# Zack Arias, editing rig, thoughts?



## jamesbjenkins (Sep 30, 2012)

I recently was reading on Zack Arias' tumblr where he was answering a question about gear. I really dig his posts, but one thing he wrote really got stuck in my head. Here's a paraphrase: "your computer needs to be better than your camera. You're going to be spending a lot more time in front of your computer than your camera, so you need to get the very best computer you can possibly afford."

I moved to Mac in spring of 2010 with a entry level 13" MBP. Earlier this year, I upgraded the RAM to 8GB. I do all my editing on this rig. It's starting to show its age. My workflow involves LR4 and PS together, and with anything more than about 25-30 images, the computer really starts to bog down. It randomly locks up at least once a week.

I have a couple of grand ready to spend, and I had been trying to decide between picking up a D800 or a D3s. But, the more I think about it, the more I agree with Zack that I should get a spec'd out editing rig instead. Probably an iMac, since affording a Mac Pro AND a good editing monitor isn't realistic.

So, your turn: What do think about Zack Arias' statement about computers VS. cameras/gear? What's your ideal photography computer? Specs?


----------



## fjrabon (Sep 30, 2012)

depends on your particular work flow and how much editing is part of it, but for you, it certainly sounds like the computer is your bottleneck right now.


----------



## Overread (Sep 30, 2012)

I think is point is one that you should not take to the extreme of what he said and instead a statement that needs to remain in context and also in the spirit of what he said. Chances are for the average person looking to go pro they are looking at maybe a 5DMII or that area of pricing for a camera body - maybe a 1D. For a photographer you'll need at least 1K in a computer - another 0.5K in a monitor - the same again if not more in software for editing - a calibration machine and then that ignores investment in both storage and backup solutions. The prices will add up and you could certainly end up spending a good few thousand on a full IT suite for a professional photography setup and that suite could easily cost more than the camera itself. 

It might cost less than your camera lenses, lighting and camera support material - but it will still be a very significant cost to consider. It's also something people are apt to overlook. They'll focus on being a "Photographer" which means camera gear and they can overlook the budget for the IT suite to support that properly. This leaves them with problems - maybe a computer which runs the software a bit slower than ideal (slower = taking more time = costs for a business); maybe they end up without a proper storage setup so that they are constantly having to push for more storage space instead of having it free and to spare; similarly they might not have suitable backup for that and that means its a ticking time-bomb before something goes drastically wrong


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 30, 2012)

I can understand the statement for those who truly are pros (weddings, stock, NG).  But I can't see a MWAC with three 27" calibrated monitors, dual RAID arrays and 40TB of disk space sitting on her desk.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Sep 30, 2012)

Overread said:


> They'll focus on being a "Photographer" which means camera gear and they can overlook the budget for the IT suite to support that properly. This leaves them with problems - maybe a computer which runs the software a bit slower than ideal (slower = taking more time = costs for a business).



See, this is EXACTLY my problem. Since buying my first decent camera in February 2009 (Nikon D90 with a kits lens), I've accumulated about $15k worth of bodies, lenses, lighting, peripherals, etc. I've been so focused on acquiring the "right" gear so the tech side of things would get out of my way and just let me create whatever image I had in my mind regardless of conditions.

As fjrabon said, my computer has definitely become my bottleneck. I spend probably 5x more time in front of the computer than I would if I had a spec'd screamer of a editing rig. My computer easily costs me a couple of hours on a wedding.



480sparky said:


> I can understand the statement for those who  truly are pros (weddings, stock, NG).  But I can't see a MWAC with three  27" calibrated monitors, dual RAID arrays and 40TB of disk space  sitting on her desk.



So, therein lies my second question. In your opinion, what's the ideal rig for photography for someone with a ~$3000 budget that deals with large batches of images and several "RAM selfish" apps? I'm thinking an iMac with 3.4GHz i7, 32GB RAM, 256GB SSD, 1TB HDD plus the backup solution and a 24"-27" second monitor (still working on the details there) would do the trick for at least the next 2-3 years. Is that overkill? not enough? Am I missing something?


