# Optimal processing platform of still images



## Eldar (Dec 1, 2014)

I am about to get a new platform for my image processing. I only do stills and I almost exclusively use Photoshop CC, primarily Lightroom. But I also do some stiching and focus stacking, with the help of various other software. My main platform today is 3 year old iMac 27”, with a 27” Eizo self-calibrating monitor added. In addition I use a 2 year old 15” MacBook pro, with Retina screen, when I travel. Both platforms are a bit short on RAM and I do not like the shiny iMac screen.

I know many of you know a lot more than me on the latest and greatest, so my question to you is:

If you could choose freely, what processing platform for still images would you choose?


----------



## Coldhands (Dec 1, 2014)

Since it appears that you are quite heavily invested in the Macintosh ecosystem, my preferred set-up will likely not appeal to you directly, but I'll share it here regardless:

Custom-built Windows PC. It's nowhere near as difficult as most people think and it allows you to tailor each component to you individual needs. Plus it's fun! ;D

Engage GEEK MODE

I'd start with one of the new-ish "Haswell Refresh" Intel core i7 CPUs which would power through pano-stitching and other processor intensive tasks. Stick it in any decent motherboard that has at least a few USB 3.0 ports (makes transferring all those heavy raw files quicker). Add in an SSD (128 GB should suffice, 256 is plenty) to store the OS and frequently used programs, as well as the large scratch files created by photoshop. Support this with some large magnetic HDDs for bulk storage (create a RAID 1 array if you want to keeps things safe between backups). Include a decent graphics card (no need to go high-end unless you're a gamer) to take advantage of GPU processing. Those are the main things, just need to complete the package with a good power supply, optical drive, and a case to put it all in. For the monitor, get a nice IPS display, preferably with a wide colour-gamut, and *calibrate it*.

Disengage GEEK MODE

I'm sure the other computer-savvy members here will have different views, but this more-or-less an updated equivalent to what I use and it has served me very well.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 1, 2014)

Coldhands said:


> Stick it in any decent motherboard that has at least a few USB 3.0 ports (makes transferring all those heavy raw files quicker).



This has been discussed several times before so be sure and do a search or two on the forum. I agree with everything *Coldhands* said above with the exception of the motherboard. The motherboard will determine whether the system is reliable and solid or flaky and maddening. Without spending a lot of time debating/explaining the details, if you want to buy a solid motherboard, consider an ASUS motherboard. I just updated/upgraded my photo PC and I used this board. (ASUS MAXIMUS VII HERO LGA 1150 Intel Z97) You can also get an M.2 SSD drive to mount directly to the motherboard and it will have better performance and let you use all your SATA ports for other drives.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813132125


----------



## Coldhands (Dec 1, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> Coldhands said:
> 
> 
> > Stick it in any decent motherboard that has at least a few USB 3.0 ports (makes transferring all those heavy raw files quicker).
> ...



Oops, I guess I was a little ambiguous there. I definitely agree that you want to get a quality mobo from a good brand (I've been happy with Gigabyte; my Dad had used ASUS in nearly all of his builds). Just didn't want to imply that you need to go high-end ($300+) as I don't think it's necessary unless you're overclocking or have specific needs for certain features.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 1, 2014)

Yeah, IMO the motherboard is the hardest part to research and decide on. There are several good makers out there... ASUS, Tyan, MSI, Gigabyte, and of course Intel. I went with the board I linked above because my son and I built him his first PC this summer and so I had a month of time with that motherboard and knew it was solid already. 

Another thing the OP should avoid... AMD. Stick with Intel CPU and Chipset.


----------



## DominoDude (Dec 1, 2014)

Eldar said:


> I am about to get a new platform for my image processing. I only do stills and I almost exclusively use Photoshop CC, primarily Lightroom. But I also do some stiching and focus stacking, with the help of various other software. My main platform today is 3 year old iMac 27”, with a 27” Eizo self-calibrating monitor added. In addition I use a 2 year old 15” MacBook pro, with Retina screen, when I travel. Both platforms are a bit short on RAM and I do not like the shiny iMac screen.
> 
> I know many of you know a lot more than me on the latest and greatest, so my question to you is:
> 
> If you could choose freely, what processing platform for still images would you choose?



Building your own desktop PC is certainly one way to go, and I agree with most of what has been said so far.
Somehow I think that you could be interested in both a desktop and a laptop PC to substitute your Macs. In that situation I would consider trying to get a deal on a HP, Dell or a Lenovo system. If you call/mail them and mention that you're interested in both a desktop and laptop you could tweak them into offering you a good deal with "next business day support" or something similar. Not like it's needed when everything is running smooth, but when things turn ugly it's reassuring that it will be taken care of swiftly.

My personal opinion would be to find a way to stay away from Windows 8.*, at least for the desktop solution - probably easier to tolerate it on a laptop. Stuff as much RAM, in the solution(s) that you choose, as you possibly can - I would say that 12-16 GB is a bare minimum if you intend to do some heavy stitching. There's no chance that you will have too much RAM.

Intentionally stayed away from mentioning any particular model or a too specific solution. I believe this is the right ballpark to be in, and you are smart enough to weigh all suggestions given by us here to find the best ball in this park for your way of working.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 1, 2014)

don't forget cooling!

Whatever components you choose, if you don't have sufficient air flow they will fail sooner and introduce bugs...

Look for a chassis that will allow 120mm fans for cooling. The large fans move more air and are quieter than the small fans. As well, look for some of the extra-quiet fans (like Silenx) that will allow you to have an almost silent system.


----------



## terminatahx (Dec 1, 2014)

I'm a full time I.T. architect, and build my own systems.

MACs are garbage imho; far too many restrictions, not enough choices (especially software), and way too many incompatibilities in the Enterprise workplace.

Build your own Intel powered pc:
OS - Choose operating system that give you plenty of choice (software and hardware) and configuration agility.
CPU - Intel multicore cpu (4-8 cores). 
Memory - 16gb or more.
local Storage - SSD for "working files" and cache. traditional storage for long term storage.
Remote Storge /NAS - Multiple bay, RAID5 (or similar) configuration with 1GB or eSata interfaces
Display - IPS panels only!

My current system is a bit dated, but nothing new motivates me to upgrade:
- OS windows 8.1 Enterprise
- CPU i7 3770k @ 4.7ghz
- 2 x evga 780ti SC (for gaming)
- RAM Corsair Vengeance 16gb
- Storage Samsung/Corsair SSD (256, 500gb)
- Display - Catleap 27" ips 
- Remote/NAS - Synology DS412+ (4 - 2TB sata drives)


----------



## LDS (Dec 1, 2014)

Eldar said:


> If you could choose freely, what processing platform for still images would you choose?


The one you feel more comfortable with.

From an hardware perspective, since Apple moved to the Intel platform, there's very little difference from an high-end "Windows" PC and an "Apple" one (but maybe the "stylish" part).

With Windows you may have more choice, especially if you're ready to build your own PC - but it also means warranty covers the single parts, not the whole system - and you need to be careful to get and match the proper components. Gaming-oriented ones, although fast, may not be the best choice for image processing where you also need stability and minimal data corruption risks.

I prefer to perform most work an a desktop system. It allows for faster CPUs, more RAM, SSD + RAID (fast) spinning disks, and a good GPU. Photoshop and Lightroom of course work better with a faster CPU and GPU - and good RAM amounts - but it's important to find a "balance point" within your budget, spending too much on some components and too little on others may not lead to a good system. Good power supply and cooling are also important for error-free operations.

Matched with a good monitor, preferably a wide gamut one with hardware calibration, and good input devices (keyboard and mouse - maybe a graphic tablet) it's a comfortable system to use even for long processing sessions.

All-in-ones IMHO are nice devices when there is little space for a classic "desktop" units, laptops are not a choice and style is important (no cables clutter, etc), but they force you to buy a "bundle" like laptops and suffer from the same limitations when it comes to add or expand hardware, and are not often designed with specific tasks like image processing in mind. I would avoid them.

I found laptops less comfortable to use, even with a docking station and a separate monitor. SSDs put an end to slow laptops disks, but they may be not very large (but slower, hybrid ones) and make you depend on external disks or NAS units even for "main" storage. Also, when running heavy tasks and getting "hot", they can become noisy.

Unlike some desktops with enough RAM slots where you can add easily more RAM as you need, and prolong system life a bit, often laptops are not easily upgradeable. Of course for on-field and travel use there are no other choices, although some of the latest tablet/laptop combo may be an interesting alternative - some high end Windows model can run PS/LR although they costs as much as a high-end laptop.

The OS is really a matter of what you are more comfortable with. As a long time Apple user you may not like Windows too much - and PS/LR are quite the same on both platforms. Unless the hardware choice don't force you to switch, I'd keep using it - in some areas like color management it's better and easier to use than Windows. If you keep your system "clean" and mostly dedicated for image processing as you would do with a Mac - avoiding to install all the crap many Windows users ends up to have on their system, IMHO Windows is not less stable or slow than OSX, of course you'd need to be more careful because most malware targets Windows.

Even if many suggest to avoid it, Windows 8.1 has some more advanced features than 7, especially when it comes to recent ones like high DPI support (which Adobe will support under Windows too), improved graphic support, better support for recent hardware (i.e. native USB 3.0 and UAS support), and a good, built-in hypervisor for VMs. Sure, it has the non-desktop-friendly UI - but when you spend most of your time in a couple of application only - like when using LR + PS - it doesn't get much in the way.


----------



## Halfrack (Dec 1, 2014)

Too many different tangents that could be had - starting with the PC/Mac debate.

The keys to best performance are solid state drives (SSDs), lots of RAM and a recent CPU. Most folks don't spend the coin for a top end video card, but should. With all the 3D stuff in Photoshop dependent on it, plus higher resolution monitors now available, the ability to drive a UHD or 4K displays is critical IMHO.

If you do a self build, go for it. But if your day job isn't in IT, go the safe route of buying a pre-built, or make friends with a local computer repair shop to do your build. The computer is a tool, and if you're making good money from photography, dealing with drivers and upgrading components isn't the best use of your time.


