two things you've mentioned once at least cause me to ask: Why is a MAC-Pro overkill? I just cannot imagine any photo editor buying a computer today feeling like that would be overkill with the only caveat being the other thing you said: "My limited tech savvy." Everything you mention seems you're gonna be happy with the Mac system, and a lot of people are. You might want to ask some other folks opinions, but I don't think a Mac-Pro would be overkill. I could imagine it being overkill if you didn't edit photos, or if you edited photos and you never got another camera, and you never did anymore editing than you do now and your present workflow is as clean and fast as you need. SO all I'm really getting at is, ask yourself about tomorrow when buying this computer, not just today~
Wishing you Luck!
Thanks Tom, I'll get there.
Regarding the Mac Pro, after piling on 16G of RAM and chip/graphics-card choices (same as I would go higher-than-basic on the iMac), plus disk reader/burner, plus keyboard/mouse, plus card reader, plus high-priced screen and other peripherals, instead of a 3,000+ iMac I'd be looking at a 5,000+ Pro, just reaches a point of questionable sanity. I keep computers for a while, whatever I get is good for 4 years or so (that's always been the history, little expectation my attitude on that will change), already processing well even on my present aged machine, so difference between new iMac and Pro would be like moving forward a big 20 steps vs maybe a bigger 30 steps, either way a gigantic leap in capability. So yes, I consider the Pro overkill.
Finally found what I consider maybe a definitive answer to my wide-gamut vs sRGB-gamut frustration, an article on one of the NEC wide-gamut screens (http://diglloyd.com/articles/Recommended/display.html). It's an easy read, but especially meaningful if you look at sample green-lit building pics at bottom of scroll, demonstrates wide-gamut NEC vs sRGB gamut, and on my present sRGB gamut screen I barely can make out any difference (maybe in lighter areas on left face of building). If you're viewing on wide-gamut, you'll presumably see a considerable difference, but on an sRGB screen, inconsequential. I realize in the modeled portrait-type work I do that banding is a very real consideration, and that the wide-gamut provides many more and smaller steps between shades, but I already do acceptably well with banding for screen viewing (maybe not for print, but I don't do print), so what really is gained? Yes, with a wide-gamut screen my viewing of wide-gamut-processed photos would be wide-gamut, but considering that 99.9% of my public will view my work on sRGB-gamut screens, what really do I gain worth the offsetting cost/inconvenience/complication? Also coming into play is my age/eyesight (still vertical and seeing well, but certainly on the downhill side of studly and glasses get a little thicker each year). I think all this is a reasonable analysis of the matter, will continue to consider, but feel the cloud is lifting.
Anyone reading this, am I making sense?
Thanks for taking the time ...
See my work at http://www.flickr.com/photos/26525400@N04/sets/. Policy is to initially upload 10-20 images from each shoot, then a few from various of the in-process shoots each time I log on, until a shoot is completely uploaded.
It's not at all! What is overkill is the price . I made my PC for $1,050 that has the same performance as a $3,000 mac-pro. Other than a 24" 1920x1200 instead of the 27" 2560x1440 monitor.
Even worse than that. See my response to Angevin1.
Thanks for your thoughts.
See my work at http://www.flickr.com/photos/26525400@N04/sets/. Policy is to initially upload 10-20 images from each shoot, then a few from various of the in-process shoots each time I log on, until a shoot is completely uploaded.
i cannot speak for Overfocused , but
i have built my own PC , not have it built for me
costs a bit more , but saves on labour
advantage of DIY is ; you know what you get
and you can always alter it
All good points, but like most folk, I feel far more secure having it built for me and accountable. You might want to take a look at my response to Angevin1, covers some new ground.
See my work at http://www.flickr.com/photos/26525400@N04/sets/. Policy is to initially upload 10-20 images from each shoot, then a few from various of the in-process shoots each time I log on, until a shoot is completely uploaded.
I didn't keep track of my time. I enjoy researching computer components and internet shopping so I did it in my free time... for me the upgrade was for function, but the process is/was fun, lol. I don't keep track of my time when I do this stuff.