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 30, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> So, therein lies my second question. In your opinion, what's the ideal rig for photography for someone with a ~$3000 budget that deals with large batches of images and several "RAM selfish" apps? I'm thinking an iMac with 3.4GHz i7, 32GB RAM, 256GB SSD, 1TB HDD plus the backup solution and a 24"-27" second monitor (still working on the details there) would do the trick for at least the next 2-3 years. Is that overkill? not enough? Am I missing something?



I wouldn't consider the budget.... I would consider what you NEED.

For the casual shooter who just likes to actuate shutters as a hobby, $3k may be overkill.  For someone who pays their bills on a regular basis with a camera, $3k may be sorely lacking.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Sep 30, 2012)

480sparky said:


> I wouldn't consider the budget.... I would consider what you NEED.
> 
> For the casual shooter who just likes to actuate shutters as a hobby, $3k may be overkill.  For someone who pays their bills on a regular basis with a camera, $3k may be sorely lacking.



I agree. Here's where I'm at. I started my "business" in November 2009, but I didn't have an effing clue what I was doing running a business. It wasn't until this year that I started to get my ducks in a row. Right now, I'm trying to position everything to take the next step with the business. I've never spent a penny on marketing, never been to a bridal fair/show, etc. Every single client I've had has been a personal contact or a referral. Right now, my website and my computer are the liabilities. My photographic skills improve with every session. I'm working with a pro web dev as we speak, so the computer is the last part sorely lacking.

I NEED the ability to work through a set without my computer getting in my way. That's probably as simple as I can make it. I'm pretty comfortable with my backup solution right now (two separate 2TB external drives for weekly backups and real time cloud-based off-site backups). It's the rest of the equation that I'm trying to get feedback on.....


----------



## Overread (Sep 30, 2012)

I would say you could make a saving on the computer parts by not getting a second dedicated monitor and instead sinking your initial budget into ensuring that you've a rig which can run all the editing software you need it to as fast as is affordability possible. That removes your time bottle-neck significantly. 

From there I would look to local storage and backup storage  - you need enough local storage that you're able to work for a good period of time before you have to upgrade it; similarly you need to remember that any storage needs backup for 100% of the data; and that any further increase in storage is also budgeted for an increase in backup storage as well.

I would rate adding a second monitor lower than the rest since whilst it is an aid its not a direct feature everyone "needs". The average photographer can work very well with just a single screen; so I would far rather have a solid working setup with a good quality monitor than a setup which has two lower quality screens. By all means some specific situations might require a second screen in order to work properly; but I'm not aware of a photographer directly "needing" a second screen to be able to work. Thus I'd consider it something you can add down the line rather than something critical that you need up front.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 30, 2012)

Yeah, the bigger iMac models are probably going to be adequate for photo editing. I'm pretty surprised to hear about a Mac that locks up regularly; and once a week? zOMG, there;s got to be "some kinda' problem" with the computer or its software, or "something". As to the three-monitor setup...there's a TPF member here that has three, side-by-side, not too-big and not-too-small monitors on his desktop,and the setup seems to work quite well for Lightroom editing. We're not talking three, $2,000 monitors, but three, decent, Samsung flat-panels, identical models.

Again, a Mac that locks up "regularly" obviously has some problem(s) that make it a giant PITA; I can download normal takes of 7 to 15 gigabytes of 24 MP D3x files, and import them into lightroom and work on them without any hiccups or freezes, every day...and this is a very modest iMac with a 2.5 HGz Intel Core i5 (single, 4-core) processor and 4 gigs of DDR3 1333 MHz RAM and a stock 250 gig hard disk and a 3 terabyte WD external USB 2.0 storage/backup drive hooked up...and this was like an $1100 computer 13 months ago...in that time it has crashed maybe three times...seriously...I have no idea why your MBP is so quirky...