----------



## Tez (Dec 2, 2014)

The best article I have read on PC based hardware is this one. 
http://www.imagescience.com.au/kb/questions/141/Build+a+powerful+PC+for+Photoshop+and+other+imaging+applications

I took their advice and recently bought a high end version with 32Gb ram which has met all expectations.


----------



## weixing (Dec 2, 2014)

Hi,
If availability (uptime) is importance to you, don't build your own system... get a branded system (such as HP) with upgrade warranty. It might be slightly more expensive, but it'll save you a lot of headache if your system is down.

Have a nice day.


----------



## michalk (Dec 2, 2014)

Seeing as you are already familiar and heavily invested into Macs, I would advise buying a new iMac 27" Retina. That 5k display alone is worth it.

Building your own rig is fun if you enjoy that sort of thing, but OS X is a way better operating system than Windows, and Linux is not the best option for image editing.


----------



## aardvark (Dec 2, 2014)

I agree with all the advice here (though would disagree with comment about Macs though that was qualified re: Enterprise env which doesn't apply here).

Key thing whichever environment:

- Lots of Memory (16 Gig if poss)
- Fast SSD drive and a big fast normal drive (if possible)
- I7 fast processor

There is much advice on the internet about how to set up etc (placement of files, previews, etc). 

I have a set up similar to above and it performs very well.


----------



## Khalai (Dec 2, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> don't forget cooling!
> 
> Whatever components you choose, if you don't have sufficient air flow they will fail sooner and introduce bugs...
> 
> Look for a chassis that will allow 120mm fans for cooling. The large fans move more air and are quieter than the small fans. As well, look for some of the extra-quiet fans (like Silenx) that will allow you to have an almost silent system.



Noctua fans are also very good (and very silent). I have 2 slow 120mm for input, 2 slow for output, one 120mm ontop of biga** copper heatsing above CPU. Add a fanless PSU and your PC is virtually silent (when my GPU fan is not running, I can't hear a thing at 1m and beyond)


----------



## chauncey (Dec 2, 2014)

Hand built by my IT son..."C" and "F" drives are SSD's. No trouble stacking 75 images!


----------



## tolusina (Dec 2, 2014)

Coldhands said:


> ....
> .......snip......
> For the monitor, get a nice IPS display, preferably with a wide colour-gamut, and calibrate it.
> 
> Disengage GEEK MODE.....


I snipped up there because I agree with most everything Coldhands posted, I want to emphasize the bit about a wide gamut monitor and calibration. 
I chose an NEC PA242W-BK-SV with it's integrated calibration device and software.
The downside of that integrated solution is that it only works with specific NEC wide gamut displays.
The upside is that I don't have to learn all the associated color calibration minutiae, the system just works.
...Just re-read the original post, I see you have an Eizo self-calibrating monitor, I expect your experience with the Eizo parallels mine with NEC, if it's wide gamut, hang on to the Eizo.

I'll add that if you plan on printing, add a printer profiler device and software. 
Calibrate the monitor, profile the printer/ink/paper combinations you'll use, soft proof in Lightroom with the print profile for your chosen media, when you click print, printer output matches what you saw on screen very closely.

Regarding PC specifics, I'm partial to multiple hard drives, one SSD for Windows and applications, another for any and all data that I create and want to save, large HDDs for backup.

Max out the installed memory, my current system has 32GB.

I can't say about add in video cards except that you probably want one or more if you are into video editing and/or gaming.
As I don't game or do video, I use Intel's on board graphics, I chose an ASUS board that can drive multiple monitors as well as DisplayPort.
Might be worth your time to Google DisplayPort, see if it fits your needs.
- - -


weixing said:


> Hi,
> If availability (uptime) is importance to you, don't build your own system... get a branded system (such as HP) with upgrade warranty. It might be slightly more expensive, but it'll save you a lot of headache if your system is down.
> 
> Have a nice day.


Sorry, this sounds like a view based on fear of the unknown.
I've experienced the exact opposite on my own builds.
When one builds their own, one becomes familiar with every component installed, how and where and when to find on line support and updates for each component be they software or hardware.
If you can operate a flashlight (torch), Phillips screwdriver and a magnifier, you can assemble all the components easily.
My most recent build took maybe 2.5 hours to assemble, by far the most time consuming (70%?) part was routing and securing all the various cables behind the motherboard both for visual appeal and maximizing air flow. 
Installing the OS and software takes significantly longer than the physical build, time spent can vary widely from a few hours to a day and a half or more depending both on the software choices and the speed of the machine.
- - -


LDS said:


> .......
> 
> Matched with a good monitor, preferably a wide gamut one with hardware calibration......





LDS said:


> ...........
> 
> The OS is really a matter of what you are more comfortable with. As a long time Apple user you may not like Windows too much - and PS/LR are quite the same on both platforms. Unless the hardware choice don't force you to switch, I'd keep using it - in some areas like color management it's better and easier to use than Windows. …....


With a hardware calibrated monitor, does Mac-OS have advantages over Windows? 
- - -
Notice on the page that Tez linked, there's an anchor link partway down where they list priorities.....
http://www.imagescience.com.au/kb/questions/141/Build+a+powerful+PC+for+Photoshop+and+other+imaging+applications#PartsList

There's a recurring theme from several posters here and on that page/link that indicate your component shopping should start with a wide gamut monitor with hardware calibration, begin selecting the rest to support that monitor with enough processor, memory and SSD speed to deal with the large files you'll be working with.

Note you've also got a couple of rather passionate ASUS recommendations.
- - -
Regarding the visual aesthetics of the tower/case, you can build in a Plain Jane box, a huge variety of Sci-Fi inspired gaming cases, the simple elegance of a Lian Li aluminum chassis or anywhere in between.
- - -


RustyTheGeek said:


> ......You can also get an M.2 SSD drive to mount directly to the motherboard ....


Well, thanks a pantload for that info Rusty, I was unaware of such things in the consumer market, though they were priced for enterprise use. 
More shopping, mods, ick. Just when I was content with my build.
Hey Rusty! Any tips for easy migration to an M.2?


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 2, 2014)

Eldar,
Same situation. My current laptop is about 2.5yrs old. It's not the best one for PP raw photos.

I've added this one in my BH account. Still searching for 30"plus monitor to go with it.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1039465-REG/hp_f1l64ut_aba_f1l64ut_z420_series_workstation.html


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 2, 2014)

tolusina said:


> RustyTheGeek said:
> 
> 
> > ......You can also get an M.2 SSD drive to mount directly to the motherboard ....
> ...



Sure, no problem! The M.2 drives are SSD drives that are similar to mSATA in that they mount in a slot but M.2 is a newer design and much faster. Why? Because they are connected directly into the PCIe bus, not the SATA bus. Check out this link... http://rog.asus.com/308552014/labels/guides/ssd-guide-pci-express-m-2-msata-and-sata-express-the-differences-explained/ Best part is that the M.2 drives aren't much different in price than other SSDs. Sweet! 

You could use most any recent backup/hard drive program for migrating the OS. Acronis, Paragon, Macrium, EaseUS, etc all have free versions or you could spend less than $50 and buy their advanced home offerings and then make a boot CD, boot from the CD and do the drive migration that way. There are other free open source offerings available as well but they might be a little more difficult to use and not as polished. If you are currently using a spinning HD and not a SSD, you should probably look at the Paragon Advanced product and make sure you get the SSD Migration piece because it will realign the sectors to work best on SSD. Keep in mind that if you use an SSD, you NEVER WANT TO DEFRAGMENT. All that does is prematurely wear out the chips with needless writes. SSDs by their very nature/design cannot get fragmented like a spinning platter drive can. Good luck!!


----------



## tolusina (Dec 2, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Eldar,
> Same situation. My current laptop is about 2.5yrs old. It's not the best one for PP raw photos.
> 
> I've added this one in my BH account. Still searching for 30"plus monitor to go with it.
> ...


I spent similar on my own build, got twice the RAM, twice the SSD plus a 1TB HDD, M-Disc burner, on board Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, NFC, HDMI, DisplayPort, VGA. I didn't get Thunderbolt, Firewire or an add in graphics card.
I did get a much more attractive chassis, an aluminum Lian Li PC-7HA, can't say I care for the look of the HP chassis at all.
---
For your monitor, wide gamut with hardware calibration, you and your photos deserve nothing less.

---


RustyTheGeek said:


> ...
> Sure, no problem!.......


Thank you Rusty, M.2 is now on my list of things to do after moving. Sounds like two will be in order.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 2, 2014)

tolusina said:


> RustyTheGeek said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Two? Two M.2 drives? Only way to use two would be to either have two PCs with motherboards in each one that support it or have one on the motherboard and install a PCIe card to support the 2nd one. Personally, I installed a 256GB M.2 and I use spinning platter HDs, each volume in a RAID 1 array hosted by the Intel RAID on the motherboard for everything else.


----------



## tolusina (Dec 2, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> tolusina said:
> 
> 
> > RustyTheGeek said:
> ...


Two? If I Googled well, it appears M.2 and PCie are essentially the same throughput, different connections?
Do I have the slots?
http://www.asus.com/us/Motherboards/Z87PRO/


----------



## lilmsmaggie (Dec 2, 2014)

Not sure if I understand: Are you unhappy with your current iMac monitor? You also don't go into any detail concerning your current configuration except to say "short on RAM."


If the Eizo is a ColorEdge, that's an excellent monitor. Have you considered adding more RAM to your iMac and upgrading the HDD?

You might consider checking out OWC for components: http://eshop.macsales.com


Upgrading DIY an iMac is a pain for the light of heart but its doable. As far as Mobo's go, check these sites for reviews:

http://www.motherboards.org


http://www.tomshardware.com


http://www.maximumpc.com


Also, if Mac is where you'd rather be, check out Lloyd Chambers website: http://macperformanceguide.com

Lot's of good info on his site.


A DIY Windows based system is also very doable. Good luck and have fun !






Eldar said:


> I am about to get a new platform for my image processing. I only do stills and I almost exclusively use Photoshop CC, primarily Lightroom. But I also do some stiching and focus stacking, with the help of various other software. My main platform today is 3 year old iMac 27”, with a 27” Eizo self-calibrating monitor added. In addition I use a 2 year old 15” MacBook pro, with Retina screen, when I travel. Both platforms are a bit short on RAM and I do not like the shiny iMac screen.
> 
> I know many of you know a lot more than me on the latest and greatest, so my question to you is:
> 
> If you could choose freely, what processing platform for still images would you choose?


