if ya in to saving a few bucks look at the refurbished mac section a 24''was 1400 bucks last night they are leftovers from the brand new redesighn i love the old style better
1/ The iMac screen is a glossy. Deal killer. I've tried editing images on my glossy MacBook lappie and when viewed on other monitors they lack punch. You'd be constantly second-guessing what you see on the screen and blindly trying to compensate.
2/ 4GB sounds like a lot today. Tomorrow?
I agree, a glossy screen is a deal killer. I'll stick with my Cinema Display.
Anyone with knowledge about how quiet the Mac Pros are? I like quiet a lot.
Other than those two, it's the ability to have more than 4GB of RAM. That was a big deal when iMacs couldn't go above 2, then 3, but at 4GB your next statement becomes true for most people:
What you lose above 4GB with Photoshop is the OS's caching ability to use upper RAM as a fast substitute for the scratch disk, if you can afford all that RAM.
Still love my 2.66 Mac Pro though. No regrets.
(I get my RAM and disks at transintl.com or macsales.com...crucial always seems more expensive)
Will I really see that much improvement in speed with 8 Gb of RAM as opposed to 4?
I don't think my Mac Book Pro with 3 Gb is really as fast as my 2.5 Dual Power PC with 4 Gb RAM. I must admit I have not tried to time them though.
Will I really see that much improvement in speed with 8 Gb of RAM as opposed to 4?
If your files are so large that they would normally take up that space as scratch disk space. If not, then no difference. The Efficiency indicator in Photoshop is one way to tell.
What I know I learned from here, where it says "We’ve seen 40% and greater speedups when running tests on big documents that hit the scratch disk by increasing RAM from 4GB to 6GB." But you have to be working with those big more-than-8-bits lots of megapixels files with all kinds of layers and masks hanging off of it. So far what I've seen of CS3 is that for example, Smart Objects and Smart Filters eat up RAM in a hurry.
Which Mac should I buy? your thoughts please
Ok I dont have lots of money to spenf unfortunately, so my choices are
New IMAc - £799
2.0ghz core duo
1GB Ram
250GB HD
Superdrive
ATI HD2400XT
+ Its nice! spec is ok, future upgradability, screen keyboard and mouse
- I already have 2 20" monitors, and a keyboard, and a mouse, it seems expensive for the spec.
New MacMini - £499
2.0ghz core duo
1GB Ram
120GB HD
Superdrive
Intel GMA 950
+ same spec almost for much less, uses existing equipment use saving to add more ram big external HD
- graphics card, can it run dual monitors?, future upgradability.
Macbook - £699
2.0GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
1GB Ram
80GB HD
Combo drive
Intel GMA 950
+ Same spec but portable,could sell Ibook and put money £250 towards this)
- Means not having a 'home' computer, reduces Macs in house by 1(would sell ibook only if get macbook)
Ok so they are my initial thoughts, what does anyone else think? the Mac I choose will be used for photo editing, and general computer stuff, will deff upgrade to 2GB ram.
So what do I spend my £'s on?
thanks
Trapped in my bedroom taking pictures...did i say bedroom? i meant studio!
Hi Noel,
I was actually just reading about the new iMac in a thread over at macumors. In person, the glossy screen is apparently a deal-breaker for anyone interested in photography applications.
I was finally set on switching from PC to Mac but now am thinking of going to the new mini with the Apple Pro Display instead of the iMac for just this reason. Take a look at one in the stores before you decide.
E
If it's in your powers to squeeze out another 30 quid, I'd actually go for a mid range MacBook. There are several reasons for this.
First off, as surprising as it may be, the MB is actually the most upgradeable of your current choises. On the iMac, it's virtually impossible to change the hard drive (though changing the RAM is no problem). On the Mini, you need a putty knife (and sometimes a jackhammer) to get in there to change anything. On the MB, it's actually very easy to change the HD and the RAM- so this means most future- proof.
The 2.16 model has a 120GB hard drive and a DVD-burner (That's the Superdrive). I would highly recommend a DVD-burner over the Combo drive. Though possible, it is a pain to change those things out in the future. Also having a larger HD will prevent you from having to upgrade sooner than you need to.