Anyway...I dunno...the iMac's and this new Thunderbolt port MINUS Firewire hookups....ehh, the loss of firewire ports is a big,big PITA, IMHO.I still have a LOT of firewire external stuff...I think it might be a better idea to buy a used or refurb *Mac Pro tower:* I bought a TOP of the line Mac G5 (tower) as a refurb 8 years ago...it is STILL running well...but it's pre-Intel, so it cannot run "the latest" software. But, for 8 years, it has been ROCK-solid, and it was like $2,399, as a refurb, and about $800 off "list", as equipped. Eight YEARS, for a pro Macintosh tower, used hard, and left on for days on end, 24/7. Truly been the best single piece of gear I've ever bought.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 30, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> .......... I'm pretty comfortable with my backup solution right now (two separate 2TB external drives for weekly backups and real time cloud-based off-site backups). .....



I've heard it said if your digital work doesn't exist in three distinct locations, it really doesn't exist.

I take that to mean if my files aren't located at three separate Post Office addresses, I run the risk of losing everything.


----------



## Mach0 (Sep 30, 2012)

I would spend the money in the computer as well. Like Derrell said, something might be wrong. I use a PC with about the same specs and barely any hiccups.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Sep 30, 2012)

get the computer because if you think yours is slow for a D90, think of what it would like with a D800... 12MB files up to 75ish? yeah right.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Sep 30, 2012)

Mach0 said:


> Like Derrell said, something might be wrong.



I'm concerned about that as well. I've done all the routine maintenance that I know how to do. I've verified and repaired the disc, the permissions, the PRAM, the power control module, etc. The hangups may very well have been Photoshop's fault though. Almost every time it locked up, I was running photoshop. Adobe released a patch with stability fixes and bug crashes for Photoshop CS6, and it hasn't happened since then. However, that's only been 2-3 days ago. We'll see.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Sep 30, 2012)

Derrel said:


> ehh, the loss of firewire ports is a big,big PITA, IMHO.I still have a LOT of firewire external stuff...I think it might be a better idea to buy a used or refurb *Mac Pro tower:* I bought a TOP of the line Mac G5 (tower) as a refurb 8 years ago...it is STILL running well...but it's pre-Intel, so it cannot run "the latest" software. But, for 8 years, it has been ROCK-solid, and it was like $2,399, as a refurb, and about $800 off "list", as equipped. Eight YEARS, for a pro Macintosh tower, used hard, and left on for days on end, 24/7. Truly been the best single piece of gear I've ever bought.



Well, the removal of FW800 is in the same boat as their refusal to support USB 3.0. They were sacrificed at the altar of Almighty Thunderbolt. It's all about their bull**** proprietary I/O methods. Apple just HAS to monetize every single element of the computer, even at the direct expense of customer convenience and satisfaction.

Thanks for the input, Derrel.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 30, 2012)

Yes...I could scream...my Exernal RAID box uses Firewire 800, or 1000 Base-T ethernet, or FW 400...It has all three hook-ups...and I have STACKS of Firewire 400 drives, and another big, FAST FW 800 external...but the danged iMac has...Thunderbolt...now ON BALANCE, I know Thunderbolt can, like, import three simultaneous streams of raw, uncompressed D800 video, without a hiccup..so it can move data like a mo-fo...but I don't have the "mo" for the "fo" now...


----------



## Buckster (Sep 30, 2012)

Surely there's a firewire to thunderbolt adapter?


----------



## TheBiles (Sep 30, 2012)

You can build an absolutely ridiculous computer for $1200 (sans monitor).  While it's incredibly important to have a good computer, you don't need to go out there and buy some $4000 Mac to edit your photos.  A nice monitor and an ass-load of RAM are the primary components that you REALLY need.  A speedy processor is always nice, but any modern processor that you get now is going to be able to easily handle Photoshop. GPU isn't really an issue unless you're doing some crazy 3D rendering or gaming.  You might want a SSD for your OS, but HDDs in a RAID configuration will be MUCH more cost-effective for your general storage purposes.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Sep 30, 2012)

Sw1tchFX said:


> get the computer because if you think yours is slow for a D90, think of what it would like with a D800... 12MB files up to 75ish? yeah right.



