# Computer suggestions?



## invisible (Mar 20, 2007)

I want to buy a new PC to use it almost exclusively for photography purposes. I am planning to migrate to RAW mode in the near future, so I will be dealing with huge TIFF files. I still don't have a graphics program, but I guess I will be using some version of Photoshop.

I'd really appreciate it if you guys could point me in the right direction.

What microprocessor? Intel or AMD? What speed? How about those dual-core chips? 
What graphics card?
RAM? Hard drive size?
Windows XP or Vista? If Vista, then Home or Home Premium?

I apologize if my questions show too much ignorance, but that's exactly why I am asking them.

Thanks much in advance.


----------



## Big Mike (Mar 20, 2007)

From the rumblings I've been hearing, I'd avoid Vista for a while.  There is an issue with some RAW/TIFF files and the Windows image software.

Anyone with a Mac will tell you to get a Mac...they certainly are nice (and stable) but they are expensive.

I'm no expert but it's obvious that more RAM is always better.  1GB is the minimum I'd suggest and 2GB is better etc.

RAW files and the associated Photoshop PDS/TIFF files can add up.  More storage memory is better.  There is the issue of all your eggs in one basket...you may not want to keep all your files on one huge hard drive, in case it crashes.  Two internal drives would be a good idea, also because Photoshop runs faster when it has a separate drive to use as a scratch disk.  You may also want to think about an external/portable drive as backup etc.

I'm sure there are thousands of members here who know more an computers than me...so let's hear from them.


----------



## Chicagophotoshop (Mar 20, 2007)

invisible said:


> I want to buy a new PC to use it almost exclusively for photography purposes. I am planning to migrate to RAW mode in the near future, so I will be dealing with huge TIFF files. I still don't have a graphics program, but I guess I will be using some version of Photoshop.
> 
> I'd really appreciate it if you guys could point me in the right direction.
> 
> ...



go with a dell.  they have a good warrenty and support.  

100% with the dual core.

graphics card?  you dont need a super duper good one but look to spend about $100.

ram-- no less then 1GB

Hard drive - go with 2 internal drives.  one drive thats around 80GB.  this will be your C drive with only your operating system and software programs. then have a second one that is 250GB or higher. 

I would even go as far as an extrnal backup.  the price on these have come down alot.  and its a great backup

as far as XP or vista.  its a toss up.  XP will give you less problems I guess. vista is just too new.

I work in IT so I would be happy to answer any questions you have


----------



## grafiks (Mar 20, 2007)

I assume it will not be a Mac...

XP Pro (I agree with the comments about Vista)
Minimum 2 Gigs of DDR2 RAM
I would start with 1, 250 or 300 Gig Internal SATA hard drive. Very easy, and most likely cheaper to add another one after the fact.
PCI Express Video card. Consider one with dual DVI output. I run two 22 inch monitors and it helps a whole lot when using Photoshop. 
Duo core processor (I always go Intel)


----------



## Chicagophotoshop (Mar 20, 2007)

grafiks said:


> PCI Express Video card. Consider one with dual DVI output.



good point.  two monitors is the way to go.  BIG ONES


----------



## invisible (Mar 20, 2007)

Thanks everybody for the answers. I am starting to get a clear idea of what I need to buy.



Chicagophotoshop said:


> as far as XP or vista.  its a toss up.  XP will give you less problems I guess. vista is just too new.



Let's say I buy XP, but in the future Vista fixes these RAW file glitches you guys are mentioning. Is it possible to upgrade from XP to Vista? Or you have to pay for the full version of Vista and toss the XP?

Also, any recommendations regarding Intel or AMD?

Thanks again to all.


----------



## grafiks (Mar 20, 2007)

invisible said:


> Thanks everybody for the answers. I am starting to get a clear idea of what I need to buy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
When you buy XP, you get a voucher for Vista, so no problem there.

I had already mentioned Intel.


----------



## Kellog (Mar 21, 2007)

It&#8217;s always fun getting a new computer but can be a daunting task and maybe can add a few points. Allot of it has to do with personal preferences, AMD vs. Intel chips or NVIDIA vs. ATI graphics cards. All these companies make good products.

Really how fast is good enough for you?