The MB can be used in the so-called clam-shell mode. This means that you can close the lid on your new mac, plug in a mouse and a keyboard, hook it up to one of your 20" monitors and thus be used as a "home" computer. And when you need a notebook, it's aways there. I'd say the iMac might be a bit faster, but it's not worth it if you have screens.
If you don't need portability go with an iMac which would be a great photo editing rig. If you do need to travel, a MB would be fine for editing photos as long as you have an external display (cheap these days) for when you're in the office. Superdrive is a good idea, yes. Personally if I had to choose a Mac on a limited budget for photo editing I'd take the iMac because I like desktops over laptops- HOWEVER my laptop is an indespensible part of doing event shoots. The small display on the MB would bug me a little bit, but would be fine. I've actually used a MB to do live video captures in field with firewire and it was a nice little workhorse so photos editing wouldn't be a problem- bt as I said I'd get an external display for the office.
The iMac's are sweet. If I didn't need more horsepower for editing video I'd definitely own one now, but I've got a G5 which will soon be replaced with a Mac Pro when I have another 4k (usd) to throw down.
Only if you print on REALLY, REALLY GLOSSY paper. ( Hint - the first statement was a joke!)
You will find folks on line who do like and use glossy screens, but I bet if you survey professionals who edit images for a living, darned few would even consider a glossy screen.
Ok - the flame wars can now begin!!
Needless to say, I am a strong advocare for the matte screens. I did not start there - My earlier displays in the windows world tended to be glossy, but the matte LCD is easier on the eyes, and resembles the contrast range of the printed page much more closely for me.
Forget the mini.
- Laptop-sized hard drive, small and slow for a desktop computer.
- Limited RAM expandability, only 2GB.
- No second monitor port, no slot for a second video card and port.
- By the time you spec it right and add monitor and keyboard, you've almost paid for a MacBook, which has dual monitor capability, portability, and a hard drive that can be upgraded in 60 seconds.
I think that with the MacBook you can have a "home" computer. Attach a big screen and a keyboard/mouse and you will have a dual-screen setup, which you cannot do with the mini.
If you don't think you'll be burning DVDs while mobile, don't worry about the SuperDrive. External SuperDrives cost half of Apple's US$200 premium for the internal ones, and usually have better specs than the internal. Just leave it at home next to the big monitor. You'll still be able to burn CDs anywhere with the MacBook combo drive.
Hi Noel,
I was actually just reading about the new iMac in a thread over at macumors. In person, the glossy screen is apparently a deal-breaker for anyone interested in photography applications.
I was finally set on switching from PC to Mac but now am thinking of going to the new mini with the Apple Pro Display instead of the iMac for just this reason. Take a look at one in the stores before you decide.
E
I'll personally know more when I get our new iMac on monday, and have a few days to play with it.
I'll be interested to hear your take on the screen. Also, if you use Lightroom, please post on how the iMac handles it.
I read that the color space needs to be changed from the default as that leaves very washed out colors. Can current hardware calibrators work correctly with such a screen (glossy, glass)?
E
I'll be interested to hear your take on the screen. Also, if you use Lightroom, please post on how the iMac handles it.
I read that the color space needs to be changed from the default as that leaves very washed out colors. Can current hardware calibrators work correctly with such a screen (glossy, glass)?
E
I won't be running LR on it. That is on my Mac Pro. The iMac is for family.
Hi Noel,
I was actually just reading about the new iMac in a thread over at macumors. In person, the glossy screen is apparently a deal-breaker for anyone interested in photography applications.
I was finally set on switching from PC to Mac but now am thinking of going to the new mini with the Apple Pro Display instead of the iMac for just this reason. Take a look at one in the stores before you decide.
E
Ugh...I went to the Apple store last night...I am not crazy about the glossy screen iMac...It could be the bright lights of the Apple store...I did play around with the monitor settings...but wasn't crazy about the colors. My home office is much darker than an apple store and it may be fine here...but man I was less than impressed...perhaps I should just stick with a MBP with matte screen.