I have a D3 and my wife's D7000 now. And I've done a lot of research on the D800. If you run 12-bit RAW files and choose "compressed" instead of "lossless compressed", the files average about 43MB. But yes, the problem I have now would be severely exacerbated by the D800.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Sep 30, 2012)

TheBiles said:


> You can build an absolutely ridiculous computer for $1200 (sans monitor).  While it's incredibly important to have a good computer, you don't need to go out there and buy some $4000 Mac to edit your photos.  A nice monitor and an ass-load of RAM are the primary components that you REALLY need.  A speedy processor is always nice, but any modern processor that you get now is going to be able to easily handle Photoshop. GPU isn't really an issue unless you're doing some crazy 3D rendering or gaming.  You might want a SSD for your OS, but HDDs in a RAID configuration will be MUCH more cost-effective for your general storage purposes.



If you know where I can find "an absolutely ridiculous" Mac for $1200, let me know. I'll never own a PC again. I was a PC guy who made fun of Apple products until I started using them in college. Can't go back. On paper, PC and Mac are exactly the same, but the user interface and "all the small things" a PC really can't touch.


----------



## Tee (Sep 30, 2012)

James-

If I could offer a side thought: put at least one grand in the bank and start a "oh sheet, my (insert equipment) just broke!" fund.  Then put whatever you need towards the computer and date night with the wife.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Sep 30, 2012)

Tee said:


> James-
> 
> If I could offer a side thought: put at least one grand in the bank and start a "oh sheet, my (insert equipment) just broke!" fund.  Then put whatever you need towards the computer and date night with the wife.



Tee, we're on the same page. I built an "oh, crap" fund about a year ago. I don't count that towards anything else I'm trying to do.


----------



## fjrabon (Sep 30, 2012)

480sparky said:
			
		

> I can understand the statement for those who truly are pros (weddings, stock, NG).  But I can't see a MWAC with three 27" calibrated monitors, dual RAID arrays and 40TB of disk space sitting on her desk.



The quote was in the context of answering a "what gear do I need to go pro?" question.


----------



## unpopular (Sep 30, 2012)

My late 2009 macbook is running just fine, even with 2gb RAM, though it's a little starved in this area... Are you still on Lion? Mountain Lion has been running much more smoothly.

Also, do you have the dual graphics card? The "better performance" option takes a large load off the CPU. I think these later operating systems use a lot of OpenCL.


----------



## TheBiles (Sep 30, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> TheBiles said:
> 
> 
> > You can build an absolutely ridiculous computer for $1200 (sans monitor).  While it's incredibly important to have a good computer, you don't need to go out there and buy some $4000 Mac to edit your photos.  A nice monitor and an ass-load of RAM are the primary components that you REALLY need.  A speedy processor is always nice, but any modern processor that you get now is going to be able to easily handle Photoshop. GPU isn't really an issue unless you're doing some crazy 3D rendering or gaming.  You might want a SSD for your OS, but HDDs in a RAID configuration will be MUCH more cost-effective for your general storage purposes.
> ...



It's all user preference. Personally, I absolutely cannot stand OSX. I also save a ton of money building my own computer!


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Sep 30, 2012)

TheBiles said:
			
		

> It's all user preference. Personally, I absolutely cannot stand OSX. I also save a ton of money building my own computer!



Glad you're happy with Windows. I absolutely hate that BSOD factory. For me it was like sleeping on 200 thread count sheets and then switching to 600 thread count Egyptian cotton. On paper, they're both sheets, but the experience is completely different.

Now, perhaps I need to bridge the gap and build myself a hackintosh.


----------



## unpopular (Sep 30, 2012)

Hackintosh systems are for people who don't like Mac to begin with and then use their bug-ridden hacks to further their prejudice. OSX is very hardware optimized. Building a good hack isn't impossible, but it's going to be more trouble than it's possibly worth.


----------



## unpopular (Sep 30, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> it was like sleeping on 200 thread count sheets



And 150 of those threads are wasted. 

pun intended.


----------



## TheBiles (Oct 1, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> TheBiles said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Weird considering I've had about two BSODs in the last 5 years. Technology isn't for everyone!