How much memory? I personally would recommend 2GB of memory, yes 1GB will work but working with large amount of data in applications like Photoshop can be a bit time consuming with only 1GB.

AMD or Intel? I think it&#8217;s a matter of personal choice, both make very good chips. I can also point out that faster quad cores are starting to hit the market during 07.

Which Graphic card? Someone already pointed out getting a PCI-E card since AGP days are pretty much over. (shame if your board doesn&#8217;t have a PCI-E slot.). Again there are plenty of good cards on the market but which cards really depends on what one wants to get out of it. Is it only photoshop and basic computer needs? Are you also a avid gamer with the need for the latest and greatest?

XP or Vista? Vista is not all bad but right now XP is the way to go if you want to get the most performance out of you operating system, applications and hardware. (I have left out the Intel based Macs since it seems you want to go the windows route but I recommend you look into them). Here is a link to a benchmark test between XP and Vista and you can see the &#8220;lack&#8221; of performance on many applications with XP.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/ 
Shame how Vista integrates DRM and how it actually shuts down hardware on your machine. 

I can also point out that even though you can upgrade XP to Vista later (for a lower price), I believe you will lose your XP license key. To some this might not be a big deal but many find it quite annoying. You should also look into how Vista treats it licensing which can be a pain.


----------



## fmw (Mar 21, 2007)

I use windows because I have to for business reasons.  If I were in your shoes, however, I would probably go with a Mac if you want to run Photoshop or Linux if you would be happy with Gimp which is absolutely free like the rest of the Linux software.  I don't have a Mac but I do have a Linux machine which is amazingly stable and reliable.

Be sure you have plenty of memory.  Miniumum 512 MB for XP or 1GB for Vista.  Bare minimum.

Personally, I do my editing on an HP 4300 workstation with XP, 512MB, a 400GB hard drive and a calibrated 19" LCD monitor.  I have no motivation to upgrade anything.  Everything works very quickly.


----------



## ZyxKor (Mar 21, 2007)

CPU any fast one will do, Dual core is a bonus. I like AMD better than intel but they isn't any difference when it comes to what the user sees. For RAM go with as much as you can get. That will help more than anything else. For HD's someone already said get a second one. I would get a SATA drive with 16meg cache minimum. if you get an internal drive put your windows swap file on the second drive, it will make your system faster for zero cost. Get a DVD/CD burner, they are cheap. Unless you are doing gaming/animation the video card doesn't matter, $100 or so will do you fine. 

Avoid Vista for now, it's too new and there are some issues with programs. That will change in time, it's just a fact of life for new OS's. 

Any good Dell home PC will do you well. I would investigate a MAC if I were you. You might find it suits what you want to do better.


----------



## Digital Matt (Mar 21, 2007)

If you are serious about digital imaging on a pc, don't get less than 2g of ram, and get min 2 hard drives, so that photoshop (and windows) can use the 2nd as a scratch disk.  At home I have a p4 2.8 HT, 2g of DDR ram, 160gb HD for the OS, and a 250 SATA for storage.  I'm about to add more storage.

At work I use a Dell p4 3ghz with 3g of DDR2 ram, and a 16tb server.  The extra 1 gig of ram makes a marked improvement.  Digital imaging hogs ram and cpu time.  If you want to work quickly and efficiently, you need a good computer.

You can save a considerable amount of money if you buy OEM parts and assemble your own computer.  My computer was built for $1200, while my work computer (before a recent ram upgrade, it had 1gig of ram) was about $2000.


----------



## HASHASHIN (Mar 21, 2007)

http://www.cyberpowerpc.com/system/ultra6000.asp?v=d

look at this set up....add at least another gig of ram... and maybe a second hard drive and set it up in raid...

add a good monitor and your all set... the video card that comes with it can easily handle two large monitors as well if you want to go that route....