Most likely it's the default Mac gamma of 1.8. Easily fixed. When you calibrate your monitor you set it to 2.2 and it will look more like you're used to.
At least, that's my theory. 1.8 looks a bit washed out.
If your files are so large that they would normally take up that space as scratch disk space. If not, then no difference.
OR if you work on a lot of them at once.
OR if you move back and forth between a lot of big apps at once.
Case in point, a few weeks back I was doing a slide show in keynote and adjusting photos in PSE to use in it, while using omnigraffle to create overlays for them. Back and forth between the tree apps all day long, load a photo into PSE, adjust and export. Import the photo into Graffle as a layer, create a layer over it with a few dozen elements, export that layer as PDF. Jump to Keynote, load the original image, load the pdf overlay, line 'em up, move on to the next, which often in order to get the transitions between slides seamless required going back to a previous image and re-cropping it slightly to get the same alignment as the one I'm matching to. My quad has 3G of memory, and it was using every last byte of it. A couple of times, when I was cycling from application to application a lot to apply the same alignment adjustment to 4 images in a row I could feel it getting sluggish. A quick check of top showed several thousand pages in/out per second, but I was only using about 900M of swap, so if I had 4G instead of 3G I probably wouldn't even have noticed, 'cause I wouldn't have hit page file.
SmugMug Sorcerer - Engineering Team Champion for Commerce, Finance, Security, and Data Support http://wall-art.smugmug.com/
At the mac store trying to type on the super skinny new keyboard. It's ok, but for some reason it feels like I need to be more precise with my fingertips. Which is asking a lot, I must say! I guess the lower-profile keys take some getting used to, even though i already have them on my macbook.
There's no question that the iMac screen is full blown glossy, not desirable for image editing. Anyone who wants to seriously edit images with this machine really needs a second monitor, I'm afraid.
Another mac question: Is there any mac equivalent to Nikolai's star explorer for bulk downloading images from smugmug. I'm fine with the mac tools for uploading images, but I want to be able to be able to bulk download images from my smugmug site.
Before I post the question again, was there an answer for this question?
I thought the Glossy screen was supposed to be better for image editing?
I looked at these screens side by side with the same image before purchasing my Matte MacBook Pro. Same software, same image, side by side. This was what I experienced. The image was easier to manipulate on the Matte screen for me, as the glare was much lower, and I want not seeing myself as much. I tried something on the screen after noticing myself. I was able to change the "color" of the image on the screen just by holding a piece of white paper up in front of my blue shirt. I was surprised at how much of a change it made to the image characteristics.
quick apple video tips
Dunno how many folks knew about this little apple gem, the tip of the week: http://www.apple.com/business/videotips/ even though it says "business" in the link, most (if not all of them) are applicable to anyone wanting to make more effective use of their system.
SmugMug Sorcerer - Engineering Team Champion for Commerce, Finance, Security, and Data Support http://wall-art.smugmug.com/
OR if you work on a lot of them at once.
OR if you move back and forth between a lot of big apps at once.
Well, that's true. Part of the reason I loaded up on RAM was so that when I boot Windows in Parallels Desktop, it doesn't take over the majority of the RAM.
And these days, "multiple apps" can be something as simple as Photoshop, and Bridge, and Camera Raw, and Safari, each of which wants a big chunk. 2GB can go to swap fast.
Comments
Anyone with knowledge about how quiet the Mac Pros are? I like quiet a lot.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Will I really see that much improvement in speed with 8 Gb of RAM as opposed to 4?
I don't think my Mac Book Pro with 3 Gb is really as fast as my 2.5 Dual Power PC with 4 Gb RAM. I must admit I have not tried to time them though.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
If your files are so large that they would normally take up that space as scratch disk space. If not, then no difference. The Efficiency indicator in Photoshop is one way to tell.
