this technology from Dell and others

later this month or next. A year ago, RDRAM was much more expensive

than DDR SDRAM, but the recession and impending release of the new

motherboards have driven the price of RDRAM way down.

 

<p>

 

For one user, EIDE drives are fine these days, no need to splurge on

SCSI hard drives, but get at least a 7200RPM ATA100 drive.

 

<p>

 

Definitely need a CD-RW.

 

<p>

 

As for graphics cards, most are optimized for 3D gaming. The early

gaming cards were poor at 2D operations used for image processing. We

used to buy Matrox boards because they specialized in 2D performance.

For general use, I would recommend the NVIDIA chipsets. The GForceMX

and GForceMX400 chipsets have excellent 2D performance, and the

latest drivers are very stable. GForce3 is more expensive and won't

improve PS much.

 

<p>

 

You definitely want an aperture-grille monitor (Trinitron or

equivalent). These phosphors are the best for calibrating for image

applications. One way to save money is to get a good 17" or 19"

monitor for the image windows, and use a cheaper 15-17" monitor on a

second graphics board to hold the PS palettes.

 

<p>

 

Finally, invest in a good color calibration system. ColorVision has

their "Monitor Spyder" system available with software for under $300

these days.

 

<p>

 

That said, I work with a 900MHz Pentium III system with 384MB of

SDRAM and a 19" monitor at home, and work with files up to 300MB and

do preflight preparation for output to a LightJet. While faster and

bigger would be nicer, that system works fine and I don't feel

compelled to go out and replace it this year.

[stephen_ratzlaff]

I'm considering the same issues.

 

<p>

 

I expect to be working with 500MB+ files so here's what I'm

considering.

 

<p>

 

Dual AMD MP 1800+ processors, Tyan Tiger MB, starting out with 1GB of

DDR PC2100 ECC RAM. According to Tyan the MB will support 3GB total of

RAM. I've heard that with a BIOS upgrade this is increased to 4GB. I

expect in the end to have at least 3GB of RAM, just can't afford 3GB

from the start. I can tell you that even using a dual 800MHz MAC G4

with 256MB RAM, it starts to crawl when you open 5-6 18MB files and

start making manipulations. So be prepared to wait a bit with 250MB

files. Also, don't expect to open many files simultaneously and expect

the speed to not be affected.

 

<p>

 

I'm going with a GeForce 2 video card with 64MB of SDRAM or ... I've

also considered the Matrox G450 dual head card and am still debating

which card.

 

<p>

 

I'll be starting with two 60 GB drives (one for Windows XP-Pro, the

other for Suse Linux). I expect to add RAID at some point, there are

many single processor MB's (Pentium 4 and AMD) which support onboard

RAID, so definitely consider that. Besides the benefits of faster

access/write/read. etc. you can stripe the drives in different ways

for data protection. Just check carefully to see if striping using

different methods is allowed. Also consider SCSI in place of IDE, just

be prepared to spend more for the HDDs.

 

<p>

 

It's true that using a dual processor doesn't double the speed, you

can expect roughly a 1.6x improvement only on apps which are WRITTEN

WELL to specifically support SMP (symmetric multi-processing). Other

tasks are sometimes slower than using a single processor. Fortunately,

Photoshop supports SMP. Linux also is designed up front to support

SMP.

 

<p>

 

Regards

 

<p>

 

SR

[ellis_vener_photography]

Sorry to rain on the Windows parade but I still think you'll do better and at an

ultimately lower cost in time and frustration if you go with a fast G4. Do an

honest omparison and ask the graphics and printing houses you know in your

area and also your potential clients about this, especially regarding color space

and photoshop issues. I also fully expect the Apple OS X to be running on Intel

processors within a year or two.<P> As for my objectivity about this: I work on a

"quicksilver" Apple G4 but own Dell and Intel Stock.

[peter brown - www.peterbro]

Hi Neil

 

<p>

 

I agree with Ellis on this one. I have been using both platforms for many

years professionally, for photography and graphic design work, and although

the PC enviornment performs well, the Macintosh system is the better chioce

for your application. It is still the favoured platform used by the majority of

those working in the graphics and printing and photography industry.

 

<p>

 

If you only intend to use the equipment inhouse, then the choice becomes a

more personal one, but if you intend dealing with outside sources then

compatibility with other Mac users IS important.

 

<p>

 

I use a 19" La Cie and a 17" Apple for tools and although the 19" is a lovely

monitor I wish I could have afforded a larger one. The larger monitor will be

especially beneficial if you use panoramas or do a lot of 'portrait' orientated

images.