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 2, 2014)

tolusina said:


> RustyTheGeek said:
> 
> 
> > tolusina said:
> ...



I don't see an M.2 slot on that board nor do I see M.2 support in the feature list. But that's a fine board. You would just need to use a PCIe expansion board. The x1 slot is sufficient.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 2, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> tolusina said:
> 
> 
> > RustyTheGeek said:
> ...


 
why not just buy a motherboard with two?? 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/samsung-xp941-z97-pci-express,3826.html

However, if he is a Mac user, it is a steep learning curve to learn all the ins and outs of Windows. Windows 8(8.1) is not my favorite, and windows 7 is getting long in the tooth, but I still use it over 8.1. My two newest pc's came with 8.1, I just set the drives aside and installed Windows 7 Ultimate.

I'd suggest that he get a new mac, and be able to run all his software.


----------



## lilmsmaggie (Dec 2, 2014)

This will give you an idea what replacing the mobo in an iMac entails:

https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/iMac+Intel+27-Inch+EMC+2546+Logic+Board+Replacement/15777


----------



## c.d.embrey (Dec 2, 2014)

Most *professional retouchers* (people who do nothing but retouching for a living) use Apple Macs of one sort or another. The freelance retoucher/digital artist I use has an iMac. Another one I know, who works for a commercial photographer, uses a Mac Pro. Eizo monitors are common, but the freelancer I use works with the iMac's built-in, and I've never had a client or magazine complain.

Lloyd Chambers is a little over-the-top, but you may find his *Mac Performance Guide* useful http://macperformanceguide.com/


----------



## LDS (Dec 2, 2014)

tolusina said:


> I can't say about add in video cards except that you probably want one or more if you are into video editing and/or gaming.



You need to match the monitor with a proper video card, if you want full color calibration and take advantage of advanced monitor features, i.e. 10+ bit color. The monitor is one side of the equation, the other is the video card. Here again there are integrated cards, gaming ones, and professional ones. The latter should be the choice to match an high-end monitor like an Eizo, Benq or NEC. They also comes with driver optimized for image quality, not only speed like in some high-end gaming cards. Usually on-board cards are so-so.



tolusina said:


> Sorry, this sounds like a view based on fear of the unknown.



Yes and no. Some people like DIY, others don't. Some are interested in photography and not much in IT and hardware. After all, some people buy branded photo gear and accessories, others like to build some of them.

Again, in branded pre-build systems there are several different lines of machines, from consumer ones, standard office ones, and models built with higher spec aimed at professional users. Usually these ones are called "workstation". 
For example my office Dell Precision comes with SAS controller and 15K disks in RAID 1 and an nVidia Quadro video card. We have a maintenance contract that warrants 4-hour on site support (we never let our disks exit the building but after a wipe or, it is impossible, being physically destroyed...)



tolusina said:


> With a hardware calibrated monitor, does Mac-OS have advantages over Windows?



OSX has still a some advantage in color management compared to Windows - and it's simpler to use. Windows improved a lot in 7 and 8.x, but its Windows Color System is still a bit complex to setup - and some calibration software may still install its gamma loaders in Windows, and lead to some issues. Nothing that could be fixed, yet OSX is simpler.



tolusina said:


> There's a recurring theme from several posters here and on that page/link that indicate your component shopping should start with a wide gamut monitor with hardware calibration, begin selecting the rest to support
> that monitor with enough processor, memory and SSD speed to deal with the large files you'll be working with.



I agree - when working with images correct output is the most important aim - but yet a lot depends on how the final images are displayed. If your images ends to be mostly seen on uncalibrated sRGB devices, maybe a very expensive monitor/card setups could be wasted. If images are printed on professional photo printers and papers - or other types of professional outputs, then being able to control properly the whole process is far more important. Anyway is still important to buy/build a balanced system within the available budget, and decide where to save, taking into account what's the primary aim - speed, image quality, etc.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 2, 2014)

c.d.embrey said:


> Most *professional retouchers* (people who do nothing but retouching for a living) use Apple Macs of one sort or another. The freelance retoucher/digital artist I use has an iMac. Another one I know, who works for a commercial photographer, uses a Mac Pro. Eizo monitors are common, but the freelancer I use works with the iMac's built-in, and I've never had a client or magazine complain.
> 
> Lloyd Chambers is a little over-the-top, but you may find his *Mac Performance Guide* useful http://macperformanceguide.com/



Sorry *c.d.embrey*, but your statement above is analogous to saying that a carpenter does better work because he drives a Ford truck instead of a Chevy. Or an import Toyota instead of a domestic Chrysler. Or uses Makita power tools instead of Milwaukee. I could go on and on...

The hardware is identical. The software is identical. The only difference is the Operating System and User Interface. (And the limits or advantages each imposes.) It doesn't make any difference which platform one chooses or uses. The output is based on the user, not the computer.

I've said over and over about Macs vs PC *->* _*It doesn't matter*_ *<-*. They both have their benefits and they both suffer from similar problems. If a user loves one over the other, then they will use what they love.

"Professionals" use what they know, their employees know and what makes them money. The very successful pro studio here in town where I live uses PCs for their editing and selling and no one knows the difference or cares as long as their $2000+ photo packages are beautiful and ready on time.


----------



## LesC (Dec 2, 2014)

I'm sure the Mac vs PC debate is much like the Canon vs Nikon argument ie a matter of personal choice. I prefer PCs for the same reason I have an Android phone - easier to customise to your own liking. I do think Macs seem rather over-priced compared to their PC equivalents though?

As to OS, surely no reason not to go with Windows 7 & skip 8 if you want - Windows 10 is due out next year I believe.

A couple of questions I'm interested in too as I'm looking to upgrade my PC soon: 



Is 32GB of RAM always going to be enough, as some motherboards have 'only' 4 slots (so 'only' 32GB capacity)


If you have two monitors & want to calibrate both, is it necessary to have two separate graphics cards?


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 2, 2014)

LesC said:


> I'm sure the Mac vs PC debate is much like the Canon vs Nikon argument ie a matter of personal choice. I prefer PCs for the same reason I have an Android phone - easier to customise to your own liking. I do think Macs seem rather over-priced compared to their PC equivalents though?
> 
> As to OS, surely no reason not to go with Windows 7 & skip 8 if you want - Windows 10 is due out next year I believe.
> 
> ...



Android vs Apple phones is a good analogy except the difference is even more pronounced because of the ecosystems. Android is open. Apple is closed, tightly controlled and intentionally limited by Apple to protect their revenue coming from both high margin hardware (iPhones, iPads) and forced App Store or iTunes Store purchasing.

The amount of RAM in a system, Mac or PC, is controlled/limited by the chipset technology. It used to be limited by the 32 bit OS but that's no longer an issue. Now it's simply the design of the chipset. For instance, Server chipsets and motherboards can have 16 RAM slots or more to support more total RAM.

As for graphics cards and displays, yes you can have multiple displays attached to one video card with no problems. The calibration would be per display because the calibration is display driven from a physical calibration sensor attached to the panel with the calibration software using the sensor input to tune the graphics card to make the adjustments digitally.


----------



## LDS (Dec 2, 2014)

LesC said:


> Is 32GB of RAM always going to be enough, as some motherboards have 'only' 4 slots (so 'only' 32GB capacity)



Who knows? For a while, sure, until all we have 100Mpx cameras with 64 bit color depth ;D



LesC said:


> If you have two monitors & want to calibrate both, is it necessary to have two separate graphics cards?



No, but depends on the graphic card - a single card needs to support separate LUTs for each output. AFAIK if the monitor offers its own hardware LUT this is not necessary.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Dec 2, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> c.d.embrey said:
> 
> 
> > Most *professional retouchers* (people who do nothing but retouching for a living) use Apple Macs of one sort or another ...
> ...



Poor reading comprehension is a BIG problem on the 'net. What I said is that *"Most professional retouchers"* use Macs. I live in SoCal and do not know of any commercial. advertising or editorial shooters who use *professional retouchers* who use Windows. The few commercial shooters I know, who do their own retouching, also use Macs. 

I don't know any retail photographers so I have no idea what they use. BTW do retail photographers even use *professional retouchers* ??? [/quote]



> "Professionals" use what they know, their employees know and what makes them money. The very successful pro studio here in town where I live uses PCs for their editing and selling and no one knows the difference or cares as long as their $2000+ photo packages are beautiful and ready on time.



A *"$2000+ photo packages"* sounds like retail photography. As I've said, I know no retail photographers.

Most advertising agencies and publications use Macs for their *creatives*. I'm sure that many (if not most) run their accounting depts. on Windows boxes.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 2, 2014)

*c.d.embrey*, I think we are splitting hairs. My point is that whatever you want to call them, _creatives_, _retail photographers_, _professional retouchers_, _art students_, _CanonRumors Members_, et al. use systems running Windows more than Apple supporters typically seem to admit. The old conventional wisdom that you have to have a Mac to do serious art or graphics work started to fade several years ago when Apple started using Intel CPUs and Chipsets and Windows released Windows 7 x64. Since then, the operating system that hosts creative software like Photoshop, Lightroom, Photo Mechanic, etc. is irrelevant because both OS's are solid and reliable and the creative software works the same regardless of the computer it is running on.

Creatives use _software_ to edit images, not operating systems. So the OS and the shiny box the software runs on is merely a personal preference. And it's great that we have so many folks out there that are proficient with editing images to look so good while having a choice of systems to run it on. Choice is good!


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 2, 2014)

Eldar,

I have been pondering the same thing, though I am only looking at Apple solutions. The obvious choice is the new Mac Pro but the truth is I think they are overkill for photography and they are unnecessarily expensive when you add in the required storage etc. This may or may not be important to you.

In the mean time my mind has been wandering to an old Mac Pro 12 core, I like that it is self contained, fully upgradeable with USB 3, FW800 and multiple Ethernet connections, as well as up to 7 internal HDD's along with reasonably priced RAM up to 128GB. It can't do Thunderbolt but with the interface options it does have I don't see that as an issue for a specialised photo computer running two screens. There are several companies that will sell you one with 3.46GHz processors with warranties too.