And time for sourcing components can't really be an argument since I'd personally research the parts available from the Mac store anyway and whether it's what I need or not. Most people don't even know what the heck they're actually buying. I could just as easily go willy-nilly and buy the same (or equivalent) limited selection of components that apple lists available in their machines and save myself time and money too, without looking into it at all and just chucking my cash at other stores that offer those components for much, much less.
I have a feeling that the main intention of this question has nothing to do with you actually wanting to know if I'm overclocking or not, but I'll answer it anyway.
No. I use an i5 2500k so it has native "overclocking" from 3.3GHz to 3.7GHz/4.1GHz available. Kind of like the turbo modes on the 386/486 intel CPUs from the old days. I'm going to look into OC'ing it later though. Right now I'm just letting myself and old programs use the new hardware to see if it smoothly operates everything I transferred over from my old machine even at stock settings. So far so good.
I'm pretty sure all said in good sport here. In any event, thanks for stepping in, all input is good input for me.
See my work at http://www.flickr.com/photos/26525400@N04/sets/. Policy is to initially upload 10-20 images from each shoot, then a few from various of the in-process shoots each time I log on, until a shoot is completely uploaded.
Agreed Neil. Take a look at my response to Angevin1, I think covers this ground.
See my work at http://www.flickr.com/photos/26525400@N04/sets/. Policy is to initially upload 10-20 images from each shoot, then a few from various of the in-process shoots each time I log on, until a shoot is completely uploaded.
Ans this is why I usually don't bother reading the "need a new computer" threads. They almost always degenerate.
Ha ha, I'm trying to keep an eye on the ultimate goal and not get distracted. As before, thanks for taking the time, been a great help ...
See my work at http://www.flickr.com/photos/26525400@N04/sets/. Policy is to initially upload 10-20 images from each shoot, then a few from various of the in-process shoots each time I log on, until a shoot is completely uploaded.
Camera sensor readoff is greyscale. RAW (bin) data is translated into colour data, which has to be placed in a gamut. Whatever colourspace you choose to RAW convert to, your output device (eg display, printer) will gate your data. In the case of most monitors at present, your colour data will show in the sRGB gamut. These are digital colour facts of life. Analog is different.
Looking at the NEC green building images with a sRGB display, even a calibrated one, will not show you what you, according to them, will see on one of their wide gamut displays. Otherwise what is the point of a wide gamut display? Your sRGB display will show an sRGB converted version of whatever colour data it is being served.
On top of that our colour vision does its own processing of what is in front of it. We can't see every "possible " colour (whatever sense it makes to talk of colour that can't be seen!).
All digital colour processing is a compromise, a bigger one than in the case of analog, and there are many more interferences in the handling of colour data in the journey from camera sensor to human eye.
There is no absolute colour "truth".
In your case, for your purposes, it is comparatively easy, others have done a lot of the hard yakka for you already. Go sRGB the whole way. And sleep easy at night! I think you are tilting at windmills.
others have done a lot of the hard yakka for you already
by this I meant the work of developing device and colour management tech. if you stay with sRGB from capture to archive, without straying outside digital viewing, everything is easypeasy
hypothetical "alternatives" are interesting and exciting, but in your case you can leave any angst out if it. enjoy the bed of roses, in sRGB!
by this I meant the work of developing device and colour management tech. if you stay with sRGB from capture to archive, without straying outside digital viewing, everything is easypeasy
hypothetical "alternatives" are interesting and exciting, but in your case you can leave any angst out if it. enjoy the bed of roses, in sRGB!
Neil
Yep, I know I'm tilting at windmills, but how else do we know what we're missing? In my case, hardly has mattered, since even though I've always processed RGB through the TIFF stage, JPEG conversion has been into sRGB on the assumption few if any ever will view my work on wide-gamut displays. Your point's well made, though, that I could have been processing RAWs directly in sRGB all the way, sounds like results would have been about the same.
My thought's always been to have all these sweet RGB TIFFs to choose from when someday I might want to farm out some for pro printing. I'm understanding now, though, that since processed on sRGB displays, I've already given up their inherent wide-gamut wonders, or couldn't see them to properly process in the first place, which would seem to amount to about the same thing. Is my thinking right on that? All's not lost, of course, at the time I maybe want to go for printing, I can just re-process the chosen few from RAW in RGB on a wide-gamut screen and charge ahead. Lots of time in old age, if eyes continue to hold up, maybe I'll do that.