 

<p>

 

For memory get as much as you can afford - the more the better.

 

<p>

 

A fast graphics card is a must.

 

<p>

 

Dual processors are a definate benefit (expensive) but with a fast single

processor, large amount of memory and a fast, large capacity hard drive the

differences will not be so noticable.

 

<p>

 

Bill is absolutely correct with his comments on HD storage and removable

media. You will use up a 40 gig HD in no time with 250 mg scans, once you

start working on them and using layers, etc. That 250mg will turn into 1 gig

in no time at all. So get a fast (firewire maybe?) HD with lots of space.

 

<p>

 

The advice to get a CD re/writer is sound as DVD is not yet widely enough

accepted and DVD rewriters are still too expensive. Make sure you get a

REWRITABLE CD so you are able to rewrite to the CD multiple times.

 

<p>

 

As far as advising on specific products, you would be best to seek advice from

local print shops, other local photographers, etc and it will depend on which

platform you choose. Just like with LF lenses and cameras, most of the larger,

well known companies have very good quality equipment.

 

<p>

 

Hope this helps

 

<p>

 

Kind regards

 

<p>

 

peter Brown

[jorge_gasteazoro3]

Since I have never considered this question I don't know much about

this, but if I was in your shoes I would go with the equipment that

the people who do this for a living use. I have a good friend who is

the one that initiated the digital negatives for alternate printing

and I know he uses an Aplle G4, apparently so does Ellis, who makes

his living with photography.....I would say a G4 sounds like better

choice. I hope this helps...:-))

[david_bradley1]

If you do decide to go with Apple, consider buying the machine from

Apple with the smallest possible memory configuration then buying

lots of memory from a third party vendor. A few Apple users I know

have recommended The Chip Merchant (www.thechipmerchant.com) as a

source of good yet inexpensive memory. They sell a kit specifically

for the G4 that includes 1.5 GB for $248.00. The same amount of

memory purchased from Apple will cost about $1100. (Note that the G4

can hold 2 GB but 1.5GB is the max that OS 9 can use.)

 

<p>

 

People always say that if you're working with big files in Photoshop

then "get as much memory as you can afford". If you can afford $250

then you can get the maximum amount of memory that the machine can

handle, which is quite a bargain.

[howard_slavitt2]

For memory, I purchase mine from Data Memory Systems. Most

recently I paid about $60 for 512 MB chips of RAM. It works great,

at least on my G4. Make sure to budget for color profiling

software, as Bill explains. I've been using various RAM chips I

bought from DMS for about 5 years now, never a failure, knock on

wood.

[alpshiker]

Neil, I dont want to repeat the good things that have been said, but I too would strongly advise you to take

the Mac option. Here is what I use: Dual processor G4 500 MHz with 1,5 GB Ram (3x 512) and two ATA

Harddisks (40 and 75 GB IBM), Sony W900 24" monitor (Apple Cinema is a nice screen, still expensive). I would

now choose the Pioneer DV-03 (Superdisk) option. It can also be found as external FireWire for less than $700

and will allow to save 4,7 GB of data on a $10 DVD-disk in the time required for burning a CD-ROM at 4 x speed

(20 min.). It also has the CD-Write and CD-Rewrite features. (I have DVD-Ram but is not a good option as it is

very slow). Calibrating the monitor is important. I use the Spyder and OptiCal from www.ColorCal.com. Good luck!

[michael_feldman1]

In the origianl post, Neil says: "Processor: It must be Intel".

[armin_seeholzer]

Hi Neil

 

<p>

 

Are you sure it must be Intel? Here in Switzerland most of the

graficfreaks and photostudios work with Mac and they have a reason for

thad I think.

My wote is apple not windows! But of course it can be done with windows

also, I know both plattforms, but I prefer the Mac, but with a giga of

ram!

Much RAM for all users!

[dave_anton1]

Neil,

I think that there are many good options out there, but I will give

some points that helped me.

 

<p>

 

Consider a custom-built machine over the ready-built ones. This way

you will ensure that the components you get are what you wanted.

 

<p>

 

Consider using two monitors. As someone mentioned, two 19" will serve

better than 1 bigger one. My experiance with 21" monitors is that my

viewing distance increased to take in the size (to the point where I

was virtually observing a 19" monitor). With two monitors, the

toolbars are kept on one monitor and the image is kept on the other.