I'd like to know if anybody can point out any glaring issues I am missing by thinking like this, and again, I am not interested in PC or Hackintosh solutions.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Dec 2, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> *c.d.embrey*, I think we are splitting hairs. My point is that whatever you want to call them, _creatives_, _retail photographers_, _professional retouchers_, _art students_, _CanonRumors Members_, et al. use systems running Windows more than Apple supporters typically seem to admit. The old conventional wisdom that you have to have a Mac to do serious art or graphics work started to fade several years ago when Apple started using Intel CPUs and Chipsets and Windows released Windows 7 x64. Since then, the operating system that hosts creative software like Photoshop, Lightroom, Photo Mechanic, etc. is irrelevant because both OS's are solid and reliable and the creative software works the same regardless of the computer it is running on.
> 
> Creatives use _software_ to edit images, not operating systems. So the OS and the shiny box the software runs on is merely a personal preference. And it's great that we have so many folks out there that are proficient with editing images to look so good while having a choice of systems to run it on. Choice is good!



As I said before, *poor reading comprehension* is a BIG problem on the 'net. *NO WHERE have I said that Macs are better.* I've just told you about my experience in SoCal dealing with *professional retouchers* in my small part of the commercial photo business. And, sorry to say, NONE use Windows. This is just a fact of life, and there is nothing I can do force them switch to *RustyTheGeek*'s favorite OS 

I have *no dog in this fight*, I do NO retouching and own NO Adobe products. If my freelance *professional retoucher* were to switch to a Windows box, and Abandon All Abobe Products. I'd still use her. *But I won't lie and tell you see has switched to Windows, when she hasn't*.

BTW if I were King of the World, *Lunux* would be the only legal operating system  But I'm NOT King of the World, so fell free to use whatever OS makes you happy


----------



## R1-7D (Dec 3, 2014)

GraFax said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar,
> ...



I am using an Inateck KT4004 PCIE USB3 card for my 2010 5,1 Mac Pro and it works beautifully with not too many hassles. Only thing is it ejects if the computer goes to sleep, which I don't let mine do anyways.

Here's the link if you want to breathe new life into you Mac Pro: http://www.inateck.com/inateck-kt4004-4-port-usb-3-0-pci-e-express-card-without-power-connection/


----------



## tpatana (Dec 3, 2014)

Not sure why many people are recommending such medium level systems when OP said no money limit.

My current PC:
-i7-2600K
-16GB
-Dell 30 IPS
-500GB SSD for temporary photo storage (editing phase)
-128GB SSD for Boot/OS
-3TB internal drives for various crap
-4x3TB external drives for long term storage (after edit done), each photo goes to 2 drives

When running PS CC and LR, with plenty of stuff on the layers, the PC starts complaining about memory and asks if it's ok to start shutting down services. So for heavy use, I'd say go minimum 32GB (4x8GB) or 64GB if you have the money and 8 slots on the MB.

So I'd say above list, with updated CPU (4xxx/5xxx series) and 32GB+ memory.


----------



## tpatana (Dec 3, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> As for graphics cards and displays, yes you can have multiple displays attached to one video card with no problems. The calibration would be per display because the calibration is display driven from a physical calibration sensor attached to the panel with the calibration software using the sensor input to tune the graphics card to make the adjustments digitally.



I have Spyder3Pro, and if I calibrate second monitor, the first one will change too. If I calibrate the first again, the second one will change. So some reason I cannot calibrate both, but it'll apply the latest calibration for both monitors. Running from same GPU card. I was reading somewhere that 2 cards are required. I didn't bother, so I just calibrated the main monitor, and anything on colors I use on that.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 3, 2014)

c.d.embrey said:


> RustyTheGeek said:
> 
> 
> > *c.d.embrey*, I think we are splitting hairs. My point is that whatever you want to call them, _creatives_, _retail photographers_, _professional retouchers_, _art students_, _CanonRumors Members_, et al. use systems running Windows more than Apple supporters typically seem to admit. The old conventional wisdom that you have to have a Mac to do serious art or graphics work started to fade several years ago when Apple started using Intel CPUs and Chipsets and Windows released Windows 7 x64. Since then, the operating system that hosts creative software like Photoshop, Lightroom, Photo Mechanic, etc. is irrelevant because both OS's are solid and reliable and the creative software works the same regardless of the computer it is running on.
> ...



*Mr. Embry*, I gotta say, you're cracking me up.  I agree, everyone must be on the lookout for poor reading comprehension. Please do me a favor and scan my posts to see where it is that I may have mentioned that you were a Mac supporter or that you should lie about anyone using Macs switching to Windows.

This thread's intent is to help advise someone on what kind of system to use for Photo editing. All I've said is that it doesn't matter which host OS is used anymore for graphics work. I'm not trying to force anyone to use a favorite OS. Folks just need to be aware that an expensive Mac isn't required to have a capable computer to do graphics and art type work. At one time this was the case but for quite a while now the field has been pretty equal. Many creative types still use and prefer Macs. If a Mac is the user's preference, that's great! But again, I'll say that regardless of what system the OP chooses, the _software_ they run on it will likely be the same.

And if the OP already has experience with Macs or already owns software for a Mac, the Mac should probably be a strong contender for the upgrade.

If you don't mind me asking, if you don't own Adobe products or do any photo editing... why are we having this discussion about poor reading comprehension discussing that very subject?


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 3, 2014)

GraFax said:


> R1-7D said:
> 
> 
> > I am using an Inateck KT4004 PCIE USB3 card for my 2010 5,1 Mac Pro and it works beautifully with not too many hassles. Only thing is it ejects if the computer goes to sleep, which I don't let mine do anyways.
> ...



It has been my experience for several years that USB 3.0 can be very strange and buggy. Rarely before USB 3.0 have I seen the astounding number of firmware updates for a USB controller chipset or the number of driver revisions released. It's mind boggling! When USB 3.0 works, it's fast and nice. When it doesn't, it's horrid.

My point is that if you have problems (PC or Mac) with a USB 3 expansion card, try a another one with a different chipset. Read the reviews before you buy it to start with. Make sure the firmware and drivers are fully up to date from the expansion card vendor but also the chipset maker. Some vendors are pretty far behind on their driver updates. Good luck!


----------



## LDS (Dec 3, 2014)

tpatana said:


> I have Spyder3Pro, and if I calibrate second monitor, the first one will change too.



Color profiles data are loaded into device "tables" called "LUT", which are used to map the input colors to the output ones. If more than one monitor needs to be "calibrated", each one needs its separate LUT, because even if the same brand/model, there could be differences, even more so if different brand/models.
AFAIK, unless the monitor has its own internal hardware calibration capabilities, and thereby its own internal LUT (loaded with the profile created by the monitor calibration tool/software), the video card LUT(s) are used.
Although many cards comes with more than one video connector, not all video cards are able to manage separate LUTs for *each* display, and just use a single one.
Unless they can, it's impossible to calibrate and profile more than one monitor with a single card. Also, the software used to load profiles must be able to load the correct profile in the correct LUT.
It looks that Apple designs its models with cards able to manage "per display" LUTs, while on Windows PC depends on what video card is used - not every card can, and that's another thing to be aware of when selecting a video card if multiple display are being used.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 3, 2014)

LUTs are only part of the profile process. Color Profiles are not LUTs but simple rely on LUTs to function. To explain the whole process can get a bit complicated. Suffice to say that there are both graphics and video versions of color profiles. Graphics color profiles have the goal of synchronizing what you see on the display with what you see on printed output. Color profiles exist for everything in the chain, monitor (display), graphics card, OS, software and printer driver. And don't forget the color profiles in the camera. Some of the profiles are fixed, others can be tuned. Fine tuning can be achieved using a color profile sensor device as mentioned previously. If one is serious about the accuracy of the print, a larger investment can be made to create custom printer profiles using a spectrophotometer to test the colors of the printed output. It's a different device than the one you use on the monitor because monitors are backlit illuminated transmissive panels where paper is a reflective color source.

With printed output, many things influence the color, most of them are after the computer. Printer hardware, ink formulation and type, paper color and type and the color of the light in the viewing area.

Those who work in the commercial graphic arts, esp those who are involved in printing can probably comment on this far better than I can. I haven't done it for a long time and the technology is much better now. But color matching has been a major challenge and goal for decades even before computers.

Here are some links for general info/explanations of the computer part of it...

http://www.optirep.net/lut-profile/
http://www.dpbestflow.org/color/color-management-overview#cmyk
http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/How_To_Get_My_Monitor_To_Match_My_Printer

If you go down the road of color matching, you are in for a wild ride. Personally, unless the printing is going to make or break you, I would settle for simply calibrating your monitors and leave it at that.

Also, how do you have you monitors situated in the room? It's important that any light sources like windows are in front, not behind you. Light reflections create irritating glare and reflections on the screen not to mention washing out colors. (This is why I hate glossy screens. Most true serious graphics monitors are matte, not glossy, to reduce glare and reflections.) Make sure your editing area is not too bright and you aren't fighting light bouncing off your monitor in your eyes. Also, keep the monitor at the correct height to prevent neck and back strain.


----------



## Berowne (Dec 3, 2014)

My current PC is: 
* Gigabyte Board 
* AMD 8-core
* 16 GB RAM
* 2x2 TB HD 
* AMD Graphic-Card with 1 GB RAM 
* power pack some 600 Watt. 
* Windows 7, 64 bit Home Premium. 
* Adobe Lightroom. 

This is a small Customer-System, some 1-2 y old. Price clearly less than 1000€. Build up by my own, doing so since about 15 years. It is enough for LR, I do not need more. 

If you want to have the possibility to handle very large PS-Files you need three things: RAM, more RAM and even more RAM. And 16 GB RAM is not enough. This means, that you must have a OS, that is capable to adress more than 16GB RAM (Windows 8 64 bit or Wondows 7 64 bit Enterprise) and a Mainboard with 8 RAM-slots. The limiting factor is the price of the RAM. 64GB RAM = 8x8GB will cost about 500€. Then you have to buy for instance a "Asus Rampage V Extreme Mainboard So. 2011-3" price ca. 450€. This runs with a Intel i7 2011-3. Price 400€ at least. In the End this will become a expensive PC. 

