Photo editing rig

[AwsmGy]

Me and my buddy will need to build a decent photo editing rig for a small photo agency we're starting. I just recently built myself a new computer for gaming and he just got himself a $2000 camera, so needless to say cash is tight. We can probably spend no more than $900 tops. Anyways, the file size for the pictures we take is pretty beefy, I'm talking 7MB+ and we're going to have to have multiple photo programs open at once. I threw together some parts, but it looked nothing more than a lower end gamer PC, I'm not sure exactly what goes in to a rig with our requirements. Any help would be appreciated.

 

[Plekto]

Get a Mac. Write it off.

Seriously - Macs are junk for gaming, but made for this sort of thing because they just don't crash or require heroics to keep running. My parents have one and they ask me for computer "help" maybe every 3-4 months as opposed to every other week with the old PC. Guaranteed, you'll spend half the time dealing with maintainence issues, and if the PC is acting up, you're not running your business.

Also, fixes for a Mac generally take minutes. There is no registry, no DLLS, no junk about drivers and such, either, except for hardware you add to the machine. Compare that to Direct-X and your sound and video drivers. Windows as an OS is a cobbled-together mess of aftermarket parts and all you really want is a Civic that you hop in, turn the key, and go.

Bit of trivia: Adobe first made its software for Macintosh. Their Windows versions are always a bit hand-me-down as a result. I've used Photoshop on both systems and the Mac version is a good 20% faster and easier to use, mostly because of the lack of Windows background processes and bloat-ware.

With the advent of the newer OSes, Macs also crash a lot less often and actually recover from them far better. "Let me reboot the machine"(Windows) versus "Let me run that again and try a different setting".(Mac)

I've done both and wouldn't run a business on PCs unless I had no other choice(SQL or simmilar being required).

 

[ikjadoon]

$2000 camera? Must take some doggone good pictures! Time frame? Are you willing to wait until July 23rd? Big price cuts all around on Dual-Core CPU's. Are you willing to overclock?

I am much more in-tune with AMD stuff, so I may not be the best guy for this, this is more of a general guide.

I'd say a E6600, overclock if needed. They have good OC'ing potential. 2GB of 533Mhz or 667Mhz. I'm not sure on the motherboard, sorry! For photo editing, how about a 7600GT? It is a bit more gaming card, but we can drop down to a X1300Pro, if needed. With photo editing, the CPU is big. You want a speedy drive, but the raptors may be too much. How about two 320GB in RAID 0? I'm sorry, I know I'm not helping much. This is more of a guide, someone with a bit more info on Core Motherboards and a photo-rig in general will help.

~Ibrahim~

 

[ikjadoon]

Aren't Mac's hard to upgrade, though? As I said, I know little of Photo-editing, but PC's can't be THAT bad, now can they? As long as you get Core 2 Duo, arse load of RAM and space, you should be fine. Mac's are expensive as he!!, though. You forgot, HE HAS A BUDGET OF $900. I can't see a $900 MAC beating a $900 PC in photo-editing. I mean, they have the same processor now, as well.

~Ibrahim~

 

[mesarectifier]

Macs will have (socketed) Core 2 Duo at the same time PCs will.

Mac Mini with Core Duo 1.66Ghz and 1gb of RAM is $900 from Apple.

 

[shadowduck]

Get a Mac. Write it off.

Seriously - Macs are junk for gaming, but made for this sort of thing because they just don't crash or require heroics to keep running. My parents have one and they ask me for computer "help" maybe every 3-4 months as opposed to every other week with the old PC. Guaranteed, you'll spend half the time dealing with maintainence issues, and if the PC is acting up, you're not running your business.

Also, fixes for a Mac generally take minutes. There is no registry, no DLLS, no junk about drivers and such, either, except for hardware you add to the machine. Compare that to Direct-X and your sound and video drivers. Windows as an OS is a cobbled-together mess of aftermarket parts and all you really want is a Civic that you hop in, turn the key, and go.

Bit of trivia: Adobe first made its software for Macintosh. Their Windows versions are always a bit hand-me-down as a result. I've used Photoshop on both systems and the Mac version is a good 20% faster and easier to use, mostly because of the lack of Windows background processes and bloat-ware.

With the advent of the newer OSes, Macs also crash a lot less often and actually recover from them far better. "Let me reboot the machine"(Windows) versus "Let me run that again and try a different setting".(Mac)

I've done both and wouldn't run a business on PCs unless I had no other choice(SQL or simmilar being required).

I second that. For your uses get a Mac and be done with it. Aperature is godly for photo uses, its worth the cost of machine alone just to have access to that applicaiton.

 

[Plekto]

I think he went about it backwards, myself. Go for a $700 camera(digital Rebel 2) and a $2000 photo processing setup. But I'm sure it's a nice camera.