Having both monitors from the same manufacturer is helpful as the same

setting can apply to both.

 

<p>

 

Regarding processing power, the key is RAM. RAM is cheap now so get

at least 1 GIG for your application. Go with the "faster-speed" RAM.

 

<p>

 

As for components, it is more important to consider their transfer

rates over their size (ie. motherboards, hard-drives and RAM). The

motherboard should support about 3 GIG of RAM. For hard-drives, don't

look at their rpm's, you want to look at the tranfer rate.

 

<p>

 

These days, you can get an incredible fast custom-built machine at

super prices.

[donald_brewster]

As mentioned above, and it can't be mentioned enough, as much RAM as

the machine can hold, 1-2 gigs, is a necessity. Everything else is

icing.

[michael_chmilar]

If you are prioritizing your budget, you should consider maximum RAM

as your top priority. If I recall correctly Adobe recommends 5 or 6

times your file size for RAM. More is even better.

 

<p>

 

If you are going Intel, some Motherboards offer an onboard ATA RAID

controller (rather than a non-RAID). Get it! Then put two 7200 RPM

drives in a RAID0 config.

 

<p>

 

If you go Mac (or get a non-RAID mobo), check out the ACARD ATA RAID card.

 

<p>

 

Monitors: big is good! Make sure that your monitor has separate

controls for adjusting the R, G, and B guns so you can calibrate it.

If you cannot calibrate your monitor, it is worthless. Budget in the

$225 to buy PhotoCal and the Monitor Spyder. It is essential!

[psychophoto]

I won't claim to have as much experience as others here, but

here's my two cents' worth anyway. At school in the computer

lab we use Mac G3's with 128 mb ram and who knows what the

processor is- they're all a few years old. Anyway, when working

on those, I regularly work on files in the range of about 80 MB.

Things are kind of slow, but not so much that you're going to be

pulling your hair out. Within the last 3 weeks or so, I bought a

brand new Mac G4 w/512 MB RAM, 733MHz processor, Zip 250

drive, CDRW/DVD drive, 15" studio display, and an Epson 1280

printer. I bought my computer for doing photographic, web

design, and desktop publishing purposes, and I think the

system will work out quite well.

<p>

All in all spent about $3,700.00 w/ student discount. Software

was about another grand. I haven't been doing a whole lot of

heavy duty stuff yet, since not all my software is in yet, but even

doing the limited amount of things that I'm doing now, I can

already see a huge difference in performance from the G3's I'm

used to. Those same 80mb files aren't a problem at all, as far

as I'm concerned. I can see how some extra RAM and a faster

processor would be nice, especially if I start working with larger

file sizes, but from a practical standpoint with everything I work

with (Photoshop, Illustrator, Golive, Flash, Quark, InDesign, etc),

there's no overwhelming reason to go any higher on the specs.

My budget is limited as a student- as it is I'll be paying this off for

the next 2 years- and if you're budget isn't exactly unlimited, I

don't see any reason to go with the absolute max that technology

has to offer at this point in time.

<p>

I've always found the Mac interface to be a lot easier and more

logical than anything Microsoft, but that's largely a matter of

personal preference and just the fact that it fits how I think better,

if that makes any sense. I'm working on Mac OS X now, and it's

different enough from 9 that it took some getting used to, but I

still think its great. Before you decide for sure, I would

recommend working with X and whatever is Microsoft's most

recent offering if at all possible. I know a lot of people tout Macs

as being the champions for graphic design and photo work, but

if you can't get into the OS, then heresay is a dumb reason to go

for Mac.

<p>

Good luck with your decision.

[dan n.]

Here's my 2 cents... being an art director, photographer and in charge

for 30+ mac computers ... All the above opinions are valid...Unless

you're already have a set up with Pc, in the graphic and photography

field, the Mac are the machines of choice. Below is the description of

my set up which I use every day (I also have a Pc which I used to the

check the Web Color...)

- Mac G4 dual 800Mhz, 1,5Gig of ram

- 80Gig ATA-100 hard drive

- 2 graphics cards with 16mb of video ram each

- 1 Tempo ATA-100 card + two 80Gig hard drives

This G4 was bought in basic configuration snd others items was added

later.

Monitors are twin LaCie 22' (the 2nd monitor could be anything from 17'

on...).

Also, setting up the scratch disks in Photoshop preferences is

important (usually not the one whith applications and system).

Another good monitor is the Apple Cinema Display but expensive...

I hope this will help...Good luck