Do your realy need this? I mean realy realy. 

Greetings Andy


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 3, 2014)

Berowne said:


> This means, that you must have a OS, that is capable to adress more than 16GB RAM (Windows 8 64 bit or Wondows 7 64 bit Enterprise) and a Mainboard with 8 RAM-slots. Greetings Andy



You have a nice system there *Andy*. However, the Enterprise version isn't necc for the RAM addressing, just 64 bit. In fact, most consumers can't get the Enterprise version. The Enterprise version of Windows is just the consumer Ultimate version but licensed for enterprise. All versions of Windows work the same for home users. Unless they need domain support, Home Premium is fine. I prefer Pro because it does have better user tools and remote desktop support but otherwise, it doesn't matter. I'm guessing that you might be an Action Pack subscriber if you're using Enterprise...


----------



## c.d.embrey (Dec 3, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> c.d.embrey said:
> 
> 
> > Most *professional retouchers* (people who do nothing but retouching for a living) use Apple Macs of one sort or another. The freelance retoucher/digital artist I use has an iMac. Another one I know, who works for a commercial photographer, uses a Mac Pro. Eizo monitors are common, but the freelancer I use works with the iMac's built-in, and I've never had a client or magazine complain.
> ...



*Mr Geek*, Lets start again from your original post.

*Once again! Poor reading comprehension!* My statement is analogous to saying that *"All the carpenters that I KNOW (or know of) drive Ford trucks."* It makes no value judgement about carpenters, based on the make of truck they drive. It says nothing about who makes the best truck, nor does it make disparaging remarks about Chevrolet, Dodge or Toyota trucks.

All the disparaging remarks have been made by you. And yes, you do go on-and-on  Have a nice day.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 3, 2014)

c.d.embrey said:


> RustyTheGeek said:
> 
> 
> > c.d.embrey said:
> ...



Honestly, I'm just trying to help the OP. I've not tried to be disparaging. I simply used the truck analogy to make a point. I didn't expect it to be over analyzed and I wasn't trying to offend. I also haven't commented repeatedly on reading comprehension or other unrelated or unhelpful points. Let's please just shake hands and let it go now.

And yes, I do tend to go on-and-on in an attempt to be thorough. Sometimes to a fault. Have a good day.


----------



## Berowne (Dec 3, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> Berowne said:
> 
> 
> > This means, that you must have a OS, that is capable to adress more than 16GB RAM (Windows 8 64 bit or Wondows 7 64 bit Enterprise) and a Mainboard with 8 RAM-slots. Greetings Andy
> ...



Rusty, the system I use is the one I explained here "My current PC is:" My argument was, *if* you want to handle big PS files you should have as much RAM as you can get with at this time available (and affordable) consumer-technology. This is a 2011-3 system with 64 GB RAM. But you are right. Windows 7 64 bit Professional is just the right Version, not Enterprise. 

Greetings Andy


----------



## chas1113 (Dec 3, 2014)

Eldar said:


> I am about to get a new platform for my image processing. I only do stills and I almost exclusively use Photoshop CC, primarily Lightroom. But I also do some stiching and focus stacking, with the help of various other software. My main platform today is 3 year old iMac 27”, with a 27” Eizo self-calibrating monitor added. In addition I use a 2 year old 15” MacBook pro, with Retina screen, when I travel. Both platforms are a bit short on RAM and I do not like the shiny iMac screen.
> 
> I know many of you know a lot more than me on the latest and greatest, so my question to you is:
> 
> If you could choose freely, what processing platform for still images would you choose?




Eldar:

Go with what you know. You sound like a Mac guy.

If it were me, I'd go with a new 5K 27" iMac, ram it out, and be done with it. If you don't like the shiny screen, configure a Macbook Pro with the antiglare screen (that's the 15"). I have an old 17" Macbook Pro with the antiglare screen — a quad core i7 with 8 gigs of ram that I port the video to a Cinema Display when I'm home and it's great for working on images. It's a bear to travel with, tho. I got it refurbed for $1100 about a year ago. For travel, I have my trusty 13" MBP which I've rammed out to 8 gigs.

—chas


----------



## Eldar (Dec 3, 2014)

I thought I would get a couple of responses to this thread, but ... it certainly gave a bit more. Thanks for all the advice. I´m not sure I am closer to the right decision, since there are a ton of good reasoning, pointing in different directions, but I have more info to base my decision on. On a daily basis I work in both Windows and Mac environments and I don´t have a real preference, but imaging has been done on Macs for the last few years. I have no problem moving to a Windows platform though. But I´m a bit reluctant to start building my own system, even though I used to be a hardware engineer, with quite a bit of software experience. I simply don´t have the patience to be responsible to fix problems when they occur (they always do ...).

I was (maybe) expecting a bit more focus on graphic cards and displays though. Personally I think color depth and accuracy is key to good image processing. So any additional advice on that part would be good.

Whether 4k or even 5k resolution is required is a bit more uncertain to me, even though 32" 4k sounds tempting. The 27" Eizo has served me well and I would clearly be able to live happily with that for a while longer.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 4, 2014)

GraFax said:


> Berowne said:
> 
> 
> > RustyTheGeek said:
> ...



Depending on intended use, 16GB is likely fine. I put in 32GB but I bought that RAM about 3 years ago when it wasn't as expensive. RAM is a bit high right now.


----------



## Random Orbits (Dec 4, 2014)

GraFax said:


> Do you guys really feel like you need all of that RAM. I have 16 GB and I rarely ever have to hit a scratch disk and my files can be pretty big. My PS efficiency score rarely drops below 100% and my scan files are far bigger than standard DSLR files. The more ram thing was definitely true when RAM sticks were measure in MB's but 64GB sounds like an awful lot. Just curious .



You will hit it much sooner if you run virtual machines on it.


----------



## tpatana (Dec 4, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> GraFax said:
> 
> 
> > Berowne said:
> ...



My typical day (Win7):

Chrome with 40-80 tabs open (I use tabs instead of bookmarks), typically takes ~2GB of memory total.

When running LR + PS CC, bare minimum I'm hitting already total ~10GB consumption if I check the task manager.

When editing and opening photos, add layers and such, it's soon 12-14GB total, and around this point the Windows starts asking if it can shut down some programs to free up some memory.

So I'd definitely like to increase up to 32GB.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Dec 4, 2014)

I use a Macbookpro... 16gig Ram, 512GB SSD (4TB of external USB 3.0 storage). I use my SSD for editing pics then store them on external drives. I tend to turn off most other apps when editing...


----------



## pwp (Dec 4, 2014)

I'm completely platform agnostic with Macs & PC's. Wouldn't be without a Mac laptop, currently a Macbook Pro but like a number of posters on this thread, the real heavy lifting is done with a custom built PC. Just don't put Windows 8 on it. Windows 7 is a better bet for all sorts of reasons. My newest PC build is a $4000 belter, specced to easily handle busy projects in Premier Pro. For LR & PS work it just rocks, very very fast. The only way to match the performance I've got in a Mac would be a highly specced MacPro probably close to $10K. If you must have Mac, research a PC build that is optimised for Hackintosh. 

Being locked into one platform is kind of obsolete now with Photoshop CC licenses allowing a seat on either mac or PC.

-pw


----------



## LDS (Dec 4, 2014)

Eldar said:


> I was (maybe) expecting a bit more focus on graphic cards and displays though. Personally I think color depth and accuracy is key to good image processing. So any additional advice on that part would be good.



Graphic cards: if you can, avoid the "gaming" models. There are models for aimed at professional users (i.e. the nVidia Quadro). If you do just image processing and don't need high-end 3D features and high-end GPU performance, the "cheaper" models would do. Also, avoid on-board models, which are usually aimed at the lower-end general purpose market. If you use more than one monitor and those don't have hardware calibration, ensure the card can use differtent color profiles for each used output.

Display: 4K/5K display will become probably common in the next years, and they also usually have a wider gamut - which is good when it comes to image processing. I never used one already, I'm curious about sharpening using those pixel densities.
If you can, get one with more than sRGB coverage, look for one at least close to Adobe RGB. This is is especially important if you're going to print yourself - or prepare for printer output anyway, because of photo printer gamuts.
Look for a monitor designed for image processing, many models are more aimed at general use, consuming video content or gaming. The "de facto" standards are Eizo and NEC, but some other brands got close for semi-professional use. A model with hardware calibration will usually yeld better result than one without - they also could come with more calibration features, i.e. brightness uniformity, something a video card alone may not easily achieve.
About the monitor size, it's a matter of preference and space available - I prefer larger displays than many smaller ones for image processing (but other setups for different tasks...)

Just, you will also need a calibration tool to achieve good accuracy, naked eye calibration is not enough.
If you get a monitor with hardware calibration, check if it comes with its own tool, or if not, which one(s) it supports. Here too you can find some cheaper devices aimed at "semipro" users (and simpler to use), and more expensive ones for professional use (more complex, yet more powerful). Some can be used only for displays, other can also be used for printers - (and their software can also be used to create camera profiles, with a proper color target). Calibration should be performed once every month at least.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 4, 2014)

Eldar said:


> I was (maybe) expecting a bit more focus on graphic cards and displays though. Personally I think color depth and accuracy is key to good image processing. So any additional advice on that part would be good.



Some folks will disagree on this but for photo editing, the graphics card doesn't need to be high end. Photo editing doesn't require a lot of graphics processing. In fact, if the motherboard is new (made in the last year) and has an Intel 4000 series graphics chipset, you really don't even need a card at all unless you are doing multiple displays. If a card is needed for multiple displays, buy a decent entry level card that doesn't have a fan, just a large heatsink. These are quiet and more reliable.

Where your money needs to go is for the DISPLAY PANEL. It should be IPS and High Color Gamut. I think I remember seeing that you already have a good display you like? Then why change it? I have a DELL U2410 IPS panel and I still love it. And you can get a U2410 refurbished for around $200-$300 these days. As for 4K displays, meh. I would give 4K, 5K or whatever K another year to mature and see how they shake out. They are too new right now and expensive. Unless you like to be on the bleeding edge, then go for it.