----------



## unpopular (Oct 1, 2012)

two separate computers or one upgrade? I know PC's are cheap and all, but two years before starting to crap?

but if so:

Dude, you must have gotten a dell.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Oct 1, 2012)

unpopular said:
			
		

> Hackintosh systems are for people who don't like Mac to begin with and then use their bug-ridden hacks to further their prejudice. OSX is very hardware optimized. Building a good hack isn't impossible, but it's going to be more trouble than it's possibly worth.



Yeah, that part about hackintosh was total sarcasm. I'm not about to attempt some bastardized hybrid that will likely end up with more problems than either system.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Oct 1, 2012)

TheBiles said:
			
		

> Technology isn't for everyone!



Not sure if you're trying to be cute here. I've been surrounded by computers my whole life. I was toying with an old Turbo XT when I was 7. My dad taught me how to build out my first tower when I was 12. I was into hacking in high school  before I got a nice letter from the FBI telling me to stop, or else.

Technology is my third language. Why post if you're just going to be rude and unhelpful?


----------



## fjrabon (Oct 1, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> TheBiles said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's very typical of windows snobs (apple snobs are just as bad, but in a different way).  They sort of paint anybody who prefers a mac as illiterate technologically.  Which is of course absurd.  I use both macs and PCs, and I have built my own computer before too.  But I appreciate the integrated design of the Mac system.  As much as windows people want to believe it, Apple didn't become the most successful company in the history of the world through pure marketing gimmickry, they make great products that people ENJOY using, even past their pure utility.  My windows machines are viewed as sort of necessary evils because of the programs my company uses.  My macbook air is an absolute joy to use in its own right.  

Sure, a lot of people who aren't good with technology like macs, because they're easy to use.  But it's always kind of funny when windows people treat ease of use as an engineering flaw.  "LOL, technology isn't for you, since you want this easy to use, streamlined system instead of this clunky system with all these top shelf 'specs' that if you put many hours into, you can maybe make it work a little bit faster."  Apple has more or less showed we're in a post spec era, where how things work together is a lot more important to end users than the raw specifications.  

Zac's point, and it's a good one, is that macs just work.  I understand computers, I can build one, I can trouble shoot one.  But every minute I have to spend figuring out something that should 'just work' is a minute I'm not either editing photos, taking photos or discussing photos.  I'm a photographer.  If I wanted to be a computer engineer, I would have been a computer engineer.  

I'll never forget a conversation I once overheard between an engineer and a designer, it almost seemed like a farce.  THe engineer came up with this wildly convoluted way that you could do something, using this amalgamation of various workarounds.  The designer pointed out how ungodly complicated it was, and that users would never 'get it'.  The engineer responded with "well, if it works, that's no longer my problem if they're too stupid to get it".  

Now of course, this is going to descend into pure mac v. pc flame war, but I guess you've got most of the answers you were looking for by now anyway.


----------



## snowbear (Oct 1, 2012)

Apple v. PC is just a fan-boy thing; not really any different than Canon v. Nikon, Coke v. Pepsi, or Ford v. Chevy.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 1, 2012)

snowbear said:


> Apple v. PC is just a fan-boy thing; not really any different than Canon v. Nikon, Coke v. Pepsi, or Ford v. Chevy.



Well, duh...and we *&#8203;ALL know that* the winners are Mac,Nikon,Coke,and Ford.


----------



## snowbear (Oct 1, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Well, duh...and we *&#8203;ALL know that* the winners are Mac,Nikon,Coke,and Ford.


Three out of four - not bad!


----------



## Derrel (Oct 1, 2012)

The way I see Zack's article is a LOT like the way I see flash triggers...I bought two sets of Pocket Wizards...the original, expensive PW's, back in 2006, when there were not a lot of cheaper alternatives around, and before the veritable flood of cheap, Chinese-made triggers. I have had one misfire out of perhaps 10,000 frames...and that was because knucklehead here forgot to push the PW alllll the way into the hot shoe. DOAH!