----------



## shingfan (Mar 21, 2007)

i guess everyone has said it all.....but be reminded that.....if you are going to get a slow dual processor.....i would rather get a fast single core......a fast single core works faster than a slow dual core....dual core doesnt give you 2x faster speed.....dont be fooled by the ads.......and 2GB RAM is probably the way to go (but 2GB is probably your limit for general photography.....you cant really use anything over 2GB if you are not doing anything super professional....or do processing multiple images at the same time)......for HD....if you plan to work with RAW/TIFF....i strongly recommend get a 250+GB HD...and get two at least.....you can easily reach that capacity working with 100MB for each TIFF......get a nice monitor with calibrator and you're all set


----------



## RVsForFun (Mar 21, 2007)

No need whatsoever for a graphics card. Use on-board video from the motherboard. Graphic cards are for games. You don't need a high refresh rate or polygon calculation; photo editing displays one frame over and over. Spend your money on more RAM or a faster/bigger disk drive and you'll be a happier editor.


----------



## HASHASHIN (Mar 21, 2007)

my onboard video cant handle two screens


----------



## shingfan (Mar 21, 2007)

HASHASHIN said:


> my onboard video cant handle two screens


 
then spend 20-30 to get a dual output video card.....as mentioned.....you dont need anything fancy.....processing is all done by the processor and store in the RAM for efficency


----------



## grafiks (Mar 21, 2007)

In my opinion.  The processor, RAM and video card are the three most important components to pay attention to.  A wimpy video card can be a speed bottleneck.  How it displays colors is also important if your main goal is to use the PC for graphics.  You don't need to go way overboard, but you should spend at least $100, even if you don't plan on playing games on your PC.


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 21, 2007)

DON'T get cheap LCD. 
For editing you will be better off buying a used large CRT.


----------



## grafiks (Mar 21, 2007)

The_Traveler said:


> DON'T get cheap LCD.
> For editing you will be better off buying a used large CRT.


 
I totally agree with that.  Cheap LCDs are horrible.


----------



## Big Mike (Mar 21, 2007)

I think someone mentioned it, but monitor calibration is very important.  Look at the Colorvision Spyder or the Pantone Huey.


----------



## grafiks (Mar 21, 2007)

Big Mike said:


> I think someone mentioned it, but monitor calibration is very important. Look at the Colorvision Spyder or the Pantone Huey.


 
I was thinking about that when I was talking about a dual DVI video card.  I thought I would be all set with my Colorvision Spyder when I started running dual monitors.  I found out that the Spyder will not calibrate each monitor individually when using a dual output video card.  You actually have to run dual CARDS to calibrate each monitor.  It makes sense when you think about it, but was disappointing to find out.


----------



## RVsForFun (Mar 21, 2007)

You only need a video card if the on-board video won't produce the resolution you REALLY need. They're totally meant for gaming and refresh rates. Tell me - does your computer monitor flicker now? Unless you want dual-head cards, on-board video really won't make a difference for photo editing as speed relates to frame rates, not pushing a single screen image to the CRT.



grafiks said:


> In my opinion. The processor, RAM and video card are the three most important components to pay attention to. A wimpy video card can be a speed bottleneck. How it displays colors is also important if your main goal is to use the PC for graphics. You don't need to go way overboard, but you should spend at least $100, even if you don't plan on playing games on your PC.


----------



## HASHASHIN (Mar 21, 2007)

shingfan said:


> then spend 20-30 to get a dual output video card.....as mentioned.....you dont need anything fancy.....processing is all done by the processor and store in the RAM for efficency


no need..i do play games...and have two 7950 nvidia cards..i was just letting him know if he wants more then one monitor...hell need a vcard


----------



## Big Mike (Mar 21, 2007)

> I was thinking about that when I was talking about a dual DVI video card. I thought I would be all set with my Colorvision Spyder when I started running dual monitors. I found out that the Spyder will not calibrate each monitor individually when using a dual output video card. You actually have to run dual CARDS to calibrate each monitor. It makes sense when you think about it, but was disappointing to find out.


Which software package do you have?  I know that the cheapest one, Express, is only meant for one monitor...but the most expensive one will let you calibrate two monitors...I don't know if that includes two monitors on one card or not.


Here is a question, can you set up two monitors...one using the on-board video port and one using a video card?  Or would I need to get a duel port video card?


----------



## Digital Matt (Mar 21, 2007)

What does how the monitor is connected to the computer have to do with calibrating it?  I use a monaco optix xr, and I adjust the monitor via the controls on the front, to bring it within a calibrated range according to what the sensor is reading.  It has nothing to do with the video card.