Color Calibration is also a worthwhile investment. I have a HueyPro calibrator but there are several available. They will all get the job done, it just depends on how many other features you want with it. Here is recent review of several... http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2014/02/25/best-monitor-calibrator-for-photographers-6-top-models-tested-and-rated/

Let us know what you decide. Good luck!!


----------



## LDS (Dec 4, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> Some folks will disagree on this but for photo editing, the graphics card doesn't need to be high end. Photo editing doesn't require a lot of graphics processing. In fact, if the motherboard is new (made in the last year)



You forget that a professional video card is more than pure GPU power. It's also about other features like 10+ bit color support (otherwise your high-end monitor can be wasted, see http://www.imagescience.com.au/kb/questions/152/10+Bit+Output+Support), per monitor LUTs (if hw calibration is not available), better built components and drivers - which means more stable output. It is true you don't need the monstrous GPU 3D capabilities of some cards, but still you need a card designed with quality in mind - not volume pricing.

Always build a balanced system for the task you need - don't let a component becomes a bottleneck or cripple the system design


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 4, 2014)

LDS said:


> RustyTheGeek said:
> 
> 
> > Some folks will disagree on this but for photo editing, the graphics card doesn't need to be high end. Photo editing doesn't require a lot of graphics processing. In fact, if the motherboard is new (made in the last year)
> ...



*LDS*, thanks, you appear to be pretty sharp on this topic! And I like the link you provided. Good info! You are correct, the integrated Intel HD graphics will not support 10-Bit Color Output. But neither will most graphics adapters. What you referenced is on the extreme high end, esp for the monitor. If the OP wants to spend $2K-$3K on the monitor and then another $1K+ on a dedicated workstation level graphics adapter, then 10-Bit Color support will be within reach. But is that needed?

I totally agree about a balanced system and evening out performance by removing bottlenecks but I think trying to achieve 10-Bit Color Output is skewing the overall system pretty heavily toward the graphics side of the build, don't you think? And assuming 10-Bit was eventually achieved, what would the result look like? Would it be worth it compared to a good IPS High Color Gamut monitor properly calibrated on the Intel 4600 Graphics adapter?

If the OP wants to spend an extra thousand or two, I think there would be more value in investing in a good RAID volume, more external backup, extra RAM and plenty of SSD space and software products not already in place to add to productivity.


----------



## tolusina (Dec 4, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> ...... the integrated Intel HD graphics will not support 10-Bit Color Output. ......


What? What?
I thought DisplayPort was all about 10 bit color and DisplayPort is readily available with Intel on board graphics as is support for multiple monitors, the chosen processor must support on board graphics as well as the chipset on the board.
Please don't bust my bubble, at least not if it doesn't deserve it.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 4, 2014)

tolusina said:


> RustyTheGeek said:
> 
> 
> > ...... the integrated Intel HD graphics will not support 10-Bit Color Output. ......
> ...



DisplayPort is simply another digital connector. Similar to DVI and HDMI. The connector doesn't define the specs of the monitor or graphics card. It simply helps get the signal from one to the other. 

Keep in mind, we aren't talking about BBP (like 8, 16, 32 BBP), we are talking about Color _Channels_. Read the link that LDS provided, it explains it pretty well.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 4, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> Some folks will disagree on this but for photo editing, the graphics card doesn't need to be high end. Photo editing doesn't require a lot of graphics processing.


 
+1

The graphics card matters for video, but not for stills editing.

I have 16-24 GB of memory on my PC's, and have never had to worry about memory for editing. A typical still takes maybe 50 MB to open.


----------



## Berowne (Dec 4, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> RustyTheGeek said:
> 
> 
> > Some folks will disagree on this but for photo editing, the graphics card doesn't need to be high end. Photo editing doesn't require a lot of graphics processing.
> ...



But Eldar said, he is working with stitching and focus stacking. So his files will be pretty larger.


----------



## LDS (Dec 4, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> If the OP wants to spend $2K-$3K on the monitor and then another $1K+ on a dedicated workstation level graphics adapter, then 10-Bit Color support will be within reach. But is that needed?



Depends on what you want to achieve  RAW images have a far wider gamut then sRGB, and most printers as well. It all depends on what you do with your images, and the level of processing you want to achieve. An "entry level" nVidia Quadro card (i.e. the K420) costs less then $200, and still supports 10bit colors and other pro features (http://www.pny.com/nvidia_quadro_k420).



RustyTheGeek said:


> And assuming 10-Bit was eventually achieved, what would the result look like? Would it be worth it compared to a good IPS High Color Gamut monitor properly calibrated on the Intel 4600 Graphics adapter?



Depending on the image type, you can see differences. For example with B/W images (with just 8 bit, far less grays to choose from), or other images where there are subtle color variations. 
Again, don't be fooled by the stress which is put in raw 3D GPU capabilities in these days, video cards do a lot more than that, although it is what most people just look at. But there's much more under the hood of a good GPU.



RustyTheGeek said:


> If the OP wants to spend an extra thousand or two, I think there would be more value in investing in a good



Again, IMHO depends on what you need to achieve. Just, image processing starts with proper image quality  If you mate an high-quality monitor with a so-so graphic card, you can't achieve high quality results, believe me - the whole graphic "pipeline" needs to support the quality you need. 

To select/build a proper image processing system you need to start with defining what quality level you need, then build the system around it. IMHO investing in extremely fast and large SSD disks, or very large RAID arrays is less important than image quality. Sure, you need SSDs and RAID too - but you're not running a high frequency trading application or database. For an image processing workstation I wouldn't go to the extreme PCIe SSD disks - a 6Gb/s SATA will be probably fast enough - but I would start from a good pro graphic card and monitor.


----------



## tolusina (Dec 4, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> .....
> DisplayPort is simply another digital connector. Similar to DVI and HDMI. The connector doesn't define the specs of the monitor or graphics card. It simply helps get the signal from one to the other.
> 
> Keep in mind, we aren't talking about BBP (like 8, 16, 32 BBP), we are talking about Color _Channels_. Read the link that LDS provided, it explains it pretty well.


Thanks.
LDS' link was interesting enough, the link to AMD's test file has become a 404 though. Looked around a bit for that file or similar, found only dead links.
I did find a link to a 10bitdemo.exe test file from NEC, it stuck a pin in my balloon for sure.
http://www.necdisplay.com/faq/additional-topics/color-critical-displays/14
Expand the third question down, link to the test file is there.


----------



## Berowne (Dec 4, 2014)

LDS said:


> Again, IMHO depends on what you need to achieve. Just, image processing starts with proper image quality  If you mate an high-quality monitor with a so-so graphic card, you can't achieve high quality results, believe me - the whole graphic "pipeline" needs to support the quality you need.
> 
> To select/build a proper image processing system you need to start with defining what quality level you need, then build the system around it. IMHO investing in extremely fast and large SSD disks, or very large RAID arrays is less important than image quality. Sure, you need SSDs and RAID too - but you're not running a high frequency trading application or database. For an image processing workstation I wouldn't go to the extreme PCIe SSD disks - a 6Gb/s SATA will be probably fast enough - but I would start from a good pro graphic card and monitor.



I agree with you. If you use a simple graphic card everything is slow and ugly. My feeling says me, that the critical Question for the Graphic-card is: how large may the TIFFs become? I guess, that the size of the Video-RAM should be two-fold the size of the TIFF.  

Greetings Andy


----------



## helpful (Dec 4, 2014)

Eldar said:


> I am about to get a new platform for my image processing. I only do stills and I almost exclusively use Photoshop CC, primarily Lightroom. But I also do some stiching and focus stacking, with the help of various other software. My main platform today is 3 year old iMac 27”, with a 27” Eizo self-calibrating monitor added. In addition I use a 2 year old 15” MacBook pro, with Retina screen, when I travel. Both platforms are a bit short on RAM and I do not like the shiny iMac screen.
> 
> I know many of you know a lot more than me on the latest and greatest, so my question to you is:
> 
> If you could choose freely, what processing platform for still images would you choose?



I'm at the same place you are right now, planning a new platform.

My current platform is my starting point, so I will describe it. I have a Late 2013 Mac Pro 6-core with an 8-bay Synology DS1813+ connected to it. The ethernet is bonded together on the Mac Pro and on the Synology. (The Synology has four ports total, and the Mac has two.) There are eight 7200 rpm enterprise hard drives (10 times the reliability of regular consumers drives from Western Digital, Seagate, etc.) in the Synology.

I keep my originals on the Synology and all other data used when working in Lightroom, Photoshop, etc., is stored on and accessed from the Mac's built-i PCI-Express flash disk.

However, Mac OS X, even with Yosemite, is terrible when using network drives. It continues polling the drive even when nothing is accessing the drive. And several times each hour, the Mac OS X NAS driver reaches a state where it just crunches and crunches all the hard drives on the NAS, while getting no data out of them. The drives are doing zillions of IOPS, and a folder of files is just sitting there with a beach small cursor spinning and spinning. This never happens on Widows, even when I am accessing the same folder at the same time.

When this behavior is happening, it doesn't matter whether I do "ls" from the command line or whether I am using Finder. Either way, Mac OS X just causes the NAS to perform massive crunching of its hard drives, without actually producing any data. Something is terribly, terribly wrong with either the Synology support for Mac, or with Mac OS X. I suspect it is with Mac OS X, because this same problem happens regardless of whether I connect to the Synology with CIFS, AFP, or SMB protocols.

Another thing that really irritates me is that the bonded ethernet still transfers at a max of 125 MB/sec (usually closer to 110 MB). Mac OS X is still in the dark ages of not doing parallel transfer of data. What is even worse is Lightroom. Lightroom does not understand that it needs to load data ahead of time. No matter what, Lightroom never uses more than 10 MB/sec of bandwidth, and does not cache images in advance. I cannot use Lightroom whenever I have doing a crucial shoot when time is of essence. It takes about 15 minutes to do a job of quickly selecting images and checking sharpness that I need to do in 3 minutes. Lightroom is still in the dark ages as well of being limited by single-threaded real-time processor speed, rather than taking advantage of caching in advance or even just using graphics cards to process images. My dual D500 graphics cards are being absolutely ignored by Lightroom.