Zack is suggesting that people just get a Mac...forget all the whinging and hemming and excuse-making from the kids from Camp Windoze, who know nothing about Macs...I see the SAME,exact thing WRT to the many,many people who buy cheap, POS, Chinese "poverty wizard" triggers that work....as long as you're close...as long as there's a good line of sight...as long as there's not too much RFI from nearby "anything", as long as...the tiny batteries work, and the ambient temp is above 55 degrees, and so on...they tell you how GREAT! their $69 Chinese hardware is "as long as you';re willing to ______________", and then give some excuse/limitation/stipulation/condition.

Just buy Pocket Wizards. Just buy a Mac. Just buy a Nikon.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Oct 1, 2012)

fjrabon said:
			
		

> But every minute I have to spend figuring out something that should 'just work' is a minute I'm not either editing photos, taking photos or discussing photos.  I'm a photographer.  If I wanted to be a computer engineer, I would have been a computer engineer.



This! I'm perfectly capable of using a PC. I just hate having to fiddle with crap. I want the damn thing to just get out of my way and let me focus on my pictures. Mac does that a lot better than PC. I think it really comes down to the multitouch gestures and the huge track pad. Switching back and forth between apps and desktops without making a second motion or mouse click is a total gamechanger. I don't think Windows machines will ever be able to replicate many of those elements as they're patented and proprietary.

Thanks for the thoughtful feedback.


----------



## Big Mike (Oct 1, 2012)

In terms of a pro photographer like Zach, sitting in front of the computer, a lot more than being behind the camera...
Some would call that a poor choice.  As the primary (maybe only) photographer for his company (not to mention; owner, CEO, etc.) his time should be worth at least $100/hour.  But how much is editing time worth?  He could probably pay someone $20-$25/hr to do that, leaving his time free to shoot more, run the business or just have more personal time.  

But ya, a nice computer is fun too.


----------



## fjrabon (Oct 1, 2012)

Big Mike said:


> In terms of a pro photographer like Zach, sitting in front of the computer, a lot more than being behind the camera...
> Some would call that a poor choice.  As the primary (maybe only) photographer for his company (not to mention; owner, CEO, etc.) his time should be worth at least $100/hour.  But how much is editing time worth?  He could probably pay someone $20-$25/hr to do that, leaving his time free to shoot more, run the business or just have more personal time.
> 
> But ya, a nice computer is fun too.



I've talked to him personally about this before.  He says he's tried it, but he's never happy with anybody editing his photos but him.  He shoots with editing in mind and edits with shooting in mind, he can't separate the two in his creative process.  He says he actually shoots differently when he's sending unedited images in to an editor, or even partially edited images that he knows an editor is going to edit further (which comprises the majority of his best paying work these days).

edit: and also, keep in mind that this is in the context of a 'how to get started as a pro' advice response.  Obviously even if you wanted to give up editing, just starting out, it's not feasible.

edit2: Also, I'm pretty sure Meg (his wife) is more the CEO and runs the business than Zack does.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 1, 2012)

I just bought a double Patterson developing tank off ebay only cost me £20


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Oct 1, 2012)

gsgary said:
			
		

> I just bought a double Patterson developing tank off ebay only cost me £20



???


----------



## gsgary (Oct 1, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:
			
		

> ???



No need for a fancy computer to scan negatives


----------



## unpopular (Oct 1, 2012)

Scan a 4x5 at 5k ppi and let me know how that works out on your non-fancy PC..... I have back in like 1998 on a Powermac.

It sucks.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 1, 2012)

My film scanner computer is a now-ancient Power Mac G4/450...it runs my ancient Minolta SCSI-interface film scanner...lol...the thing is from 1999...it's a MAC...it's STILL rock-solid.

Funny thing is, I payed around $3k for it back when it was the biggest,baddest, FASTEST computer on the planet...then, last summer, I found the same,exact model, loaded with software, from a former graphic designer...I payed her $35 for it, along with an 8-port USB hub, a 19 inch LaCie monitor, and a very nice LaCie external DVD burner/player...I could not pass it up!!! Unlike my now tits-up, ruined, Sony PC, my two "ancient" professional-level Mac towers are still working grrrreat. Still imminently capable as print servers, DVD burners, scanner stations, e-mail, accounting,slide-show serving, archiving,etc,etc. Most PC's of that age are now...useless POS boxes...