By photo agency, what exactly is he planning to do? If it's printing and processing photos, for instance, it's a whole other ball of wax right there, as inkjets will eat you alive. Hi-Ti makes the only affordable Dye-Sub 400DPI printers on the market(same resolution the better labs use for film and digital)

If it's taking pictures and sending them off to the lab, then just about any Mac will work fine. Plus, business expenses you get to write-off are awesome.

Now, PCs aren't bad, but PCs also are a constantly moving target, so you're always upgrading or tweaking or fixing or reinstalling after a crash or... Macs are a bit more geared towards WYSIWYG and not changing much. I've seen people running desktop publishing on five year old Macs, and other than the speed, everything still works fine, including the new OS. A five year old PC probably won't install Vista, which is the Microsoft competitor to OS X.

Oh - they will run World of Warcraft in a pinch, too - lol.

 

[AwsmGy]

We're going to try and get in to doing portraits, weddings, that shit. But I didn't even think of looking at Mac's that's deffinatly something looking in to further.

 

[shadowduck]

We're going to try and get in to doing portraits, weddings, that ****. But I didn't even think of looking at Mac's that's deffinatly something looking in to further.

Look at the Intel macs which can run both OS X and Windows. You get the ease of the Mac, and access to the software, but Windows also if you need it.

 

[ikjadoon]

Exactly. That should be the rig, I think. The name of the program is like "Boot Camp" or something similar. A Mac with a Core Duo, possibly 1GB or more of RAM, and dual-boot with Boot Camp onto XP. You get the compatability of a PC and the ease of a Mac.

~Ibrahim~

 

[shadowduck]

Exactly. That should be the rig, I think. The name of the program is like "Boot Camp" or something similar. A Mac with a Core Duo, possibly 1GB or more of RAM, and dual-boot with Boot Camp onto XP. You get the compatability of a PC and the ease of a Mac.

~Ibrahim~

Well there is that which allows you to install both on the system and its free from Apple. The much more interesting option in Paralles Software's new $50 application that allows Windows to run in a virtual machine alongside OS X at full speed.

 

[mesarectifier]

Well there is that which allows you to install both on the system and its free from Apple. The much more interesting option in Paralles Software's new $50 application that allows Windows to run in a virtual machine alongside OS X at full speed.

Personally I'm more interested in what Apple will build into Leopard. I didn't think BootCamp would be a useable tool when I first head about it, but surprise surprise, it's actually outperforming a PC in some respects.

 

[shadowduck]

Well there is that which allows you to install both on the system and its free from Apple. The much more interesting option in Paralles Software's new $50 application that allows Windows to run in a virtual machine alongside OS X at full speed.

Personally I'm more interested in what Apple will build into Leopard. I didn't think BootCamp would be a useable tool when I first head about it, but surprise surprise, it's actually outperforming a PC in some respects.

Apple has flat out said there will be no virturalization built into Leopard.

 

[mesarectifier]

Apple has flat out said there will be no virturalization built into Leopard.

Well I was half hinting at something like that, but also what will be added in the final release of BootCamp (as it's still a beta). Although I can't really think of anything, it sort of either 'does it' or doesn't. But they might add something new...I don't know.

 

[clue69less]

Get a Mac. Write it off.

Seriously - Macs are junk for gaming, but made for this sort of thing because they just don't crash or require heroics to keep running. My parents have one and they ask me for computer "help" maybe every 3-4 months as opposed to every other week with the old PC. Guaranteed, you'll spend half the time dealing with maintainence issues, and if the PC is acting up, you're not running your business.

I've used Macs for photo editing for well over a decade and 10 years ago, I would have agreed with you. These days, I can't. I have a fairly old P4 running XP that has proven to be a very solid digital imaging box. I've used it for portrait, landscape and scientific photography and it has performed extremely well. It has also functioned as the family office PC, the kids have gamed on it and we have all surfed extensively on it. I'm typing on it now in-between projects and I've got 8 windows open, including Photoshop that has a big pile of 60MB images open. This box runs great and is not a maintenance hog.

I also have a 4400+ based rig set up for photo and video editing. It is much faster than the P4 and has a better setup WRT storage. I still work on my own and customer Macs including big expensive Macs enough to know that they no longer offer me any real advantages - and they are super expensive.

Bit of trivia: Adobe first made its software for Macintosh. Their Windows versions are always a bit hand-me-down as a result. I've used Photoshop on both systems and the Mac version is a good 20% faster and easier to use, mostly because of the lack of Windows background processes and bloat-ware.

I took my third Photoshop class recently and talked to the Adobe instructor about this very topic. He claims that your story line used to be true but has since evaporated into myth. He told the class that by the time of Photoshop 6.0, the Windows version had been made fully native PC code.