What I know I learned from here, where it says "We’ve seen 40% and greater speedups when running tests on big documents that hit the scratch disk by increasing RAM from 4GB to 6GB." But you have to be working with those big more-than-8-bits lots of megapixels files with all kinds of layers and masks hanging off of it. So far what I've seen of CS3 is that for example, Smart Objects and Smart Filters eat up RAM in a hurry.
Ok I dont have lots of money to spenf unfortunately, so my choices are
New IMAc - £799
2.0ghz core duo
1GB Ram
250GB HD
Superdrive
ATI HD2400XT
+ Its nice! spec is ok, future upgradability, screen keyboard and mouse
- I already have 2 20" monitors, and a keyboard, and a mouse, it seems expensive for the spec.
New MacMini - £499
2.0ghz core duo
1GB Ram
120GB HD
Superdrive
Intel GMA 950
+ same spec almost for much less, uses existing equipment use saving to add more ram big external HD
- graphics card, can it run dual monitors?, future upgradability.
Macbook - £699
2.0GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
1GB Ram
80GB HD
Combo drive
Intel GMA 950
+ Same spec but portable,could sell Ibook and put money £250 towards this)
- Means not having a 'home' computer, reduces Macs in house by 1(would sell ibook only if get macbook)
Ok so they are my initial thoughts, what does anyone else think? the Mac I choose will be used for photo editing, and general computer stuff, will deff upgrade to 2GB ram.
So what do I spend my £'s on?
thanks
My www. place is www.belperphoto.co.uk
My smugmug galleries at http://stuarthill.smugmug.com
I was actually just reading about the new iMac in a thread over at macumors. In person, the glossy screen is apparently a deal-breaker for anyone interested in photography applications.
I was finally set on switching from PC to Mac but now am thinking of going to the new mini with the Apple Pro Display instead of the iMac for just this reason. Take a look at one in the stores before you decide.
E
My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
First off, as surprising as it may be, the MB is actually the most upgradeable of your current choises. On the iMac, it's virtually impossible to change the hard drive (though changing the RAM is no problem). On the Mini, you need a putty knife (and sometimes a jackhammer) to get in there to change anything. On the MB, it's actually very easy to change the HD and the RAM- so this means most future- proof.
The 2.16 model has a 120GB hard drive and a DVD-burner (That's the Superdrive). I would highly recommend a DVD-burner over the Combo drive. Though possible, it is a pain to change those things out in the future. Also having a larger HD will prevent you from having to upgrade sooner than you need to.
The MB can be used in the so-called clam-shell mode. This means that you can close the lid on your new mac, plug in a mouse and a keyboard, hook it up to one of your 20" monitors and thus be used as a "home" computer. And when you need a notebook, it's aways there. I'd say the iMac might be a bit faster, but it's not worth it if you have screens.
The iMac's are sweet. If I didn't need more horsepower for editing video I'd definitely own one now, but I've got a G5 which will soon be replaced with a Mac Pro when I have another 4k (usd) to throw down.
regular site
oo
smug site
You will find folks on line who do like and use glossy screens, but I bet if you survey professionals who edit images for a living, darned few would even consider a glossy screen.
Ok - the flame wars can now begin!!
Needless to say, I am a strong advocare for the matte screens. I did not start there - My earlier displays in the windows world tended to be glossy, but the matte LCD is easier on the eyes, and resembles the contrast range of the printed page much more closely for me.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
- Laptop-sized hard drive, small and slow for a desktop computer.
- Limited RAM expandability, only 2GB.
- No second monitor port, no slot for a second video card and port.
- By the time you spec it right and add monitor and keyboard, you've almost paid for a MacBook, which has dual monitor capability, portability, and a hard drive that can be upgraded in 60 seconds.
I think that with the MacBook you can have a "home" computer. Attach a big screen and a keyboard/mouse and you will have a dual-screen setup, which you cannot do with the mini.
If you don't think you'll be burning DVDs while mobile, don't worry about the SuperDrive. External SuperDrives cost half of Apple's US$200 premium for the internal ones, and usually have better specs than the internal. Just leave it at home next to the big monitor. You'll still be able to burn CDs anywhere with the MacBook combo drive.