This seems a good place as any to wrap up this thread, although if I'm somehow still out in left field, how about letting me know. Many thanks for listening in and contributing, been a big assist ...
See my work at http://www.flickr.com/photos/26525400@N04/sets/. Policy is to initially upload 10-20 images from each shoot, then a few from various of the in-process shoots each time I log on, until a shoot is completely uploaded.
. . . This seems a good place as any to wrap up this thread, although if I'm somehow still out in left field, how about letting me know. Many thanks for listening in and contributing, been a big assist ...
I'm late to this thread, and can see that you have had good advice. I'll just offer one more data point. If you look at the cost of a Mac Pro without buying RAM from Apple, the price might be a little closer to where you value the extendibility of a tower vs. an all-in-one iMac.
I have owned iMacs, PCs, and various brands of laptop, but my current photo processing machine is a MacPro with an Apple Cinema display.
I _Love_ it.
The two areas where the expression "Apple Tax" is probably most justified are Apple RAM and Cinema displays, in that the quality is good but the price is higher than what you could do otherwise. An earlier reply mentioned a lesser "bang for buck" from Apple displays - which I take to mean the Apple screens are equal in quality to others of similar specs but are more expensive (at least, that is a reading with which I would agree).
I bought my Apple display knowing I could have the same specs from another brand at a lower price, but I wanted this level of performance (ie., didn't need higher specs) and the styling appealed to me (for something that stays on my desk, I decided it was worth it). It was a trade-off (money for appearance) that I was willing to make.
I'm strictly in this for pleasure, and it pleased me (nobody else sees it). The cable to the display includes a power adapter for my MacBook Pro, i have a little shelf (griffin, i think) on the back of the display, etc. - it contributes to a "clean" work environment in a way that I was happy to pay for but others might find foolish.
I have purchased a couple computers as gifts in the last year (Mac Minis, as it happens) and bought HP displays to go with them (specs seemed a great value to me, they have performed, and the recipients wouldn't care about anything other than performance) - so I would not criticize a decision to buy another brand.
Anyway, just wanted to point out that a MacPro might be a good choice. The cost objection might go away if you:
a) bought RAM for it from somebody else (Other World Computing has been good for me), and/or
b) bought a different brand display (which, maybe you are wishing for?).
Don't be afraid of installing RAM purchased elsewhere - it is _really_ easy to install. The cost saving isn't as much as it _could_ be, since you can't buy a MacPro without any RAM, but there are some savings to be had.
Installing additional hard drives and/or SSD requires a (very) few minutes.
I'm late to this thread, and can see that you have had good advice. I'll just offer one more data point. If you look at the cost of a Mac Pro without buying RAM from Apple, the price might be a little closer to where you value the extendibility of a tower vs. an all-in-one iMac.
I have owned iMacs, PCs, and various brands of laptop, but my current photo processing machine is a MacPro with an Apple Cinema display.
I _Love_ it.
The two areas where the expression "Apple Tax" is probably most justified are Apple RAM and Cinema displays, in that the quality is good but the price is higher than what you could do otherwise. An earlier reply mentioned a lesser "bang for buck" from Apple displays - which I take to mean the Apple screens are equal in quality to others of similar specs but are more expensive (at least, that is a reading with which I would agree).
I bought my Apple display knowing I could have the same specs from another brand at a lower price, but I wanted this level of performance (ie., didn't need higher specs) and the styling appealed to me (for something that stays on my desk, I decided it was worth it). It was a trade-off (money for appearance) that I was willing to make.
I'm strictly in this for pleasure, and it pleased me (nobody else sees it). The cable to the display includes a power adapter for my MacBook Pro, i have a little shelf (griffin, i think) on the back of the display, etc. - it contributes to a "clean" work environment in a way that I was happy to pay for but others might find foolish.
I have purchased a couple computers as gifts in the last year (Mac Minis, as it happens) and bought HP displays to go with them (specs seemed a great value to me, they have performed, and the recipients wouldn't care about anything other than performance) - so I would not criticize a decision to buy another brand.