In theory, the above set up should be ideal, but it was just a waste of money due to Lightroom and Mac both being just plain stupid in their technical aspects (but good in their user interface, shortcuts, and overall convenience from efficiency).

So this brings me to the design considerations I am now taking into account for my new system:

* I have purchased dual Intel 730 480 GB SSDs that I am going to use in RAID 0. I would never consider the risk of RAID 0 with anything less than these enterprise-grade MLC SSDs.
* Overclocked Intel CPU to try to maximize Lightroom's speed until they eventually reach the 20th and 21st centuries and start using graphics cards, caching, and doing more than just the token use of multicore processing which is currently all that it does.
* The NAS works perfectly with Windows, so sadly, I'm going to be using a Windows system temporarily. Probably the beta version of Windows 10.
* Since all the photos will still be on the NAS, I will still be able to use the Unix command line to upload and manage images, a reason why I could absolutely never fully rely on Windows.

I hope this helps! If it wasn't for personal experience, I would never have realized that an amazing system like a Mac Pro would actually be so frustrating and slow to use with Lightroom. (And it's all Lightroom's fault, except for the poor NAS support of Mac OS X.)

Update:
For my dual monitor setup, I'm going with the
27" Dell P2715Q 4K UltraHD 3840x2160 IPS Monitor
and this one
http://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-31MU97-B-4k-ips-led-monitor
http://9to5mac.com/2014/10/28/lg-31-inch-digital-cinema-4k-monitor/


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 4, 2014)

Berowne said:


> LDS said:
> 
> 
> > Again, IMHO depends on what you need to achieve. Just, image processing starts with proper image quality  If you mate an high-quality monitor with a so-so graphic card, you can't achieve high quality results, believe me - the whole graphic "pipeline" needs to support the quality you need.
> ...



Keep in mind I'm not talking about the old slow onboard graphics chipsets from years ago. The recent Intel graphics is much improved.

I'm not against a dedicated graphics card, I just don't think it needs to cost more than $100 for most photography editing. The graphics drivers can be a big source of stability problems. I would suggest at least starting out with the Intel graphics with the latest drivers and then see if a dedicated graphics card makes a significant difference.

In my case, when I recently upgraded my Photo PC to a new ASUS motherboard 3 months ago, I removed the nVidia graphics card I was using and everything is fine running Intel Graphics 4600 with the DELL U2410 IPS monitor I have.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 4, 2014)

*helpful*, I understand your frustration. It seems like no one these days in the computer realm can get their collective act together. Everything has something to pull your hair about.

With regard to Lightroom taking forever, I get it. But if you want lightning fast image review/selection along with basic editing, try Photo Mechanic. You'll totally freak out at how fast it is. Then, after everything is sorted, import into Lightroom with what is left.


----------



## LDS (Dec 4, 2014)

Berowne said:


> I agree with you. If you use a simple graphic card everything is slow and ugly.



Today the problem for 2D bitmap manipulation is not speed, nor card memory sizes - it's quality. Most cards will shuffle pixel around quite easily, the differences comes in how they deal with processing applied on them and what is sent to the monitor(s). Here the hardware and driver quality matters.


----------



## lilmsmaggie (Dec 4, 2014)

+1 

It's important to keep in mind ones editing workflow but I think a decent and affordable dedicated GPU (less than $200) couldn't hurt. That dedicated GPU is going to offload graphics processing from the CPU.

Someone mentioned needing 8 DIMM slots on the mobo -- well, maybe -- if you're rendering video but for photo editing, 4 DIMM slots should be adequate: as long as the OS and the mobo can support the amount of RAM you're wanting to install. For example, I have a ASUS ROG Maximus V Gene with 4 DIMM slots and Intel i5 4690K CPU running Windows 7. 

I have 16 GB of RAM installed but the mobo can support 32 GB's of RAM. I also have an EVGA GeForce GTX with 1024 GB of memory and nVidia chipset. I haven't had the need to increase the amount of system RAM for my photo-editing needs. On the other hand, if your workflow means that you have (or need) multiple applications running, multiple images open and/or lots of layers in PS and huge TIFF files, etc., then you're system is gonna use up a lot of RAM. I believe someone mention that they had multiple tabs open -- well, that's gonna affect overall system performance too! 

But if your photo-editing doesn't require the use of layers, the onboard graphics on the latest Intel compatible boards should be just fine. As RustyTheGeek points out, the whole graphics and data pipelines needs to support what you're attempting to do. That includes any I/O between your drives and the CPU. With a fast CPU, the CPU will not be the limiting factor --with a slow SATA bus or slow drives, its more likely that the CPU will be waiting. 




RustyTheGeek said:


> Berowne said:
> 
> 
> > LDS said:
> ...


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 5, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Eldar,
> Same situation. My current laptop is about 2.5yrs old. It's not the best one for PP raw photos.
> 
> I've added this one in my BH account. Still searching for 30"plus monitor to go with it.
> ...



I've decided with custom build. Here is my spec:


----------



## DominoDude (Dec 5, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar,
> ...



From a quick glance of those spec's, that one should be able to crunch some numbers, Dylan!
It should be able to last a few years, without feeling like a snail pacing through glue. ;D


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 5, 2014)

Great! Most of that looks superb! You put together a nice system. Wish I could copy and paste the text. It would save a lot of time...

- The case is pretty close to what I have. I almost bought that one myself. I still prefer the Antec 300 v1...
- I've always been pretty particular about power supplies. Now I use *Corsair* power supplies for anything important.
- Why no Hard Drive? I would at least use one HD for internal backups and spare space in a crunch.

The motherboard is usually my toughest decision. What led you to that particular motherboard? (If you don't mind me asking?) I might go with something a little better/different on the motherboard. This is the one I put in my Photo PC (and then I got a Samsung M.2 SSD as well). Don't let the "Republic of Gamers" throw you off, it's a great board, even if it has the fancy lights...

ASUS MAXIMUS VII HERO LGA 1150 Intel Z97 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813132125&cm_re=asus_maximus-_-13-132-125-_-Product

You have put together a fine system. I hope you enjoy it and it runs fast, smooth and long!! 8)


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 5, 2014)

DominoDude said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



I know the feeling, since I'm still PP my RAW files through Core(TM) i5 1.7cpu, 6gb ram laptop :'(

I'm looking forward to jump on new PC, hoping it has enough juice to play with RAW. I just ordered this LG monitor: http://www.lg.com/us/commercial/lcd-computer-monitors/lg-27MB85Z-B

It was recommended by a friend(a pro wedding). He has total of 6 units in his studio. Happen to be I like LG brand.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 5, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> Great! Most of that looks superb! You put together a nice system. Wish I could copy and paste the text. It would save a lot of time...
> 
> - The case is pretty close to what I have. I almost bought that one myself. I still prefer the Antec 300 v1...
> - I've always been pretty particular about power supplies. Now I use *Corsair* power supplies for anything important.
> ...



I'm no expert with PC parts. I talked with couple friends(wedding pro) they all gave me quite similar specs. These guys have 8 pc stations with very close specs, except, must bigger SSD drives.

I already have 3 USB3 external HDs as backup. I use the external drives to store edited RAW and JPEG files. 

The SSD drive will be used as temporary storage in PC for PP. Once the editing is done, both raw & jpeg files will be exported to USB3 external HDs - permanent storage.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 5, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> RustyTheGeek said:
> 
> 
> > Great! Most of that looks superb! You put together a nice system. Wish I could copy and paste the text. It would save a lot of time...
> ...



No sweat! Putting together a PC from scratch is pretty personal. And as it evolves, you are the one that will take pride in it, curse it, love it and otherwise enjoy it when you're not wanting to throw it under a bus. You know, like all computers!


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 5, 2014)

BTW - Little Secret on Intel CPU Sales - Microcenter usually has killer prices but I think you have to buy them In-Store. If you have a MicroCenter nearby, buy the CPU there and save quite a bit!
http://www.microcenter.com/product/434176/Core_i7-4790K_40GHz_LGA_1150_Boxed_Processor


----------



## lilmsmaggie (Dec 5, 2014)

+1 for Micro Center -- I bought my CPU in-store in Santa Clara.

BTW -- Hella nice configuration Dylan777 8) 8)





RustyTheGeek said:


> BTW - Little Secret on Intel CPU Sales - Microcenter usually has killer prices but I think you have to buy them In-Store. If you have a MicroCenter nearby, buy the CPU there and save quite a bit!
> http://www.microcenter.com/product/434176/Core_i7-4790K_40GHz_LGA_1150_Boxed_Processor


----------



## tolusina (Dec 5, 2014)

lilmsmaggie said:


> .......+1 for Micro Center -- I bought my CPU in-store in Santa Clara......


Um, Maggie, I'm not seeing a Micro Center store listed in Santa Clara, is it closed now, or perhaps so brand new it's not listed on the Micro Center site?

Or, perhaps you're thinking of Central Computers next door to the Cadillac dealer?
http://www.centralcomputers.com/misc/santaclara.jsp
I've built with components from Central when I lived i the Monterey Bay area, my most recent build came from Micro Center in Michigan. I've been pleased as possible doing business with both, I'm also too fond of Fry's when in California.
Just trying to clarify, get kudos credited to the proper place.


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Dec 10, 2014)

If you're happy with the iMac, familiar or proficient with OSX.x, like the quality of your monitor and have the available cash, I'd get the new MacPro coffeecan desktop processor. Your conversion time will be about ten
minutes, your learning curve next to nothing and the processing speed is enough to run a small country.
After Mac, you'll find either Win7 or Win8 will leave you frustrated. True, photoshop is about the same, but all
the windows stuff required to make it work is not.


----------



## user3977 (Dec 10, 2014)

maybe I'm missing something... what are y'all doing that needs this much power? i use a Mac mini i7 8gb ram and it works great. cost me about as much as the processer and mobo posted. i use a 7D and work with LR and CS6 open at same time. working on a psd file at 135mb with 4 or 5 open and i still have no noticeable slow spots.