----------



## unpopular (Oct 1, 2012)

Is that the Minolta Multi Pro? Those scanners rock socks! My last scanner was an abandoned AP Leafscan 35, and I've spend MANY hours waiting on a Leafscan 45.

Gotta love a scanner that you actually set the aperture on. Like remove the cover and adjust it on the lens! You also could set the exposure in "millisec per line". They even had focus bellows!


----------



## gsgary (Oct 1, 2012)

unpopular said:
			
		

> Scan a 4x5 at 5k ppi and let me know how that works out on your non-fancy PC..... I have back in like 1998 on a Powermac.
> 
> It sucks.



Take about 4 minutes for MF


----------



## unpopular (Oct 1, 2012)

Yeah. To scan it. Then you have a 500MP file to wrastle.


----------



## amolitor (Oct 1, 2012)

I don't get the "shoot film and then scan it" thing AT ALL. There's probably some applications that make sense, and of course people are free to do whatever makes them happy, even crazy things. I shoot film, I shoot digital. I don't monkey around trying to cross the streams, though.


----------



## gsgary (Oct 1, 2012)

unpopular said:
			
		

> Yeah. To scan it. Then you have a 500MP file to wrastle.



When i say my computer is not fancy it could be to someone else


----------



## gsgary (Oct 1, 2012)

amolitor said:
			
		

> I don't get the "shoot film and then scan it" thing AT ALL. There's probably some applications that make sense, and of course people are free to do whatever makes them happy, even crazy things. I shoot film, I shoot digital. I don't monkey around trying to cross the streams, though.



I still print them in a darkroom, i only scan them for the internet and club competitions


----------



## unpopular (Oct 1, 2012)

amolitor said:


> I don't get the "shoot film and then scan it" thing AT ALL. There's probably some applications that make sense, and of course people are free to do whatever makes them happy, even crazy things. I shoot film, I shoot digital. I don't monkey around trying to cross the streams, though.



If you scan at a resolution higher than the median grain density, then it really doesn't much matter - at least not resolution-wise. If you print back onto a continuous tone media there isn't any objective difference. With modern inkjets having such huge dpi values, it probably doesn't matter much on inkjet either.


----------



## amolitor (Oct 1, 2012)

unpopular said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > I don't get the "shoot film and then scan it" thing AT ALL. There's probably some applications that make sense, and of course people are free to do whatever makes them happy, even crazy things. I shoot film, I shoot digital. I don't monkey around trying to cross the streams, though.
> ...



Sure, but if you're going to digital anyways, why not just start digital? Yes, I know some people like to switch horses mid-stream and convert and all, I know it, I even respect it. I just think it's weird, incomprehensible, and mostly crazy.


----------



## Buckster (Oct 1, 2012)

amolitor said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > amolitor said:
> ...


So, we will never see anything you've shot on film?


----------



## amolitor (Oct 1, 2012)

Buckster said:


> So, we will never see anything you've shot on film?



I will, very occasionally, break out the macro lens to shoot a negative so I can put a proof up online. I may have done this as much as a dozen times. It's just a proof, or not even quite that. It's a thing that's very roughly what I had in mind for the final print. It's a hassle, and I rarely see any point to it, though. Final prints, where they exist, are done wet.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Oct 1, 2012)

Hey, thanks for TOTALLY hijacking my thread. Jerks.


----------



## amolitor (Oct 1, 2012)

PUT ONE MILLYUN DOLLARS IN A BAG UNDER ZEE OLDE OAK TREE EEF YOU EVAIR WANT TO ZEE YOUR TRED ALIVE AGAIN!


----------



## jake337 (Oct 1, 2012)

This is your livelyhood, right?  

Take out a loan, claim as a business expense during tax season.


----------



## jake337 (Oct 1, 2012)

amolitor said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > amolitor said:
> ...




This is just a guess, but maybe some people like the film medium and digital post processing?  

Plus I see no real medium and large format digital available.  Like real 4x5, 6x6, 6x7, 8x10 digital sensors.