With the advent of the newer OSes, Macs also crash a lot less often and actually recover from them far better. "Let me reboot the machine"(Windows) versus "Let me run that again and try a different setting".(Mac)

The 4400+ machine I mentioned above has had to be restarted a total of one time since I assembled it over 7 months ago. This bit of Mac hype is meaningless. Sure, it makes for great TV adds, but if you know how to set up XP properly, it is a very stable OS.

Look, I fought for and won approval to set up a Mac network across a large global imaging group in the early '90's, then got the support to upgrade it in the late 90's. I love Macs, but the truth is that they have lost the advantages they once had. I still sense a slight edge in high res video editing with a G5, but that's just not enough to keep me spending so much extra on them. Now that Conroe is coming right around the corner, it's game over in my opinion.

I've done both and wouldn't run a business on PCs unless I had no other choice(SQL or simmilar being required).

Likewise, and I come to the opposite conclusion. Your comment about PCs crashing makes me suspect your ability to set one up to run XP. That's not a flame, but XP is a stable OS and if you know how to customize the setup (hint: don't buy a Dell network of workstations) then PCs can and do run efficiently.

 

[mesarectifier]

Likewise, and I come to the opposite conclusion. Your comment about PCs crashing makes me suspect your ability to set one up to run XP. That's not a flame, but XP is a stable OS and if you know how to customize the setup (hint: don't buy a Dell network of workstations) then PCs can and do run efficiently.

I take that quite offensively, and it's bordering on an obnoxious generalisation to make.

I've used the same install of Windows with barely a restart for almost a year now, which according to you apparently qualifies me to be able to 'setup XP properly'. But it's not just restarts that are irritating, it's the way the whole system has to stop if one (of many) programs develops a small fault (that's the main problem).

I'm not doing 'Mac vs PC' (although IMO Mac is clearly the best option - for me) but to say to someone that they can't set up WXP properly just because they find Mac OSX to be much more stable is really...well, dumb, frankly, and seeing as I'm in the same ship I feel you're tarnishing me with the same brush.

 

[clue69less]

Likewise, and I come to the opposite conclusion. Your comment about PCs crashing makes me suspect your ability to set one up to run XP. That's not a flame, but XP is a stable OS and if you know how to customize the setup (hint: don't buy a Dell network of workstations) then PCs can and do run efficiently.

I take that quite offensively, and it's bordering on an obnoxious generalisation to make.

Just like the previous poster's Mac glorification bordered on obnoxious? But you didn't go flaming around on his post, did you?

I've used the same install of Windows with barely a restart for almost a year now, which according to you apparently qualifies me to be able to 'setup XP properly'. But it's not just restarts that are irritating, it's the way the whole system has to stop if one (of many) programs develops a small fault (that's the main problem).

I'm not having that problem. Maybe you're not as qualified as you think? Just kidding, dude, lighten up. I've used horrible Intel workstations and lame Macs. But I move from box to box often and I'm simply not seeing Mac dominance the way I used to. When I got my hands on a Conroe recently and ran my Photoshop tweak macros, it ran them almost 30% faster than any previous box and the previous best was my 4400+.

I'm not doing 'Mac vs PC' (although IMO Mac is clearly the best option - for me)

Wait, you're not doing Mac vs. PC but you like Mac best?

but to say to someone that they can't set up WXP properly just because they find Mac OSX to be much more stable is really...well, dumb, frankly, and seeing as I'm in the same ship I feel you're tarnishing me with the same brush.

Maybe you overinterpreted. Maybe you missed it completely. Regardless, if I hurt your feelings, I'd like to say I'm sorry but I thought I made it clear that my post wasn't a flame to begin with, so sorry but I won't apologize. Dude, I'm not tarnishing anyone with any brush. I'm giving counterpoint to an over-hyped Mac recommendation, that's all. Having been a global resource in imaging to large firms for many years, I've heard all of the arguments a thousand times. I used to be the one telling business managers to buy Mac. Sh!t, I've sold so many Macs for professional imaging apps, Apple should be cutting me a check. But I just can't do it anymore. I don't see the performance to justify the price. I even had a chance to get a great deal on a new G5 with a bunch of 1GB sticks thrown in and I couldn't justify it. If you love your Mac, I'm glad you're happy. Koom-bye-yah, sis-boom-bah!

 

[shadowduck]

Get a Mac. Write it off.

Seriously - Macs are junk for gaming, but made for this sort of thing because they just don't crash or require heroics to keep running. My parents have one and they ask me for computer "help" maybe every 3-4 months as opposed to every other week with the old PC. Guaranteed, you'll spend half the time dealing with maintainence issues, and if the PC is acting up, you're not running your business.

