mugent
Well-known
I'm not going to get into the Mac vs PC debate, but....
Macs are also PCs, if you change your mind and want to run Windows on your Mac, you can.
Think about the software you want to run, if you want to run Adobe Lightroom, either will do. If you want iPhoto or Aperture, Mac is the only option.
If you want the fastest computer available, get a PC, top end macs are expensive, and currently outdated.
If you want the most flexible computer, get a Mac, as like I've said above, they are also PCs, so you get the best of both.
Also, whichever you get, get RAM, when you think you have enough, get more.
Macs are also PCs, if you change your mind and want to run Windows on your Mac, you can.
Think about the software you want to run, if you want to run Adobe Lightroom, either will do. If you want iPhoto or Aperture, Mac is the only option.
If you want the fastest computer available, get a PC, top end macs are expensive, and currently outdated.
If you want the most flexible computer, get a Mac, as like I've said above, they are also PCs, so you get the best of both.
Also, whichever you get, get RAM, when you think you have enough, get more.
ChrisN
Striving
Here's mine. I built this from components about a year ago. I've got a 64gb SSD for the system stuff and most applications, and run several 1 and 2 GB drives for data and internal backup. These get upgraded as the amount of stuff I have stored grows. All wrapped up in a big tower case. I wanted something to last me at least five years, and so far I've been happy with it.
Attachments
Chuck Albertson
Well-known
I use one of these, and it runs like a champ. Lenovo calls it a portable workstation, and that's about right. Max out the RAM, and get the GI Joe graphics card with the Kung Fu grip.
RichC
Well-known
One final post from me...
I scan film and use digital - both resulting in large files: I shoot primarily medium-format colour film and use a Nikon D800E that creates 36 MP images. I also use Photoshop and Nikon's pro software - both "stressful" programs needing a decent computer.
I also take photography very seriously - I have just spent two years on a master's degree in photography being tutored by Magnum photographer Mark Power among others.
I thus don't skimp on equipment.
Nonetheless, I stand by what I said in my previous post about a good mid-range, off the shelf computer (Dell, HP, Apple, etc.) being entirely adequate, with enough processing speed and memory. By all means spend more - if for no other reason than "future proofing", so your computer will last longer before needing replacing. The difference for photo editing and office tasks between a decent mid-range and a high-end computer is that the latter will perform slightly better - we're talking fractions of a second to a few seconds at best (a 120 second task may take 140 seconds). And many things will be unaffected - scanning is a slow process and mostly dictated by the physical speed of the scanner motor not the computer. Not worth worrying about in practice. Certainly not worth paying hundreds of pounds or dollars more.
Some of the posts in this thread describe high-end custom-built computers, which are total overkill for photo editing and word processing! I'm not denying that such computers are nice - but they are completely unnecessary for most people, and definitely for photo editing! As I said earlier, I used to custom build my own computers (I did this professionally for my company), and still can, but don't bother because the quality and performance of shop-sold computers today match or exceed what I or most people need, and cost less.
One thing I would add in hindsight to my post: get the largest screen you can afford. A large screen makes photo editing much more convenient and pleasurable.
I have a dual-screen set-up comprising 30-inch and 21-inch screens, giving a total resolution of about 3700 x 1600 pixels - and I still sometimes find myself running out of screen space! Now, I appreciate this is over the top for most people, but if buying a desktop computer I suggest getting a 21 inch, which will give you a resolution of 2100 x 1600 pixels; screens this size are very reasonably priced today.
I scan film and use digital - both resulting in large files: I shoot primarily medium-format colour film and use a Nikon D800E that creates 36 MP images. I also use Photoshop and Nikon's pro software - both "stressful" programs needing a decent computer.
I also take photography very seriously - I have just spent two years on a master's degree in photography being tutored by Magnum photographer Mark Power among others.
I thus don't skimp on equipment.
Nonetheless, I stand by what I said in my previous post about a good mid-range, off the shelf computer (Dell, HP, Apple, etc.) being entirely adequate, with enough processing speed and memory. By all means spend more - if for no other reason than "future proofing", so your computer will last longer before needing replacing. The difference for photo editing and office tasks between a decent mid-range and a high-end computer is that the latter will perform slightly better - we're talking fractions of a second to a few seconds at best (a 120 second task may take 140 seconds). And many things will be unaffected - scanning is a slow process and mostly dictated by the physical speed of the scanner motor not the computer. Not worth worrying about in practice. Certainly not worth paying hundreds of pounds or dollars more.
Some of the posts in this thread describe high-end custom-built computers, which are total overkill for photo editing and word processing! I'm not denying that such computers are nice - but they are completely unnecessary for most people, and definitely for photo editing! As I said earlier, I used to custom build my own computers (I did this professionally for my company), and still can, but don't bother because the quality and performance of shop-sold computers today match or exceed what I or most people need, and cost less.
One thing I would add in hindsight to my post: get the largest screen you can afford. A large screen makes photo editing much more convenient and pleasurable.
I have a dual-screen set-up comprising 30-inch and 21-inch screens, giving a total resolution of about 3700 x 1600 pixels - and I still sometimes find myself running out of screen space! Now, I appreciate this is over the top for most people, but if buying a desktop computer I suggest getting a 21 inch, which will give you a resolution of 2100 x 1600 pixels; screens this size are very reasonably priced today.
biomed
Veteran
I prefer assembling my own computers. This is my dedicated photo editing computer.
As stated in several previous posts:
- plenty of RAM (I have 32GB installed)
- quality video card
- quality monitor(s)
- color calibrator
- plenty of HD storage
- Software to organize your image files
As stated in several previous posts:
- plenty of RAM (I have 32GB installed)
- quality video card
- quality monitor(s)
- color calibrator
- plenty of HD storage
- Software to organize your image files