Anyway, just wanted to point out that a MacPro might be a good choice. The cost objection might go away if you:
a) bought RAM for it from somebody else (Other World Computing has been good for me), and/or
b) bought a different brand display (which, maybe you are wishing for?).
Don't be afraid of installing RAM purchased elsewhere - it is _really_ easy to install. The cost saving isn't as much as it _could_ be, since you can't buy a MacPro without any RAM, but there are some savings to be had.
Installing additional hard drives and/or SSD requires a (very) few minutes.
Good luck with your purchase!
Hey Bruce, many thanks, all good points. I've not found many Grinners here who would choose Apple's Cinema display for photo processing, if not for its non-RGB gamut (which I've about given up on), than for it's glossy front. I've been told by Apple that iMac uses the same screen, but seemed more a throwaway than a tech fact. Do you know any differently? Also, are you doing photo processing, Photoshop type work? If so, curious what your comments are about the glossy front. And do you do calibration, and if so do you use third-party hardware (Spyder, etc) or the software technique internal to Apple? As for the Apple premium, I also pay for things pleasing to my eye, and am confident of Apple quality and absolutely blown away with Lion (much studied and exercised, learning curve's already passed), so we're in the same boat on the pleasure factor. I'm captivated by the iMac's total package, and my family would bless the absence of a separate tower marring the landscape, so I may be a little trapped by that. As for the comment I made about Pro overkill, overall cost increment of course can't be ignored, but it's equally a matter of the kind of work and play I use the computer for, just isn't all that Pro serious or taxing. I'll do some degree of overkill even with the iMac, jump to 4x4gb RAM, and the i7 chip with top graphics card, but those more are a salute to the 4-5 years I'll keep the machine than to needed function, gives me a nice lead at the start that'll make the full reign a more pleasurable experience. Speaking of which, good to hear your experience with third-party RAM. I've got to price that out. Apple gives an offset on the 2x2Gb I wouldn't be receiving, but I haven't compared total cost against 4x4gb elsewhere with no offset. Do you know if there are variables here I'm not considering, some technical stuff that sets Apple's RAM apart?
Anyway, many thanks for taking the time. If nothing else, gives me a boost to know there's someone else here possibly processing photos on the glossy Cinema.
See my work at http://www.flickr.com/photos/26525400@N04/sets/. Policy is to initially upload 10-20 images from each shoot, then a few from various of the in-process shoots each time I log on, until a shoot is completely uploaded.
Hey Bruce, many thanks, all good points. I've not found many Grinners here who would choose Apple's Cinema display for photo processing, if not for its non-RGB gamut (which I've about given up on), than for it's glossy front. I've been told by Apple that iMac uses the same screen, but seemed more a throwaway than a tech fact. Do you know any differently?
I don't know any differently. I haven't spent much time with the latest iMac, but I suspect the screens are essentially the same. Mine is a couple years old - 24" LED backlit - so what you can buy now (either as display only, or as iMac) is bigger.
Also, are you doing photo processing, Photoshop type work? If so, curious what your comments are about the glossy front. And do you do calibration, and if so do you use third-party hardware (Spyder, etc) or the software technique internal to Apple?
I do photo processing strictly for fun, using Aperture (no Photoshop). I do calibrate with an EyeOne sensor and have been pleased with the results - the display appeared to be correct out-of-the-box, but more to the point I am getting prints without surprises/disappointments (I generally print via SmugMug "True Color" or BayPhoto's equivalent, which is to say I ask the lab to print what I send them without color correction. I never print photos at home.)
The glossy front is a drawback. I can control the light in my office, so reflections are largely mitigated, but would prefer a matte screen (though maybe the glossy screen forces me to be more careful about ambient light, and maybe that is better in the end - or maybe that is just rationalization :-).
I'm captivated by the iMac's total package, and my family would bless the absence of a separate tower marring the landscape, so I may be a little trapped by that.
That is an understandable consideration. In my case, the tower stands on the floor under my desk where it is not seen or heard. As much as I like the way it is built, I would not want to look at it every day. The way my desk is built, there is plenty of air flow and room for cables, etc.