----------



## grafiks (Mar 21, 2007)

RVsForFun said:


> You only need a video card if the on-board video won't produce the resolution you REALLY need. They're totally meant for gaming and refresh rates. Tell me - does your computer monitor flicker now? Unless you want dual-head cards, on-board video really won't make a difference for photo editing as speed relates to frame rates, not pushing a single screen image to the CRT.


 
Each has their own opinion.  I do understand about gaming and frame rates, but color and clarity are also important when dealing with graphics.  I've seen plenty of crappy onboard video.  Editing photos will most likely not be the ONLY thing the PC will be used for.


----------



## Big Mike (Mar 21, 2007)

> What does how the monitor is connected to the computer have to do with calibrating it? I use a monaco optix xr, and I adjust the monitor via the controls on the front, to bring it within a calibrated range according to what the sensor is reading. It has nothing to do with the video card.


The way my Spyder & Colorvision software works...it's completely automatic.  It takes the readings and creates a custom monitor profile...which is then loaded and used by all programs.

With yours, do you have to adjust the controls and visually match something?  That's the way Adobe Gamma works...and I could never get it be correct.


----------



## grafiks (Mar 21, 2007)

Big Mike said:


> Which software package do you have? I know that the cheapest one, Express, is only meant for one monitor...but the most expensive one will let you calibrate two monitors...I don't know if that includes two monitors on one card or not.
> 
> 
> Here is a question, can you set up two monitors...one using the on-board video port and one using a video card? Or would I need to get a duel port video card?


 
I am using the Spyder2Pro, and it clearly states that you can't calibrate two monitors individually with the same video card.  You must have two separate video cards.  However, you bring up a good point.  Using on-board video and a video card should work.  I just don't want to use on-board.

Digital Matt,

We were talking about dual monitors and using calibration hardware to calibrate them.  The calibration software created a profile but the profile is specific to one video card.  So running two monitors out of one card does not allow a calibration profile for each monitor.


----------



## Digital Matt (Mar 21, 2007)

grafiks said:


> I am using the Spyder2Pro, and it clearly states that you can't calibrate two monitors individually with the same video card.  You must have two separate video cards.  However, you bring up a good point.  Using on-board video and a video card should work.  I just don't want to use on-board.
> 
> Digital Matt,
> 
> We were talking about dual monitors and using calibration hardware to calibrate them.  The calibration software created a profile but the profile is specific to one video card.  So running two monitors out of one card does not allow a calibration profile for each monitor.



The profile that is created is specific to the monitor.  You shouldn't be making adjustments to your brightness and contrast via the video card, but rather the monitor.  I use a hardware calibration system too.  The sensor is hung in front of the monitor, and the software reads the monitor's colors and brightness range, and you adjust the monitor to make it fit within a set of specific standards.  The profile that is generated is for that monitor.  If you want to do a second monitor, you hang the sensor over the second monitor, and do the same thing, adjusting the settings on the second monitor to fall within the ranges as well.

Through your video card driver, you tell it which display should use which profile.


----------



## grafiks (Mar 21, 2007)

Digital Matt said:


> The profile that is created is specific to the monitor. You shouldn't be making adjustments to your brightness and contrast via the video card, but rather the monitor. I use a hardware calibration system too. The sensor is hung in front of the monitor, and the software reads the monitor's colors and brightness range, and you adjust the monitor to make it fit within a set of specific standards. The profile that is generated is for that monitor. If you want to do a second monitor, you hang the sensor over the second monitor, and do the same thing, adjusting the settings on the second monitor to fall within the ranges as well.
> 
> Through your video card driver, you tell it which display should use which profile.


 
Here is what Colorvision says:

*Can I use dual monitors on Windows with the new Spyder2PRO?*
_On Windows, It is necessary to use a separate video card for each monitor. Multi-head video cards (one card that drives multiple monitors) will not work because Windows will not allow you to assign a different profile to each monitor._

I have tried, and I can only assign one profile to both monitors.  So one monitor is perfectly calibrated and the other is "close".


----------



## Digital Matt (Mar 21, 2007)

My monitor at work here has a Radeon X300, and at home I also have a Radeon,  (7800 I think?), and I can easily set a profile for each monitor.  If I right click on my desktop and choose properties, then the settings tab, I get a window showing my dual monitor setup.  If I highlight my right monitor, and click advanced, there is a color management tab where I choose the default monitor profile.  I apply and click ok, and it brings me back to the screen showing the dual monitor layout.  I then highlight the left monitor, and repeat the previous steps, setting a different profile for the other monitor.

