Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Help with Computer specs for photography and editing
Page <<first <prev 3 of 3
Nov 24, 2018 20:42:36   #
cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA
 
Gene51 wrote:
High end graphics is not necessary - you won't see much difference between a middle of the road GPU and a high end "gaming" card. PS and LR do not use CUDA technology, and you only need enough memory to display your image at the resolution required for your display. Anything more is a waste of money.

https://www.pugetsystems.com/recommended/Recommended-Systems-for-Adobe-Lightroom-Classic-CC-141/Buy_158

https://www.pugetsystems.com/recommended/Recommended-Systems-for-Adobe-Photoshop-CC-139/Buy_150

A compared to a high end, $800 RTX 2080, Ti, a $170 GTX 1060 is only 8% slower. Spending the extra $630 is not a good way to spend money on a system for Photoshop. The game changer is if you are looking to get 30 bit color - in which case you'd have to buy an NVidia Quadro or a AMD FirePro.

And you can have a wonderful experience running a $3000 PC vs a comparably peforming $5000 iMAC Pro.

I agree that you don't need a gaming level graphics card, but you do need a good one with some extra memory. I'm a heavy Lr and occasional Ps user. My iPad Pro flies! I came from the PC world as well and switched to Apple about five years ago. I still maintain a PC system or two, but I, far and away, prefer Apple. I gladly pay an extra 2k just to keep away from Microsoft's weekly updates and have a system that really is plug and play.

I've been supporting both platforms for years - and at this point, ever since Mac went over to Intel, there is so little difference between the two platforms - that the extra cost is hardly worth it - especially since you don't get any more bang for the buck. As I have said over and over again - the only meaningful difference between the two platforms is cost. Of course, if you are doing color critical work - the workstation of choice is the RGB-based PC, and not the DCI-P3 based Mac - at least as far as wide gamut color is concerned. Corporate graphics departments allow the use of just about any computer for setup and roughing, but for final, precise color work, the PC reigns supreme. . . just sayin'

For video production, I much prefer the Mac, btw. Final Cut Pro is excellent software, and the way Avid works on a Mac is pretty sweet compared to the PC implementation. Premiere is pretty good on Mac, but slightly better on Windows.
High end graphics is not necessary - you won't see... (show quote)

Reply
Nov 24, 2018 20:43:27   #
Stemma Loc: Lancaster, PA
 
chrissybabe wrote:
You are all forgetting to add in a backup drive as well as the main work drive !!!!!!!!!!


I figured an external HD would, at least eventually, be a must considering the large files my camera (D7100) puts out. Thanks for your input!

Reply
Nov 24, 2018 20:44:49   #
Stemma Loc: Lancaster, PA
 
burkphoto wrote:
16 GB RAM (32 GB if you want to run multiple apps and switch among them)
Quad Core i5 or better
256 GB SSD or larger
1 TB or larger 7200 RPM external drives, minimum 2
Accelerated graphics if available
27" 4K monitor (2 if you can swing it)

If you buy an iMac, get the 27" so you can upgrade the RAM by yourself. Buy minimum RAM and source larger modules from a third party.

Remember, most Macs are expanded EXTERNALLY. They have fast Thunderbolt 3 or USB-C and USB 3.1 connections for attaching drives, scanners, networks, monitors, port breakout boxes, expansion bays... That way, when a component fails, it is less likely to require sending the Mac to an Apple service center, because it might be an external component.

PC users typically hate that, preferring an open box with a giant power supply and noisy fans. Pay money, take choice...

DO NOT forget to buy a monitor calibration kit from Datacolor or X-Rite.
16 GB RAM (32 GB if you want to run multiple apps ... (show quote)


Monitor calibration is something I hadn't considered. Thanks for the info!

Reply
 
 
Nov 24, 2018 21:03:25   #
aubreybogle Loc: Albuquerque, NM
 
Angel Star Photography wrote:
Steve,

Welcome to the forum and the wonderful world of photography.

My baseline recommendation regardless of whether you purchase an Apple or some other PC are the following:

RAM: minimum 16GB, more the better
Processor: Intel i7 minimum
Internal drive: preferably a SSD (solid state drive) but if not, then go for no less than a 7200 rpm spindle drive.
Video card: preferably dedicated (typically Nvidia)

As for editing software, the Adobe Photography Bundle for about $10/month is what I use but the are others who are more familiar with some free software.
Steve, br br Welcome to the forum and the wonderf... (show quote)


I agree with this package for Windows machines being used at an entry level, they and their software are generally much less expensive than Apple machines. If cost is not a real concern, by all means go with Apple. They are very capable machines, and you already know the OS. Unless you need the portability of a laptop, a desktop and a midsized monitor provide an easier learning/working environment, usually for less cost.. Good luck, do your homework and you really can't make a bad decision.

Reply
Nov 25, 2018 07:25:47   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
LCD wrote:
I've been told that a powerful graphics card is not necessary for still image processing. They are optimized for complex game graphics.


Your information is 100% correct.

Reply
Nov 25, 2018 15:57:56   #
JCam Loc: MD Eastern Shore
 
Angel Star Photography wrote:
Steve,

Welcome to the forum and the wonderful world of photography.

My baseline recommendation regardless of whether you purchase an Apple or some other PC are the following:

RAM: minimum 16GB, more the better
Processor: Intel i7 minimum
Internal drive: preferably a SSD (solid state drive) but if not, then go for no less than a 7200 rpm spindle drive.
Video card: preferably dedicated (typically Nvidia)

As for editing software, the Adobe Photography Bundle for about $10/month is what I use but the are others who are more familiar with some free software.
Steve, br br Welcome to the forum and the wonderf... (show quote)

Reply
Nov 25, 2018 16:16:34   #
JCam Loc: MD Eastern Shore
 
Steve, As the original post came from an admitted newcomer to photography, my inclination is to disagree with your recommendation on the software. Instead of the "rental" PS software why should he not purchase the latest version of PS Elements? At this time of the year he can probably get it for less than $50 and it will be a one time cost, have a considerably easier learning curve than PS, with about 80-85% of the PS capabilities. He probably won't need or want the missing 15 or 20% and will have the disk. in his possession should he need it again. When he feels comfortable he can always get himself "hooked" on the monthly rental. In the meantime, he'll save about 1/2 of the rental fee and can learn on an easier PP program without another monthly fee for something he may not be able understand or use.

A happy user of PSE over 9 years, and 'yes' I have upgraded once from PSE10 to PSE14--both still work, but some things 10 will do easily while 14 makes them more difficult.

Reply
 
 
Nov 25, 2018 21:10:44   #
Stemma Loc: Lancaster, PA
 
Thanks all for your help! Looks like I got a to chew on for a while.

Reply
Nov 25, 2018 21:43:55   #
aubreybogle Loc: Albuquerque, NM
 
Stemma wrote:
Thanks all for your help! Looks like I got a to chew on for a while.


You are on the right track. Chew on.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 3
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.