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 12, 2014)

if your macbook pro still only has 8GB ram its easy to upgrade it to 16GB yourself


----------



## tcmatthews (Dec 12, 2014)

GraFax said:


> user3977 said:
> 
> 
> > maybe I'm missing something... what are y'all doing that needs this much power? i use a Mac mini i7 8gb ram and it works great. cost me about as much as the processer and mobo posted. i use a 7D and work with LR and CS6 open at same time. working on a psd file at 135mb with 4 or 5 open and i still have no noticeable slow spots.
> ...



Windows handles Ram much different than Linux or Mac OSX. It keeps separate kernel processes space for each of the threads. The processor has 8 threads. If you start up a browser in windows 7 on that computer it will say that it is using ~2.7 gigs of RAM. Mac OSX keeps a single memory space for the kernel. In piratical terms Windows OS is using 8 times the RAM of Mac OSX for a 8 thread system. Yosemite may have changed this resent releases of OSX seem to be using more RAM.

I have a very similar computer I built last year. It is the previous CPU Gen computer 16gb's of ram has proven to be more than enough. But I might drop in another 16gb's or RAM next year. I am thinking of buying a SATA card setting up a VM running Linux to act as a NAS/file server. I doubt that I would notice it slow down at all even without the extra 16gb's of RAM. 

To put things in perspective about cost. I have been building my desktops for a long time. I already had most of the components. It cost me less than a i7 Mac min.


----------



## tolusina (Dec 12, 2014)

GraFax said:


> Old thread but this just occurred to me. One the of the best things about editing on the Mac vs PC is that the OSX is RAW aware. OSX has an imbedded RAW converter that all applications can access. It even displays thumbnails of RAWs in folder windows and can open RAW using the imbedded image viewer. That's huge IMO if I want to search for a file without launching lightroom. ......


There's an old and stickied thread in the technical section regarding a downloadable Microsoft codec pack........
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=8503.0
I don't recall for sure if I had to install that pack on Windows 7, I think I probably did.

The file browser (Windows Explorer) can indeed show thumbnails of CR2 files if thumbnail view is selected.

The built in Image Viewer can also display CR2s, I just tried it and it appears to show the real RAW without in camera corrections as well as the in camera processed jpg (shot RAW + jpg).

Not all apps can access CR2s though, Paint couldn't, don't know what else can't.

No 7DII support yet.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 13, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar,
> ...



Arrived today. Love the speed


----------



## tolusina (Feb 27, 2015)

RustyTheGeek said:


> tolusina said:
> 
> 
> > RustyTheGeek said:
> ...


 
Resurrecting an old thread.........

@Rusty;

M.2 had escaped my radar until you brought it up in this thread.
So I then had a want but couldn't justify it as a need. 
Until, one of my Samsung 840 Pro drives, the boot drive with all apps, started causing random blue screens due to a write error. chkdsk was no help, I figured power cable, power supply, data cable, motherboard header and the drive itself were all possibilities.

Browsing Micro Center's site I came across a Plextor M6e Series 256GB PCI Express 2.0, googled some reviews, all were raves. A bit pricey around USD $1/GB, oh well.

Turns out to be an M.2 drive on a PCIe card. If one has an M.2 slot (I don't), the warranty voiding tape seal can be broken, the drive removed from the card and plugged into a proper M.2 slot.

Imaged the old C:\ with windows backup and created a repair DVD, minor fiddling and 20 minutes the PC was back up running fine from the Plextor.
Another minute or two re-assigning drive letters and the job was done.

Boy and howdy this thing is FAST. Boot time remains about 30 seconds from power switch to desktop with active mouse cursor, oh well.
But programs, everything now just snaps on screen, it's amazing. A day or two and I'll normalize to it, but right now, wow, wow.

Thanks so much for the heads up!


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Feb 27, 2015)

That's GREAT NEWS *tolusina*! (Well, sorta great. Sorry the Samsung drive died on you!)

It's always good to hear that a suggestion pays off for someone else. That's why I like this forum.

Can you return the Samsung drive? I use those drives as well, they are on my personal "approved" list along with Intel and the lower priced mushkin mSATA drives. Perhaps you could install the Samsung in another system, install the Samsung Magician software and perform a little diagnosis on it. Or not. But definitely see if you can get it replaced under warranty!

Lesson to be learned... no drive is immune to failure. SSDs from any brand, while fast and more reliable than standard spinning disk hard drives, can fail.


----------



## Zeidora (Feb 27, 2015)

Much of the PC talk is for people who want to fiddle with computers. If this is not your game, it is more or less a question of what one is more familiar with. 

With Macs, you get better hardware right out of the box. You don't need to wonder about it. Look at the 5K iMac, which has the better display technology. I looked up the SSD drives in my new soup-can MacPro, and it is amongst the top performers. Comes standard with EEC memory. The new MacPro also supports dual 4K displays out of the box. It's a bit like grocery shopping at Whole Foods, you don't need to read the fine print on the labels for everything. 

I also have a HP Z820 workstation to run Zeiss Zen Blue Microscopy suite. This is a Zeiss-branded, turnkey solution. However, for my PSD, QuarkXPress, ZereneStacker, HeliconFocus work, I prefer the Mac, because I know it inside out. Doing Zerene on the Z820 or on the MacPro 6-core is about the same. Most imaging/design software exists for Mac, unless you go very esoteric, because those areas are quite heavily slanted towards Macs. Doing heavy stacking (50-100 21 MP files) on a laptop is very much suboptimal; I don't even attempt it on my iBook.

I echo the utility of RAID1 arrays. On the MacPro, the SSD drive is just OS and scratch disk (see Adobe re no need for dedicated scratch disk with SSD drives), and a 6TB LaCie 2big (3TB in RAID1) as primary data disk through Thunderbolt. Access is faster than internal drives on my old MacPro Tower. Deep storage is on two different RAID1 arrays, in two 70 mile separated physical locations.

Displays is very much a personal preference, and has a lot to do with location. Some sort of calibration is a no-brainer; I use a Colormunki, but there are several pathways to go. 4K's are still too expensive, IMHO, but will be nice for book-layout in Quark (my dual 27" are a bit tight), and once the 5Dsr comes out. The cheap 4K displays are no good for photography, but the better ones are still >$2K a pop.


----------



## wsmith96 (Feb 27, 2015)

Hi Eldar. As others have pointed out, you may want to stick with Mac since you already have an investment with Apple. 

My set up is pretty basic. I used to build all of my systems, spending hours and dollars trying to create the fastest system possible, but now I've changed and would rather use the tools than tinker with getting them to work. 

I purchased a refurbished HP Z400 workstation and 2 x 24" Z2440w monitors. I run windows 7 on them and use adobe photoshop cs6, premiere elements, and lightroom. I've had this system since 2009 and it just now is starting to show its age. I highly recommend looking at a workstation class computer from your computer vendor of choice because they are built differently and they just run. I wouldn't expect it to show great performance stats like you see in the reviews (which tend to focus on gaming performance), but they are built to work rather than for entertainment and everyday activities and adobe provides optimizations for workstation products. To date, I've not had a crash or component failure. That's what I was looking for - something that would enable me to enjoy my photography and not be a distraction from that. 

Of course, YMMV and I'm not trying to discount any other compute solutions. Just conveying what works for me.

I will buy another HP workstation and would recommend you check them out. Do a search for HP Remarket workstation and you can find the refurb website for HP.

Regards and good luck.

* edit - you had asked about graphics cards in a later post. Sorry, I post responses at work sometimes and I don't have a lot of time to read each posting in a thread. I'm using a Quadro 2000 for my image editing. photoshop takes a little bit of an advantage of the Cuda cores, but Lightroom does not from my understanding of the specs list. I don't do any 3D work so the 2000 is a good choice for image editing without breaking the bank. I don't have anything 4k, so I'm no help there for a recommendation. I do know that HP also has dreamcolor displays that are 30 bit and you need a workstation graphics card to take advantage of that. Honestly, I don't think you will see that big of a difference if you go that route for just image editing.


----------



## Khalai (Feb 27, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



Get some big tower heatsink with two 120/140 fans on top of that 4790K (I have Noctua U12S with dual fan setup) and you can squeeze some more CPU power while maintaining cool temperatures, stability and thermal output 

I have mine OCed to 4.6GHz (I could go for 4.8GHz, but that means steep power and thermal draw). Full burn temperature is around 65°C and the cooler is quiet as a breeze (I'm silent PC freak - fanless PSU, low RPM Noctua fans, Fractal Define Case).

How about that W5100? Is it noisy? I've had V4800 until recently. Swapped it for GTX 960 card (with huge heatsink, fans won't start in idle, when temperature is under 50°C), though I lost 10bpp support (but LR doesn't seem to support 10bpp and doesn't use GPU either). But W5100 was on my wishlist too, I was just afraid of noise (V4800 was like jet fighter engine under full load, aftermarket heatsinks were not usable (mATX board, insufficient room in the case).


----------



## wsmith96 (Feb 28, 2015)

Great...now I've got G.A.S. for a new computer....

here's the link to HP's workstation line if you are interested.

http://www8.hp.com/us/en/campaigns/workstations/overview.html


----------



## gigabellone (Mar 2, 2015)

If you are torn between the flexibility of a self-built system and the convenience of using OS X, you can build a hackintosh: it's a self built pc with carefully selected parts that are proven to work under OS X. I have been using one since 2012, and its performance and reliability are top notch, while keeping prices ridiculously low. My configuration:
_CPU:_ Intel i5 3570k
_CPU cooler:_ CoolerMaster Hyper 212+
_Motherboard:_ Gigabyte z77-ds3h
_RAM:_ Corsair 8gb DDR3 1600mhz, 2 pieces (the motherboard supports 2 more, should i decide i need them)
_OS storage drive:_ Samsung 830 SSD 64gb
_Files storage drive:_ Seagate 1tb, 2 pieces, software raid 1
_Power Supply Unit:_ Corsair CX500
_Case:_ Corsair Carbide 300R

I got all this for a little more than 700 euro, and it can compete with today's Mac Pros. If you're not scared of fumbling a bit with the selection of components and the installation of the OS, getting a hackintosh will give you a powerful and yet cheap workstation, tailored to your needs. For example, if you use more than one high resolution monitor, you could add a cheap GeForce 730 (70 euro) to handle them.
If you're interested, you'll find all the informations you need at www.tonymacx86.com


----------