----------



## Mfink22 (Oct 1, 2012)

Ignoring the Mac vs PC discussion and going back to your original question of a new editing rig vs new camera body, I'd go with the new editing rig, definitely.  If, as you said, you are spending 5x longer on the editing process than you would if you had a new editing rig, how much is that time worth.  What else could you be doing with the time saved....

I to switched to Mac a few years back.  I still use windows for some of my administrative applications, but the Mac just flies with LR4 and CS6.  

I have recently purchased a similar IMac setup to what you are considering.   No issues.  I would consider throwing in as large an SSD as you can afford to. you wont regret the extra space.

I run VMFusion loaded on it with an XP and Win7 Image loaded that I can run on the second monitor if I need Windows apps..works like a champ. 

Derrel....I'm close, I'm with you on 3 out of 4 .....  Mac, Nikon, Coke and Chevy........

-Mike


----------



## unpopular (Oct 1, 2012)

Sure, but if you're going to digital anyways, why not just start digital? Yes, I know some people like to switch horses mid-stream and convert and all, I know it, I even respect it. I just think it's weird, incomprehensible, and mostly crazy.[/QUOTE]

Price per megapixel is way less on film. Professionally scanned at 5K, a 4x5 negative would cost, what, $165?

Now why you'd need a 500 megapixel file is another matter.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 1, 2012)

Back to Zack's suggestion. I read his article. He's simply suggesting that you buy a Mac. Because it works reliably. The software and the hardware is pretty well-integrated, since there are so FEW hardware configurations; there is ONE Apple company making a handful of computers; in the Windoze world there are a zillion PC's, all made by any one of a thousand companies/shops/stores worldwide, all of which use operating systems written "elsewhere", aiming for good performance on...God only knows what hardware. If you feel your computer is hurting efficiency, then switch to a "REAL" monitor, not one on a laptop, and get say, the new iMac 27". Get that out of the way...get that "*computer duck*" into the row!!!! You will have a lot more enjoyable time once you have a solid workstation you can rely upon. Forget the lens side for a while.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Oct 2, 2012)

Well, figured I'd close the loop on this one...

Earlier today, I purchased a 27" iMac i7 with a SSD and 2TB HDD. I also got 4 sticks of 8GB RAM from Amazon to max it out at 32GB. That should take care of the computer part of the equation for at least a couple of years.

Thanks, FM. Thanks for all the input, people.


----------



## mjhoward (Oct 5, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Back to Zack's suggestion. I read his article. He's simply suggesting that you buy a Mac. Because it works reliably. The software and the hardware is pretty well-integrated, since there are so FEW hardware configurations; there is ONE Apple company making a handful of computers; in the Windoze world there are a zillion PC's, all made by any one of a thousand companies/shops/stores worldwide, all of which use operating systems written "elsewhere", aiming for good performance on...God only knows what hardware. If you feel your computer is hurting efficiency, then switch to a "REAL" monitor, not one on a laptop, and get say, the new iMac 27". Get that out of the way...get that "*computer duck*" into the row!!!! You will have a lot more enjoyable time once you have a solid workstation you can rely upon. Forget the lens side for a while.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Oct 10, 2012)

Got the iMac on Monday. Two points of interest:

1. It's impossible to overstate the improvement of having a SSD for a boot drive. Even opening Photoshop, InDesign, Illustrator and Lightroom all at the same time, the total load time is about 10 seconds. Ridiculous.

2. Apple may tell the world that the iMac can only accept 16GB of RAM, but that's false. I installed 32GB of RAM, ran all the appropriate tests and I can confirm that 32GB works just fine in the 27" i7 model.

Thanks for your thoughts everyone!


----------



## unpopular (Oct 10, 2012)

apple for some reason will do this, say that less memory can be installed than it actually can. I don't know if there are stability issues, but I doubt it. More likely it's to market the Mac Pro more effectively to people who don't know what Xeon means.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Oct 13, 2012)

Well it took me a couple of days to get everything transferred over to the new box. Here's a shot of my new workstation:




The next step is to replace the small monitor with something I can trust is color correct, most likely the NEC PA271 or something similar. Right now it's only used for file management in Lightroom.

Thanks again for all the input, guys!


----------