As for the comment I made about Pro overkill, overall cost increment of course can't be ignored, but it's equally a matter of the kind of work and play I use the computer for, just isn't all that Pro serious or taxing. I'll do some degree of overkill even with the iMac, jump to 4x4gb RAM, and the i7 chip with top graphics card, but those more are a salute to the 4-5 years I'll keep the machine than to needed function, gives me a nice lead at the start that'll make the full reign a more pleasurable experience. Speaking of which, good to hear your experience with third-party RAM. I've got to price that out. Apple gives an offset on the 2x2Gb I wouldn't be receiving, but I haven't compared total cost against 4x4gb elsewhere with no offset. Do you know if there are variables here I'm not considering, some technical stuff that sets Apple's RAM apart?
The only evidence I have that Apple RAM is superior in any way is anecdotal. Over the years, the only defective RAM I have ever received was not Apple RAM (respected manufacturers though). I speculate that Apple testing is more thorough (which would increase cost, somewhat), but whenever I mention that, someone is quick to tell me that other RAM gets tested and is just as good. There are probably stats available somewhere on the web that would support or refute such assertions. A few times, when I have been ordering a laptop for business use I bought Apple RAM - telling myself I was paying for a lower chance of needing to mess around getting it replaced if defective. I wasn't disappointed, and the percentage of times that third-party RAM failed on me (and was replaced) is high enough that I think I did the right thing. You can determine quite quickly whether your third-party RAM is working correctly, so the issue has more to do with how much of a hurry you are in and how aggravated you would be if there were a glitch. For a business machine, I don't have time to waste. For home - a little down time is no big deal - and in the case of the MacPro, I bought 32GB (not justifiable for photog stuff, but I wanted to experiment), so savings was more compelling.
A new iMac is going to handle your photo processing needs nicely. There are plenty of pro photographers working on iMacs. Where you might lean toward a MacPro is if you are thinking the glossy display is a problem (particularly if you can't control ambient light) or the form factor appeals (I like having everything, including extra internal and external drives under the desk). If you were doing video editing professionally, the performance difference would help pay for a MacPro - but for a hobbyist I think your instincts are correct that you won't be taxing an iMac enough to warrant MacPro on horsepower basis.
I can't think of any important variables you haven't considered.
Anyway, many thanks for taking the time. If nothing else, gives me a boost to know there's someone else here possibly processing photos on the glossy Cinema.
For me, the glossy screen is not a problem, though I acknowledge that matte would be better. Maybe you should go to an Apple store and spend 15 or 30 minutes actually editing a photo. The lighting in the store is pretty obnoxious for such an exercise, so maybe you could discover whether the glossy screen would be something you hate. If it doesn't drive you nuts in the store, I would bet you could live with it at home.
Whatever you buy, I hope you enjoy it. Don't put too much pressure on yourself to make the perfect purchase decision - your needs may change in a year or two anyway, and whatever you buy now will still have a purpose (even if that means selling to someone else).
Comments
Regarding the Mac Pro, after piling on 16G of RAM and chip/graphics-card choices (same as I would go higher-than-basic on the iMac), plus disk reader/burner, plus keyboard/mouse, plus card reader, plus high-priced screen and other peripherals, instead of a 3,000+ iMac I'd be looking at a 5,000+ Pro, just reaches a point of questionable sanity. I keep computers for a while, whatever I get is good for 4 years or so (that's always been the history, little expectation my attitude on that will change), already processing well even on my present aged machine, so difference between new iMac and Pro would be like moving forward a big 20 steps vs maybe a bigger 30 steps, either way a gigantic leap in capability. So yes, I consider the Pro overkill.
