iMac (& Software) Question

I notice that there was not a single post asking what your final (medium) output was. If you are a print maker, you'll find that the iMac is totally inappropriate for either accurate color or B&W. If your output is to a screen (Flickr,etc.) then the iMac will do the job because your viewer will also be using a screen. You cannot calibrate the iMac for either color or color.

I use an iMac in conjunction with a CRT which I calibrate through hard proofing. But the iMac is too bright and too contrasty for fidelity to a print. The difference in the two screen images is profound.

HFL
 
Last edited:
hlockwood said:
I notice that there was not a single post asking what your final (medium) output was. If you are a print maker, you'll find that the iMac is totally inappropriate for either accurate color or B&W. If your output is to a screen (Flickr,etc.) then the iMac will do the job because your viewer will also be using a screen. You cannot calibrate the iMac for either color or color.

I use an iMac in conjunction with a CRT which I calibrate through hard proofing. But the iMac is too bright and too contrasty for fidelity to a print. The difference in the two screen images is profound.

HFL
Click to expand...

That was true of the iMac 24" models. The 27" model calibrates very nicely. I've done a lot of excellent prints with one of these.

I have several systems between home and work. My current image processing system is a Mac mini i7 fitted with 16G RAM and two drives (960G SSD and 1T hard drive, connected to 27" Thunderbolt Display. It does the job well.
 
Godfrey said:
That was true of the iMac 24" models. The 27" model calibrates very nicely. I've done a lot of excellent prints with one of these.

I have several systems between home and work. My current image processing system is a Mac mini i7 fitted with 16G RAM and two drives (960G SSD and 1T hard drive, connected to 27" Thunderbolt Display. It does the job well.
Click to expand...

I'll concur re.. the latest 27".
The 24" I gave to my folks. Not so good.
Contrast seemed compressed and flat.
Colors hard to get right.

Congrats on your new machine To OP :)
 
Just to chime in... last spring I started using a 27" Apple Thunderbolt display and an Asus PA248Q IPS 24" display with a fully loaded Mac-Mini. Dual displays speed up my workflow significantly.

I use LR, PS 6 and Vuescan, as well as NEF and RAF raw.

I calibrated the Apple display carefully using just the OS X functionality. I recalibrate occasionally and the lighting in my workspace has a single color temperature.

Late last fall I received a request to stitch together four large B&W digital arial images for a 40' X 56" print. Even though I was paid careful attention to the histogram in LR, I was quite concerned about how the tonality, black and white points would match the local high-end lab's B&W printing technology. Of course I ordered a test strip. The match between the print and what I saw on the Thunderbolt display was excellent. I was sure the lab adjusted my TIFF, but wss surprised to learn they were pleased with the image as provided and claimed they made no changes whatsoever.

A few months later I had a photograph curated by for a show at a local museum. I needed to rescan the color negative, which was quite flat. Again, I rendered the final image in PS and LR based on the Apple display. I also did my best to optimize the color rendering. I ordered a 18 X 24 print on fine art paper from the same lab. Again I ordered a test strip. And again the prints color and tonality was essentially identical to what I saw on the Apple display. The lab tech again said they made no changes to my TIFF.

Enjoy your new iMac.
 
Buy what you can. New Macs are fast and fabulous. Solid State HD is a big improvement as the main Hard Disk. You can never have too much memory; I'm enjoying having 16G right now. I find two-monitor systems a little clumsy; I'd take the 27" machine if it fit the budget.

I like Lightroom. YMMV.

I keep thinking that hardware advances are slowing down. But, I keep buying a new machine, usually one step below the top, every three years.
 
Godfrey said:
That was true of the iMac 24" models. The 27" model calibrates very nicely. I've done a lot of excellent prints with one of these.

I have several systems between home and work. My current image processing system is a Mac mini i7 fitted with 16G RAM and two drives (960G SSD and 1T hard drive, connected to 27" Thunderbolt Display. It does the job well.
Click to expand...