Prior to getting a Monaco XR, we used a Colorvision USB Spyder here at work, in the same fashion.

Perhaps other video cards do not allow this.  I can only speak for ATI and the models I use.  Perhaps the video card DOES matter.

There is really no need (for me at least) to have both monitors calibrated.  I only view images on one monitor.  The other is for photoshop pallets.


----------



## grafiks (Mar 21, 2007)

Digital Matt said:


> My monitor at work here has a Radeon X300, and at home I also have a Radeon, (7800 I think?), and I can easily set a profile for each monitor. If I right click on my desktop and choose properties, then the settings tab, I get a window showing my dual monitor setup. If I highlight my right monitor, and click advanced, there is a color management tab where I choose the default monitor profile. I apply and click ok, and it brings me back to the screen showing the dual monitor layout. I then highlight the left monitor, and repeat the previous steps, setting a different profile for the other monitor.
> 
> Prior to getting a Monaco XR, we used a Colorvision USB Spyder here at work, in the same fashion.
> 
> ...


 
You make a good point about not worrying about both monitors being calibrated. The one where I display my work is the one that is calibrated and the other one is where I keep most of my tools.

Hahahaha   I think *Invisible* got more information than he wanted....


----------



## Digital Matt (Mar 21, 2007)

Yes, he did get a bit more info than he wanted, but nonetheless, each component of the computer is an important one.


----------



## invisible (Mar 21, 2007)

grafiks said:


> Hahahaha   I think *Invisible* got more information than he wanted....



I got more information than I needed, but not necessarily more than I wanted!

Thanks everybody for all the help! Hopefully this thread will be useful for other users too.

By the way, last wek I bought what can be considered a "cheap" LCD monitor (CAD 279 + taxes). It's the Samsung SyncMaster 931BF (specifications and review here). I'm very happy with it.


----------



## grafiks (Mar 21, 2007)

invisible said:


> I got more information than I needed, but not necessarily more than I wanted!
> 
> Thanks everybody for all the help! Hopefully this thread will be useful for other users too.
> 
> By the way, last wek I bought what can be considered a "cheap" LCD monitor (CAD 279 + taxes). It's the Samsung SyncMaster 931BF (specifications and review here). I'm very happy with it.


 
LCDs are getting better all the time.  I waited until just recently to switch over from CRT.  I've been happy with mine.


----------



## invisible (Mar 28, 2007)

OK, it seems that I might end up using Photoshop Elements 5.0 instead of Photoshop full (it's too expensive for my pockets). I hope Elements will be enough, at least for a while.

Regarding the computer, I've just received a quote for this:
AMD 64      bit 3000+ cpu am2 socket
2GB      Corsair DDRII
Foxconn      Nvidia mainboard * MCP61VM2MA-RS2H* http://www.foxconnchannel.com/EN-US/Product/motherboard_detail.aspx?ID=en-gb0000217

320GB      SATA II 16MB cache Seagate (5 yr warranty)
EVGA Nvidia 7100GS DVI 128MB DDR2 video card
Windows      XP Pro (cd and license) + free upgrade coupon for Vista
There is also the alternative of choosing [FONT=&quot]a Dual Core AM2 X2 CPU 3800+ processoe (I'm not sure what the difference in performance would be, but it would cost me an additional CAD 75)[/FONT].

Thoughts?


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 28, 2007)

all i can say: memory memory memory

and a good screen that you calibrate if you want to work semiprofessionell.


----------



## invisible (Mar 28, 2007)

Alex_B said:


> all i can say: memory memory memory



 Hey, I'm multiplying my current memory by four!

By the way, does Photoshop Elements 5.0 handle Nikon's RAW (.NEF) files?


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 28, 2007)

invisible said:


> Hey, I'm multiplying my current memory by four!



2 GByte is fairly good for RAW files from todays cameras and most graphic applications. 

Stay away from Vista unless you are forced by your god or your wife, you would not want the OS manage and display your RAW files anyway, do you?


----------