Finally found what I consider maybe a definitive answer to my wide-gamut vs sRGB-gamut frustration, an article on one of the NEC wide-gamut screens (http://diglloyd.com/articles/Recommended/display.html). It's an easy read, but especially meaningful if you look at sample green-lit building pics at bottom of scroll, demonstrates wide-gamut NEC vs sRGB gamut, and on my present sRGB gamut screen I barely can make out any difference (maybe in lighter areas on left face of building). If you're viewing on wide-gamut, you'll presumably see a considerable difference, but on an sRGB screen, inconsequential. I realize in the modeled portrait-type work I do that banding is a very real consideration, and that the wide-gamut provides many more and smaller steps between shades, but I already do acceptably well with banding for screen viewing (maybe not for print, but I don't do print), so what really is gained? Yes, with a wide-gamut screen my viewing of wide-gamut-processed photos would be wide-gamut, but considering that 99.9% of my public will view my work on sRGB-gamut screens, what really do I gain worth the offsetting cost/inconvenience/complication? Also coming into play is my age/eyesight (still vertical and seeing well, but certainly on the downhill side of studly and glasses get a little thicker each year). I think all this is a reasonable analysis of the matter, will continue to consider, but feel the cloud is lifting.
Anyone reading this, am I making sense?
Thanks for taking the time ...
Thanks for your thoughts.
All good points, but like most folk, I feel far more secure having it built for me and accountable. You might want to take a look at my response to Angevin1, covers some new ground.
I'm pretty sure all said in good sport here. In any event, thanks for stepping in, all input is good input for me.
Looking at the NEC green building images with a sRGB display, even a calibrated one, will not show you what you, according to them, will see on one of their wide gamut displays. Otherwise what is the point of a wide gamut display? Your sRGB display will show an sRGB converted version of whatever colour data it is being served.
On top of that our colour vision does its own processing of what is in front of it. We can't see every "possible " colour (whatever sense it makes to talk of colour that can't be seen!).
All digital colour processing is a compromise, a bigger one than in the case of analog, and there are many more interferences in the handling of colour data in the journey from camera sensor to human eye.
There is no absolute colour "truth".
In your case, for your purposes, it is comparatively easy, others have done a lot of the hard yakka for you already. Go sRGB the whole way. And sleep easy at night! I think you are tilting at windmills.
Neil
Interesting: http://www.ddisoftware.com/shopping/#cameraq
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
by this I meant the work of developing device and colour management tech. if you stay with sRGB from capture to archive, without straying outside digital viewing, everything is easypeasy
hypothetical "alternatives" are interesting and exciting, but in your case you can leave any angst out if it. enjoy the bed of roses, in sRGB!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
My thought's always been to have all these sweet RGB TIFFs to choose from when someday I might want to farm out some for pro printing. I'm understanding now, though, that since processed on sRGB displays, I've already given up their inherent wide-gamut wonders, or couldn't see them to properly process in the first place, which would seem to amount to about the same thing. Is my thinking right on that? All's not lost, of course, at the time I maybe want to go for printing, I can just re-process the chosen few from RAW in RGB on a wide-gamut screen and charge ahead. Lots of time in old age, if eyes continue to hold up, maybe I'll do that.
This seems a good place as any to wrap up this thread, although if I'm somehow still out in left field, how about letting me know. Many thanks for listening in and contributing, been a big assist ...
I'm late to this thread, and can see that you have had good advice. I'll just offer one more data point. If you look at the cost of a Mac Pro without buying RAM from Apple, the price might be a little closer to where you value the extendibility of a tower vs. an all-in-one iMac.
I have owned iMacs, PCs, and various brands of laptop, but my current photo processing machine is a MacPro with an Apple Cinema display.
I _Love_ it.
The two areas where the expression "Apple Tax" is probably most justified are Apple RAM and Cinema displays, in that the quality is good but the price is higher than what you could do otherwise. An earlier reply mentioned a lesser "bang for buck" from Apple displays - which I take to mean the Apple screens are equal in quality to others of similar specs but are more expensive (at least, that is a reading with which I would agree).
I bought my Apple display knowing I could have the same specs from another brand at a lower price, but I wanted this level of performance (ie., didn't need higher specs) and the styling appealed to me (for something that stays on my desk, I decided it was worth it). It was a trade-off (money for appearance) that I was willing to make.
I'm strictly in this for pleasure, and it pleased me (nobody else sees it). The cable to the display includes a power adapter for my MacBook Pro, i have a little shelf (griffin, i think) on the back of the display, etc. - it contributes to a "clean" work environment in a way that I was happy to pay for but others might find foolish.