From this and the posts that followed, I'm ready to withdraw my comment that the iMac can not be accurately calibrated. Perhaps you and the others who have agreed with you can shed some light on technique. And yes, I can "calibrate" my iMac using the built-in procedure, but the brightness and the contrast cannot be reduced to match the external CRT screen - which does match the (Cone K7 grayscale) prints I routinely make.

Accurately calibrating a monitor, especially for color, has always (at least before the 27" iMac) meant 3rd party software and hardware. So, I'd like to know some details of the calibration schemes used. Dispensing with densitometers, spectrophotometers, linearization techniques, 21 step charts, color charts, etc. will be a major boon to the serious print maker. And this will certainly influence future purchases to upgrade my own system.

HFL
 
c.poulton let us know how you like the iMac 27. I'll say what many have already said - 27" + as much ram as you can muster + fast hard drive (SSD) are the trifecta of smooth user experience given current machines.

For me, screen real estate allows smoother workflow on a significant and fundamental level. If apple made a 42" iMac I'd go for that :cool:
Oh, I've only used Lightroom so can't really compare. I'm not wanting, though.
 
Hi folks,

I would like to get some feedback whether quad core i5 or i7 is preferred. Any significant improvement for LR5. I'm looking to get iMac 27 inch, and add LaCie 3TB thunderbolt solely for my photography. Yet to decide on Fusion drive.

I've been using 2008 13" MacBook for 5 years as my only computer system, and still working fine. But I'm looking to get a 27" since I mostly process my raw at home. The main application I use now is LR5. Other times I do music conversion, surfing, and words/excel processing.

Looking back now at my MacBook, I'm thinking it should be worthwhile to get i7 and should last me a few years.

I appreciate if you can share your take. Thanks.
 
leafster said:
Hi folks,

I would like to get some feedback whether quad core i5 or i7 is preferred. Any significant improvement for LR5. I'm looking to get iMac 27 inch, and add LaCie 3TB thunderbolt solely for my photography. Yet to decide on Fusion drive.

I've been using 2008 13" MacBook for 5 years as my only computer system, and still working fine. But I'm looking to get a 27" since I mostly process my raw at home. The main application I use now is LR5. Other times I do music conversion, surfing, and words/excel processing.

Looking back now at my MacBook, I'm thinking it should be worthwhile to get i7 and should last me a few years.

I appreciate if you can share your take. Thanks.
Click to expand...

I have both an i5 and an i7 system. For LR5, go for the i7 quad, 16G RAM, and the Fusion drive. It does make a very substantive difference.

I've been running Apple Mac systems since 1984. For my uses, I've found system life of 4-5 years is quite doable, comfortably, unless you have a business need for some specific feature only available with new hardware support. And at the four year mark, you can still get a respectable amount of value out of the old system on resale.

G
 
Adding to Godreys final thought I would add.... especially if that value at the end if 4-5years is passing a computer to less demanding users in your family.
My 24" iMac Went to my mother when I picked up a near full build out 27 this past spring. It's all she needs for another 5 years or so. Not a penny lost.

Make sure you spec out 16g of RAM.
Ram is cheaper from 3rd parties it's true.
However, if you order 8gigs Apple will install 2 -4gig cards instead of 2-8gig cards if 16 is specified.
Possibly leaving you with a pair of 4gig RAM cards if you choice to max out to 32g which I recommend.
I use fusion now as well. No speed lost from a full SSD system for my use (photo editing etc... ).
You may wish to spend wiser than Lacie T-bolt bu.
USB 3 storage is just as fast for bu purposes or for keeping files on another drive than your boot.
I have redundant 3gig USB 3 drives from Seagate. 3 of them cost me $300 (Costco)
Hard to best it at that price.

Cheers!!

Edit.
I just realized this was the old iMac thread and my comments above are themselves redundant. I was reading earlier and posted my message via forum runner where the thread title was cut off. Anyway... as you were :p
 
Hi Godfrey, Andy,

Thanks for your helpful input, I appreciate it. I think I will likely opt for i7, and 1T fusion drive. I also intend to spec for 16G ram.