I've used Macs for photo editing for well over a decade and 10 years ago, I would have agreed with you. These days, I can't. I have a fairly old P4 running XP that has proven to be a very solid digital imaging box. I've used it for portrait, landscape and scientific photography and it has performed extremely well. It has also functioned as the family office PC, the kids have gamed on it and we have all surfed extensively on it. I'm typing on it now in-between projects and I've got 8 windows open, including Photoshop that has a big pile of 60MB images open. This box runs great and is not a maintenance hog.


I am a long time Mac user that went to PCs in 1999 for this very reason. Cost.

However, for this use, Photo editing, there is software available on the Macintosh (like Aperture or Lightroom) that just does not exist on the Windows platform. If the OP is doing anything with RAW images- the software justifies the cost of the machine because it just does it better than anything on the Windows side.

With the new Intel macs- you can have the best of both worlds as well. If need be, you can run Windows, but stay mainly in OS X which is frankly just a better OS.

Personally, right now I am swaying back and forth between a Dell E1505 and a Macbook Pro. The Dell is $838 cheaper, but OS X is such a better OS, its worth a consideration.

 

[clue69less]

Personally, right now I am swaying back and forth between a Dell E1505 and a Macbook Pro.

I have spent some time on the Macbook Pro that a friend owns and was very pleasantly surprised. When it was released, I read a lukewarm review and expected less than it delivered. The owner bought it for 3-D pro apps and my assumption was that it would bog down but in fact it runs great. Is it hot enough to justify the price? Not for me right now, but I'm not in need for a laptop right now.

 

[ikjadoon]

Going to jump back in this thread, a little. You can get a pretty fast Core 2 Duo machine with 2GB of DDR2 that'll run Photoshop like a Mac. There I said it.

I still think that a $900 Mac will not beat a $900 PC. And what Mac were you planning to get him? You want a Core 2 Duo processor, which means you have the options a MacBook laptop, which I don't recommend, or a Mac Mini or an iMac. The PowerMac's don't offer the Core 2 Duo, so they are "out". As far as I can see the iMac doesn't offer anything bigger than a 250GB hard drive. I hate to sound like a noob, but is it simple/easy to install a regular hard drive in a iMac without compatability issues in transferring the OS and any files and installation? A Mac Mini is the same, but offers a maximum of 80GB! Very few pictures, my friends.At best a Mac Mini can hold only a 1.5 or 1.6Ghz Core 2 Duo! This may not be apple-to-apple compairson, but I think a Core 2 Duo in a PC is much faster. With that I say a Mac is out.

Like I said, I say the fellow should get a 2.4Ghz Core 2 Duo, 2GB of DDR2, and around a 500GB hard drive. I think that is a good start for a photo editing and what-not.

I know I'm somewhat biased against Mac's, but for this guy, they just don't seem to be a resonable option. To highlight the points:

Weaker CPU's
Tiny Hard Drives
Too Expensive for what you get

~Ibrahim~

~Ibrahim~

 

[mesarectifier]

A Mac Mini is the same, but offers a maximum of 80GB! Very few pictures, my friends.At best a Mac Mini can hold only a 1.5 or 1.6Ghz Core 2 Duo! This may not be apple-to-apple compairson, but I think a Core 2 Duo in a PC is much faster. With that I say a Mac is out.

Nothing uses Core 2 Duo, but iMac and Mac Mini use Core Duo, and will likely be upgraded to Core 2 at some point in the not-so-distant future. The current PowerMac (G5) still uses PowerPC, but the next-gen PowerMac (Mac Pro) will use Woodcrest, apparently.

And you can specify 120gb drives with Mac Mini. Most people just expand with FW drives, though.

@Clue69Less - "This isn't a flame, but you don't know how to set up a PC properly".....errrr.....that's about as effective as "No offense, but you suck"

 

[ikjadoon]

Ah, excuse me. So they are still using the Yonah-type processors?

So, a Mac might be a more viable option with Core 2 Duo, but unless Apple is, for some reason, increasing the hard drive option list, I can't see them being viable for a photo editing rig at all; never mind what processor it using.

PowerMac's are very expesnive. Even if they offer larger hard drives and whatever new processors Intel is coming out with for them, they have a starting price of $1999!

Well, don't FireWire drives offer limited performance when compared to SATA drives? He is going to be moving a lot of data and a lot of pictures; hard drive performance is key. I don't think FireWire would be a good option compared to a SATA drive. An exception might be FireWire 800, but I still believe SATA is faster in terms of performance.

~Ibrahim~

 

[mesarectifier]

Firewire provides enough bandwidth to use in realtime (i.e. with zero latency) in recording environments - I know it's not related but it's evidence that I'm more familiar with not being a photo-editor at anything near pro level.

 

[Plekto]

Well, if $2000 is or the complete setup, then that's a good deal. I thought you meant just the camera.

 

[ikjadoon]

Neither am I, its just that I've seen SATA drives having faster performance; mostly in motherboard reviews.

~Ibrahim~