I have purchased a couple computers as gifts in the last year (Mac Minis, as it happens) and bought HP displays to go with them (specs seemed a great value to me, they have performed, and the recipients wouldn't care about anything other than performance) - so I would not criticize a decision to buy another brand.
Anyway, just wanted to point out that a MacPro might be a good choice. The cost objection might go away if you:
a) bought RAM for it from somebody else (Other World Computing has been good for me), and/or
b) bought a different brand display (which, maybe you are wishing for?).
Don't be afraid of installing RAM purchased elsewhere - it is _really_ easy to install. The cost saving isn't as much as it _could_ be, since you can't buy a MacPro without any RAM, but there are some savings to be had.
Installing additional hard drives and/or SSD requires a (very) few minutes.
Good luck with your purchase!
Chooka chooka hoo la ley
Looka looka koo la ley
Anyway, many thanks for taking the time. If nothing else, gives me a boost to know there's someone else here possibly processing photos on the glossy Cinema.
I don't know any differently. I haven't spent much time with the latest iMac, but I suspect the screens are essentially the same. Mine is a couple years old - 24" LED backlit - so what you can buy now (either as display only, or as iMac) is bigger.
I do photo processing strictly for fun, using Aperture (no Photoshop). I do calibrate with an EyeOne sensor and have been pleased with the results - the display appeared to be correct out-of-the-box, but more to the point I am getting prints without surprises/disappointments (I generally print via SmugMug "True Color" or BayPhoto's equivalent, which is to say I ask the lab to print what I send them without color correction. I never print photos at home.)
The glossy front is a drawback. I can control the light in my office, so reflections are largely mitigated, but would prefer a matte screen (though maybe the glossy screen forces me to be more careful about ambient light, and maybe that is better in the end - or maybe that is just rationalization :-).
That is an understandable consideration. In my case, the tower stands on the floor under my desk where it is not seen or heard. As much as I like the way it is built, I would not want to look at it every day. The way my desk is built, there is plenty of air flow and room for cables, etc.
The only evidence I have that Apple RAM is superior in any way is anecdotal. Over the years, the only defective RAM I have ever received was not Apple RAM (respected manufacturers though). I speculate that Apple testing is more thorough (which would increase cost, somewhat), but whenever I mention that, someone is quick to tell me that other RAM gets tested and is just as good. There are probably stats available somewhere on the web that would support or refute such assertions. A few times, when I have been ordering a laptop for business use I bought Apple RAM - telling myself I was paying for a lower chance of needing to mess around getting it replaced if defective. I wasn't disappointed, and the percentage of times that third-party RAM failed on me (and was replaced) is high enough that I think I did the right thing. You can determine quite quickly whether your third-party RAM is working correctly, so the issue has more to do with how much of a hurry you are in and how aggravated you would be if there were a glitch. For a business machine, I don't have time to waste. For home - a little down time is no big deal - and in the case of the MacPro, I bought 32GB (not justifiable for photog stuff, but I wanted to experiment), so savings was more compelling.
A new iMac is going to handle your photo processing needs nicely. There are plenty of pro photographers working on iMacs. Where you might lean toward a MacPro is if you are thinking the glossy display is a problem (particularly if you can't control ambient light) or the form factor appeals (I like having everything, including extra internal and external drives under the desk). If you were doing video editing professionally, the performance difference would help pay for a MacPro - but for a hobbyist I think your instincts are correct that you won't be taxing an iMac enough to warrant MacPro on horsepower basis.
I can't think of any important variables you haven't considered.
For me, the glossy screen is not a problem, though I acknowledge that matte would be better. Maybe you should go to an Apple store and spend 15 or 30 minutes actually editing a photo. The lighting in the store is pretty obnoxious for such an exercise, so maybe you could discover whether the glossy screen would be something you hate. If it doesn't drive you nuts in the store, I would bet you could live with it at home.
Whatever you buy, I hope you enjoy it. Don't put too much pressure on yourself to make the perfect purchase decision - your needs may change in a year or two anyway, and whatever you buy now will still have a purpose (even if that means selling to someone else).
Chooka chooka hoo la ley
Looka looka koo la ley