A quick chat with Apple staff, and was told that if I opt for 16G ram, it will come in the form of 4 x 4G ram. If I opt to obtain 3rd party ram, my concern then is the stability of 3rd party ram, and whether it affect the Apple warranty. I read other forum comments about system crash for 32G ram using 3rd party. Although I'm going for 16G, no harm to find out more if I intend to spec to 32G in future.

I'm to store to find out more from the Apple staff. Thanks Godfrey, Andy.

No worries Andy. :)

Cheers
 
That's interesting. My machine had a pair of 8's and I added two more 8's from Crucial.
BTW stability has been great. Crucial tests pretty intensively I believe.
It's the 3rd "pack" I have bought from them although, prices are not as good as they were for a while.

Best !
 
leafster said:
Hi Godfrey, Andy,

Thanks for your helpful input, I appreciate it. I think I will likely opt for i7, and 1T fusion drive. I also intend to spec for 16G ram.

A quick chat with Apple staff, and was told that if I opt for 16G ram, it will come in the form of 4 x 4G ram. If I opt to obtain 3rd party ram, my concern then is the stability of 3rd party ram, and whether it affect the Apple warranty. I read other forum comments about system crash for 32G ram using 3rd party. Although I'm going for 16G, no harm to find out more if I intend to spec to 32G in future.

I'm to store to find out more from the Apple staff. Thanks Godfrey, Andy.

No worries Andy. :)

Cheers
Click to expand...

Apple RAM is always good quality and part of the system guarantee. Not cheap but very good.

I've also bought machines with minimum RAM, and configured them to the max with RAM from Crucial. So far, zero problems. Saves a bit of cash, and as long as RAM is user upgradeable, it does not void the warranty.

G
 
Godfrey said:
I have both an i5 and an i7 system. For LR5, go for the i7 quad, 16G RAM, and the Fusion drive. It does make a very substantive difference.

I've been running Apple Mac systems since 1984. For my uses, I've found system life of 4-5 years is quite doable, comfortably, unless you have a business need for some specific feature only available with new hardware support. And at the four year mark, you can still get a respectable amount of value out of the old system on resale.

G
Click to expand...

In my experience, Godfrey's advice is 100% correct.
 
Hi Andy, Godfrey, willie_901,

Thanks for the feedback. Glad I came here and seek input.

I will be checking out the Crucial ram price this coming weekend. With that, I'm more or less ready to make order.

Cheers
 
I went for 16GB RAM pre-installed by Apple as I have had issues in the past with third part RAM on a Mac Mini, but this could just have been bad luck on my part...

My iMac is running sweet. I run Vuescan which works far better than I had imagined it would and wonder how I ever managed before with Silverfast. I import all my scans into Aperture which I really like. (It's a shame Apple have discontinued support for this App as I don't like Lightroom, we run Lightroom at work so I'm familiar with it - I'm just holding on to see what Apple does with the new Photos app in the new year.)
 
Research done. Going to make order tomorrow with default 8 GB ram, i7, 1T fusion, default NVIDIA GeForce GTX 775M 2GB GDDR5, trackpad.

Going for Crucial 16GB Kit (8GBx2) DDR3/DDR3L 1600 MHz (PC3-12800) CL11 SODIMM 204-Pin 1.35V/1.5V from Amazon.

leafster said:
Hi Andy, Godfrey, willie_901,

Thanks for the feedback. Glad I came here and seek input.

I will be checking out the Crucial ram price this coming weekend. With that, I'm more or less ready to make order.

Cheers
Click to expand...
 
Hi Christian,

Thanks for your feedback. After realising the extra ram cost for direct upgrade vs 3rd party, I guess I will give a go for Crucial. I plan to use the amount save for LaCie 3TB at a later date.

Before sticking with LR, I use Aperture. But the software hang frequently, and I had switch to LR3 back then. For the past few years from LR3 to LR5 now, it hasn't give me any issue, and I have developed my own workflow. I really like it now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom