MAC or PC for Digital Darkroom

[eric_palmer1]

I'm going to begin to build a digital darkroom over the next year.

I'll start with image manipulation and priting using service bureau

scans. Later I'll add a film scanner or digital camera or both. Its

likely that when I get a digitial camera it will be a fairly high end

camera.

 

I am amateur that likes available light photograpy, studio, outdoor

macro and nature photography.

 

What I'm wondering is there any compelling reason to go MAC or PC such

as color management. I've been a PC user since the 1st IBM PC but I

appreciate some of the finer points about the MAC.

 

I was thinking about starting with Photoshop 7, Painter 7, some

plug-ins and some sort of assest management/image catalog system. Any

recommendations on software will be appreciated.

 

I'm also considering a pressure sensitive Wacom digitizer (9 x 12?)

instead of a mouse.

 

Please advise reasons to lean in one direction or the other. No OS

war flames please!

[richard harris]

<i>No OS war flames please!</i>

<p>

Highly unlikely with that question...

<p>

Before this gets out of hand I would advise you against getting a 9x12 Wacom unless you really know you need one. It is a very big device which will take up a lot of room on your desk (and not leave much room for your keyboard), and for photo work it is complete overkill. The only people who do need such a tablet are those who really like to draw big, for instance if you have been trained to draw from the shoulder or elbow. I make my living as a professional illustrator and I draw with a tablet every day, my size of choice is 6x8 but I have used a 4x5 with no problems. In fact, for photo work a Graphire is plenty. Unless you really have a lot of precision and practice a 9x12 is very hard to control.

<p>

I would also add that software wise, Painter isn't really for photo work but for painting, it has a powerful brush engine which emulates traditional media. You do need to know how to draw well to get anything from it though. Again for Photo work I would recommend Photoshop. If you want to paint too, then by all means go for Painter. Be warned though, it is not an easy program to master.

<p>

As for PC or Mac, the debate is pointless yet bound to rage on. Go for whichever you like, you can do the tasks you wish to do equally well on either, whatever anyone may say.

[Nicholas Barry]

I agree with all points that Richard has made. In addition, get a color calibration puck like the Colorvision Spyder. And don't worry about the platform. Use whichever OS is most comfortable to you.

[ellis_vener_photography]

I hope you don't get a flame war going: the difference is probably

more like whether you like brown gravy or white gravy on your

mashed potatos. I started with DOS, moved on to Windows 95,

then to a NeXT, and then to the Apple MacIntosh system (OS 8.5

> 9.2 and now OS X) each progression has brought more

stability and 'transparency." But 3 years from now, who knows?

Philip Greenspun knows more about computing than I do and

he says the most advanced OS systems now on the market are

still about 10-15 years behind the technology curve<P>

With either platform you'll need the following: <P>700 Mb to over

1Gb RAM and a second harddrive (not a partitioned area on one

drive) to use as a backup and a scratch disk. Without these you

are going to going very slowly.<P>

Some sort of color calibration system such as the ColorVision

Spyder and PhotoCal system. <P> You probably can get by with

a smaller Wacom tablet.<P>iView Media Pro will make a good

cataloging system for small collections.

[jim schwaiger]

I can say that the color management that comes with every Mac (ColorSync) is very mature. iPhoto, iMovie, and iDVD may be reason enough to lean towards the Mac as well. I personally like clean simple interfaces.

 

I don't think you'll be limited by either system. See what the service bureau uses and ask them if they have problems with files from the other platform.

[__akor__]

Unless you have a strong Mac bias, PC provides considerably more bang for the buck. Some things are a tiny bit harder to set up on the PC (e.g. color management), but it's perfectly possible to do this and you don't need to be a full-blown geek for this.

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>Unless you have a strong Mac bias, PC provides

considerably more bang for the buck.</I><P> That definitely is a

myth. before i bought my most recent computer (an Apple

733Mhz G4) I priced both options. I have no romantic or

emotional attachments to Apple. I do have a financial interest in

getting the most for my money. feature wise, software wise the

two systems are just about equal. Productivity for the same

amount of money (as a photographer) was a bit better with the

Apple computer so that is what I went with.

[ellis_vener_photography]

I want to add that Scott Eaton feels differently, and is probably

just as justified in his opinions as I am in mine.

[scott_eaton]

I had this discussion with very pro Mac advocate a few days ago, and I humbly reminded him of some side by side benchmark tests showing the new Macs vs the newest Athlon and P4 systems you can build for dirt cheap. Given the same price per system, the G4 didn't do so well, and it's still expensive horsepower unless you are performing the tasks best optimized for the Motorola chip. I have money on a bet with a friend that Apple will *quietly* migrate over to the Intel platform anyways, not thats there's much hardware difference left in the two platforms besides the CPU. Given industry trends, economic reality, and demographics it's very likely. Apple could probably build some real Windows killers if they used off the shelf, high quality PC components, and put the rest of their R&D resources into OSX. Makes sense to me at least.....OSX would probably haul a$$ on a dual Xeon.

 

If for some reason you want to stay mobile, stick with Apple. PC laptops suck and have always been a gamble in terms of quality and support. It's custom built PC towers and servers that make me completely lose interest in Apple. I could give a you_know_what at a rolling donut about OSX vs XP vs Win2K debates. Applications are where you do your image editing, not operating systems, and all of the above run Photoshop just as competently.

 

Color management is a controversial topic. If you have a favorite lab that's Mac based, and they have taken the time to profile their equipment and keep it up to date, it's logical you'll have less of a problem getting your Mac files into their workflow and get closer to what you see on your screen. On the other hand, if you are doing home printing, you'll encounter the same annoying variables on Mac and PC based platforms and the same solutions for fixing them. A color calibration unit fixes the monitor problem, and good printer profiles solve the other half of the equation. In that respect I don't see a difference in the platforms being they each have the same solution.

[carl smith]

Interesting opinions. My findings on laptops are entirely the opposite Scott, with Mac not knowing how to design one well. There are critical flaws in both their laptops, although I find the ibook to be better.

 

Which OS you want to use is up to you for the most part. Both machines are fast. Mac finally got it right with OS X and Microsoft finally got it right with Win 2k. Up until then I scheduled crashes and lockups in to my workflow so I could take breaks while computers restarted. This was for either operating systems, on just about any machine, and I got pretty good at determining how much time I had before I had to do a reboot. Nowadays, I keep crusing until I'm done on either operating system. Windows XP Pro is about the same, just a little more cute looking.

 

Color management without a calibration puck and the necessary software is a moot point. If you want to do it, then do it right and buy the calibrator like the Monaco or the Spyder systems.

 

That's all I can say right now before I get carried away beyond what Scott and others have said.

[eric_palmer1]

Thanks for the thoughtful answers. And no OS wars. Very refreshing!

 

Since I have a spare Dell OPtiPlex (500 MHZ P3) I'll probably upgrade it to W2K Pro, 768 MB and add some hefty disks (2 * 80 GB) as an entry machine. I can always get a faster PC later if I need it.

 

Any Recomendations on asset management software for the PC. I'd really like it if I can track film and digital assets and tie the digitial to film where appropriate. That way I could easily search for an image and then go back to the negative or slide if I need to for a conventioanl print.

[scott_eaton]

Eric, Dell's migrate smoothly to Win2K and are typically very durable to boot, and I'd strongly advise staying with Win2K over XP being it's a slightly older machine. XP on anything slower than a 1ghz processor can be a real pig. Jam as much RAM in the thing as the MB can take, and you should be happy.

 

There really isn't a need for "OS wars" being you now have solid operating systems running on both platforms. With Win95/98 vs OS9 and earlier is was basically a question of what platform sucked the least. Now, the vast majority of glitches I encounter are Photoshop problems.

 

 

I work with one lab that is Mac based, and a local lab that is Wintel based. Absolutley no difference in the quality of their LightJet prints. If anything, being a PC user I find the Wintel lab easier to match.

 

You'll love that Wacom for fine retouch work, and I can't stress anough how much a good monitor comes into play.

[carl smith]

Unless you've got a lot of money to burn, for color critical work, and decent CRT will usually floor an LCD.

 

Wacom tablets are simply the best. Get an Intuos, or Intuos 2 (sometimes the original Intuos can be found at good prices, I have an Intuos 6x8). They're pricey but worth it, if I were buying one now I might buy the next size up, but they are excellent tools. The Intuos 2 come with the high precision mouse, which you may want to have since not everyone, myself included, wants to use the pen all the time.

 

Also, consider whether 9x12 is too big for your needs. It's large, and may be more than is necessary and will end up just being a big obstacle on your desk.

[carl smith]

that should read "any decent CRT"

[kelly_flanigan1]

Having started with punch cards on a Univac; I can say both the Mac and the PC are great. I happen to use PC's ; because I know how to build up a system from stratch; or upgrade my older systems as required. Some of my work is with Engineering and Printing software that only exists on the PC; thus I cannot go totally MAC. I would loose clients. Two of my giant Black & White printers only do plotting with DOS software that was poorly designed and will not run under any Windows system. After several years of hacking; I have the RIP portion running under a Windows 98 Run command. The printers print software only runs on DOS; I recently built up a 200Mhz pure DOS only machine to upgrade a printer. For the older printer; I am building up a newer DOS machine in the 800Mhz to 1.5 G range. To "upgrade" my printers to Windows requires scraping out both paid-for 36" wide printers. When the printers get too hard to repair; then I must do this; and get two 45K dollar machines; and get stuck with monthly maintence aggrements on the software and hardware. Then these costs will have to be passed on to my clients. These older printers are real workhorses; and help keep our ship afloat. <BR><BR>In our color stuff; we could be MAC; but we get Autocad color plots also to do; plus alot of weird stuff that is from PC only programs. We use a MAC converter software to open the rare MAC based client. A much bigger issue is weird or missing FONTS that are required to print a clients photos or posters. Some PC programs are really dangerous; and DO NOT give a warning when a font is omitted from a customers work. Better programs at least have the guts to point this out; before a zillon copies are produced. A digital original is dangerous if one doesnt know what the hell the output should include. Many printers requiure a hard copy also be included; so that missing text can be spotted. Several times the text is different on the small sample; than the digital file; and the job gets stuck in a rut. <BR><BR>A very good thing is that Photoshop users were mostly MAC based at first. This helped Photoshop from being bastardized in the tool locations and controls. An upgrade in Photoshop is not so stressfull as an upgrade in Autocad. In Autocad the locations of tools; look of the main screen; location of setups is changed each revision to maximize confusion. We have 5 versions of Autocad; each one has a different "knobology". This sucks up time looking for the darn features. <BR><BR>In 1995 I bitched to the Autocad Reps at Anaheim at a giant tradeshow; about the lack of standard paper sizes in their printer command/window in Autocad. They did not have 24x36 inch paper as an option; the most highly used paper size for Architects Drawings. After about 3 revs; they now have the 24x36" paper size; that has been around for over 100 years! <BR><BR>One local MAC guy brings us work on a zip disk or CD. His files that are two small in number of pixels have great colors. His files that are of the correct size have weird colors; ie their "flag red" corporate red is barbie PINK. This is more than a calibration problem; like he is saving it as a weird gamut. He is the only customer I have had this problem with; he says it is at my end since he is a graphics professional. If the barbie PINK is forced to red; the entire poster goes the wrong colorization. I tried RGB,CMYK,LAB and still got wird results. His low resoltion file has perfect colors; but no resolution. He says that is the max his progran will export. I need to vist his MAC domain; and see what this barbie PINK problem is about.

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>Any Recomendations on asset management software for the

PC. I'd really like it if I can track film and digital assets and tie the

digitial to film where appropriate. That way I could easily search

for an image and then go back to the negative or slide if I need to

for a conventioanl print.</I><P>

Eric, how big a library are you talking about and will you be

licensing these images as 'stock photography" to clients?<P>If

so you should definitely consider <A HREF =

http://www.hindsightltd.com> StockView</A> as your digital / film

asset management program. Runs on Windows and Apple

platforms. great online & phone technical support, search

operations by keywording, etc. They have been around a long

time and are a very user friendly company to deal with.

[Ray House]

As to Mac or PC, there used to be an arguement. Not any more! Either will do fine. Get as much RAM as you can,at least 500mg but just as important... get as much processing speed as you can. At least 1 GIG. Photoshop 7 has a cataloging system built in now. You can save on hard drive space by putting files on disk, either CD or DVD. You just have to do a little organization homework. Both systems will cross platform very well, except for some font issues. I think you will find that you won't need painter. To me the large sizes of tablets is just a selling point, I set mine at about 5"x8" and just slow down the speed, otherwise you are controling your pen with your arm instead of your wrist & fingers. (more control). I would go to a computer store and try out the systems available for yourself. We all have our own subjective values and of course they differ!