My Galleries My Photography BLOG
Ramblings About Me
It just accentuates the color and contrast in a way that might be nice for a casual user, but for color correcting photos is going to be misleading.
I just bought one for my wife/daughter, but they're not serious photogs, so they'll be fine.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
Do you suggest buying last years model?
My Galleries My Photography BLOG
Ramblings About Me
I'll personally know more when I get our new iMac on monday, and have a few days to play with it.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
mostly for the reasons a few of you have posted here! ta
My www. place is www.belperphoto.co.uk
My smugmug galleries at http://stuarthill.smugmug.com
Yes. Colourbox makes a lot of sense in that post. As usual!
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
But the glossies aren't so great for editing. The screen makes the piccies look so nice, you assume they're saturated and contrasty enough.
But if you look at your work on a non-glossy monitor (like a Dell LCD for example) you'll see that you actually need to work on adding pop.
I speak from experience with the Macbook screen, not with the new iMac.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
I'll be interested to hear your take on the screen. Also, if you use Lightroom, please post on how the iMac handles it.
I read that the color space needs to be changed from the default as that leaves very washed out colors. Can current hardware calibrators work correctly with such a screen (glossy, glass)?
E
My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos
I won't be running LR on it. That is on my Mac Pro.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
Ugh...I went to the Apple store last night...I am not crazy about the glossy screen iMac...It could be the bright lights of the Apple store...I did play around with the monitor settings...but wasn't crazy about the colors. My home office is much darker than an apple store and it may be fine here...but man I was less than impressed...perhaps I should just stick with a MBP with matte screen.
My home office:
http://www.nkpix.com
At least, that's my theory. 1.8 looks a bit washed out.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
OR if you work on a lot of them at once.
OR if you move back and forth between a lot of big apps at once.
Case in point, a few weeks back I was doing a slide show in keynote and adjusting photos in PSE to use in it, while using omnigraffle to create overlays for them. Back and forth between the tree apps all day long, load a photo into PSE, adjust and export. Import the photo into Graffle as a layer, create a layer over it with a few dozen elements, export that layer as PDF. Jump to Keynote, load the original image, load the pdf overlay, line 'em up, move on to the next, which often in order to get the transitions between slides seamless required going back to a previous image and re-cropping it slightly to get the same alignment as the one I'm matching to. My quad has 3G of memory, and it was using every last byte of it. A couple of times, when I was cycling from application to application a lot to apply the same alignment adjustment to 4 images in a row I could feel it getting sluggish. A quick check of top showed several thousand pages in/out per second, but I was only using about 900M of swap, so if I had 4G instead of 3G I probably wouldn't even have noticed, 'cause I wouldn't have hit page file.
http://wall-art.smugmug.com/
There's no question that the iMac screen is full blown glossy, not desirable for image editing. Anyone who wants to seriously edit images with this machine really needs a second monitor, I'm afraid.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Before I post the question again, was there an answer for this question?
Thanks.
Pictures | Website | Blog | Twitter | Contact
I looked at these screens side by side with the same image before purchasing my Matte MacBook Pro. Same software, same image, side by side. This was what I experienced. The image was easier to manipulate on the Matte screen for me, as the glare was much lower, and I want not seeing myself as much. I tried something on the screen after noticing myself. I was able to change the "color" of the image on the screen just by holding a piece of white paper up in front of my blue shirt. I was surprised at how much of a change it made to the image characteristics.
Of course your mileage may vary.
Pictures | Website | Blog | Twitter | Contact
Dunno how many folks knew about this little apple gem, the tip of the week: http://www.apple.com/business/videotips/ even though it says "business" in the link, most (if not all of them) are applicable to anyone wanting to make more effective use of their system.
http://wall-art.smugmug.com/
Well, that's true. Part of the reason I loaded up on RAM was so that when I boot Windows in Parallels Desktop, it doesn't take over the majority of the RAM.
And these days, "multiple apps" can be something as simple as Photoshop, and Bridge, and Camera Raw, and Safari, each of which wants a big chunk. 2GB can go to swap fast.