[carl smith]

Sounds a lot like my monstrosity of a machine back in the Windows 3.11 days. 75mhz Pentium, 16mb ram, 4mb video memory, 1.7something gig hdd, 3 1/4 floppy, speedy modem and of course the 4x cd player. That was a machine! I remember those images too, you could do anything with that machine.

 

Of course now it's a joke

[paul_ashton]

If you are used to Windows, you are probably better off staying with it,

particularly if you have an existing investment in software.

 

Like others I am a Mac user but I work with UNIX and Wintel machines over a

network. The difference between Mac and Wintel is minor but I do personally

prefer the ease of use of my Mac which is much more of a plug and play

machine than the numerous Compaqs we have. Another interesting point,

our IT guy spends a lot more time sorting out the Compaqs when new and

also spends a lot more time keeping them tuned. He has both systems at

home and has quietly admitted that if we had only Macs he would not be kept

so busy!

 

As Ellis has said, Macs are cost effective these days - check it out if you don't

believe me, but do remember to add up the cost of all those bits and pieces

that are extras in a homebuilt tower!

[carl smith]

Mmm, this brings up a good point. Don't buy a compaq (or in some computer circles, comcrap). On the other hand, Dell and Toshiba are excellent options. Sony has gotten better as well. In fact if you're looking for a PC with cute appeal, Sony is working pretty hard at it.

[scott_eaton]

Paul,

 

Off topic but I can't resist:

 

My recommendation as an IT consultant is to fire your IT network engineers and hire true professionals because the tools available in Windows 2000 directory administration make desktop support a thing of the past. I am sick and tired of hearing stories about IT support techs that have to fiddle all day with PC desktops to make them work, and using this to justify the supperiority of Macs. This is not 1996 and the problem lies not with PC's or Windows, but the way they are being managed. Desktop support techs should also be seen, and not heard. If your senior IT manager was doing his job the PC tech would be out of his.

 

Unlike Apple, there's a significant strata of quality in the manufacturing of PC's. You can't compare the quality and reliability of a generic, $500 Corporate Dell or Compaq to an Apple G4. The previous are meant to be disposable consumer electronics with a lifespan of a few years at the most, while Apple has a solid rep for using higer tier components. There's also no way Apple could survive in the corporate environment against the lead PC makers.

 

If you want to compare that same G4 to a properly made custom PC price/per performance the Mac will lose. In a way I think Apple appreciates that the customization of the PC option is just not a market segment they see the need to compete with.

[carl smith]

I should add my personal experience and my plan on building a PC will run up parts for roughly $1800. This is a dual processor system, with SCSI drive, SCSI support for my scanner, 2gb of RAM for starters, and over 100Gig hdd (I don't use much outside of storing photos and my initial needs for this storage wise are lower), and a dual head graphics card.

 

Once again, that comes to $1800. To get that kind of performance in a Mac, I'd be spending close to $4000. I've compared price to function on Apples website and on my shopping list. And that doesn't even include the fact that I get a much bigger and more useful case for expanding. If I wanted to get near that in a good quality PC machine, I'd be looking at something that's at least $3500 from dell most likely. It is MUCH cheaper to build it yourself, and as Scott said, price/performance for PCs is much better. I find this to be true even if I went out and bought a machine for some cases.

[eric_palmer1]

This is off topic but I remember upgrading my 1st PC (IBM XT) from 10 MB hard drive to 20 MB Hard drive for $1000. Now we can get 80+ GB drives for $300 or so. And we can still fill up the drives in no time.

 

When I owned an Apple 2 before PCs came out the I added 16 KB of RAM memory (yes that is KB and not MB) for >$300.

[carl smith]

Ram always costs more than hd space. But yes, I remember the same thing with our Apple IIGS

[john_mottershead]

I've got a question for anyone who could help me here. I see many saying that it doesn't matter PC, or Mac. I'm sure this is true for just a comparison of the two, but how about for satisfying the requirements of photo editors? When reviewing submission guidelines, I see that they usually say, "Accept images in digital format for Mac", or "...for Mac and Windows." Does this mean that if I'm using Windows at home, and send a CD with PhotoShop images to an editor who says, "...for Mac", he/she can not/will not accept them? If so, this would obviously push me toward going with a Mac. Or is either system ok as long as I'm sending images saved as PhotoShop images? Any answers and expansions on this would be most appreciated.