# Best Mac for photography...?



## bevoholic (Aug 26, 2010)

I will be starting photography school this coming spring and I would like some recommendations on a Mac. I don't need portability, but I won't rule that out.  I have my iPad if I need it as well for things away from home if I go the iMac route.  Is there any difference between the iMacs in terms of color accuracy?  If I go the MacBook route I don't want anything larger than the 15". Would you suggest the anti-glare screen?  I know I will need as much memory as I can get as well, which is one of the things drawing me towards the MacBook. 

Any help will be appreciated.


----------



## inspire-me (Aug 26, 2010)

I have a MacBook Pro. I have had it for about 4 or 5 years now. It has been the best computer I have ever owned. I have a 15" with a non-glare screen. I would recommend both the 15" and the non-glare. You could get a smaller screen, but the little bigger is so much nicer to see your work on. The MacBook should do everything you would ever need it for. Way worth the money! My friends have one and love theirs as well. She does photography and he has a degree in and teaches computers. It has done everything they have ever wanted. Best thing is ...... they last!!!!


----------



## Derrel (Aug 26, 2010)

A G-5 tower and an Apple Cinema Display would be the best.


----------



## adversus (Aug 26, 2010)

I have a 15" Macbook Pro (2009 version).  This is my primary Mac, which I use to manage all my photos (using Aperture 3) and editing.  I have a 24" Asus HD monitor for external use.

I highly recommend Mac's, both for personal use and professional (be it photography or music... I'm a musician as well).  

And no, I'm not biased.  I'm a Windows developer by trade ;P


----------



## Raian-san (Aug 27, 2010)

I would recommend the Macbook Pro 15 inch as well. I have a 13 inch *2010* model and you can't really see your work on here. Unless you don't photo editing on the go much, I would suggest getting the '10 Macbook pro 13 inch and get a nice bigger LCD monitor to edit on. *My macbook pro with 26 inch samsung TOC look amazing on 1920x1200* No point getting the iMac when you can do everything an iMac can do. Plus you can take it anywhere you want. If you're on a budget, I would not suggest the new 15' macbook pro because it's 1800$ since it come with i5. You don't need the i5 to do photo editing. I would get a '09 model with Core 2 Duo, 4g ram, 512mb dedicated video 15 inch macbook if screen size is an issue. Good luck hunting, I've been using mac for over 5 years and love every minute of it. It's just not for gaming, I have a PC for that.

Bottom line if screen is not an issue = new 13 Macbook pro and use that student discount and free ipod, printer and get a LCD monitor. Reason why I recommend the new 13 inch Macbook pro is better video card, 4g of rams. Most old 13 inch is 2g of ram unless they got the 2.53?? processor which most people will sell more expensive than the 13 with 2g of ram. Also the '10 macbook pro have better battery life and mini display port to HDMI have both video and sound. 

Screen is a big issue - Get used 15' Macbook pro. 08 or 09 is fine. Make sure you get one with a dedicated Graphic card. You might regret not getting it later on. 

Either way I think you still need a LCD Monitor, 15 inch just doens't cut it to edit all day on, really.


----------



## sovietdoc (Aug 27, 2010)

any laptop wont be powerful enough to do anything serious with photos.

I have an overclocked i7 PC that prolly smokes any mac out there and I still struggle with FX in photoshop with onOne tools.

I guess it does depend on the resolution of the pictures you're working with (21.1 mp shots from 5d mk ii will eat up any pc/ mac) but even if they're not that big now, you never know what you'll have in the future.

I wouldn't recommend any laptop simple because it really wont be that powerful.  Yes, it's nice that you can take it with you and show off pics, but you can do that on your camera anyways.  

A G5 tower with 30" cinema display is probably the best choice, but also, the most expensive one.

You could also look at those core i5/i7 iMacs.


----------



## Raian-san (Aug 27, 2010)

sovietdoc said:


> any laptop wont be powerful enough to do anything serious with photos.
> 
> I have an overclocked i7 PC that prolly smokes any mac out there and I still struggle with FX in photoshop with onOne tools.
> 
> ...



Yes it's true that an i7 or even i5 PC will smoke most mac for much less but he's trying to knock two birds in one stone since he said he's in school. On laptop I wouldn't recommend anybody but a Mac. If you're talking about games don't even mention it because who plays games on laptop? I only play SC2 sometimes if I have people over. Mac is dependable with no worries and it works for everyday use. If he have a bigger budget then I did suggest him to get the i5 or even i7 Macbook pro. I don't know how much editing you do but I'm sure Macbook pro with i5 and i7 could handle it fine. Unless he does 3d video editing then that's a different story. photo editing does not demand close as much as video, games and 3d editing and Mac have been fine doing those editing and been in the fore front for a lot of inspiring film and musician.  I have an overclocked i7 as well to game and burn bluray but for school and laptop wise, I use my mac and wouldn't think twice about switching to a laptop PC. Not biased either.

P.S. Building a PC is really not that cheap if you buy quality parts. Yes you can build an i5 and i7 for a lot less if you use cheap parts. My i7 cost over 1500 or even more if you count my monitor. So really the only downside I see on Mac desktop and computer is their cheap ass video cards and hard drive. Beside that, their engineer is second to none.


----------



## Village Idiot (Aug 27, 2010)

Derrel said:


> A G-5 tower and an Apple Cinema Display would be the best.


 
That's a great idea. Let's recommend old techonology that's slowly being phased out.


----------



## Village Idiot (Aug 27, 2010)

sovietdoc said:


> any laptop wont be powerful enough to do anything serious with photos.
> 
> I have an overclocked i7 PC that prolly smokes any mac out there and I still struggle with FX in photoshop with onOne tools.
> 
> ...


 
BS. A MBP with an i5 or i7 chip will be more than adequate unless you're hooking it up to a 30" display and then you'll see some speed issues. 

I was using a 2.53 C2D MBP to edit photos for a while, and although slow doing large batch processing, it was decent at pulling PhotoShop duty.



bevoholic said:


> I will be starting photography school this coming spring and I would like some recommendations on a Mac. I don't need portability, but I won't rule that out. I have my iPad if I need it as well for things away from home if I go the iMac route. Is there any difference between the iMacs in terms of color accuracy? If I go the MacBook route I don't want anything larger than the 15". Would you suggest the anti-glare screen? I know I will need as much memory as I can get as well, which is one of the things drawing me towards the MacBook.
> 
> Any help will be appreciated.


 
MBP with IPS flat panel display would work. Then you could calibrate the display.

Or you could build a PC and install OS X on it. That can be a pain though if you're not familiar with computers. I have a self built PC with an intel i7-920 OC'ed to 3.8ghz with 6GB of RAM and a 1.8GB GPU that I put OS X on. It'll smoke most of the previous single processor Mac Pros out there and only cost me $1700.


----------



## oldmacman (Aug 27, 2010)

Derrel said:


> A G-5 tower and an Apple Cinema Display would be the best.



I think I understand your suggestion, but running PS under rosetta is painful. Also, I'm not too sure any of the recent management software like Aperture 3 or LR3 work on anything but Intel processors. Maybe a used early intel Mac Pro. You can get 4 core machines for pretty reasonable prices and the 4 bay storage is great.


----------



## bevoholic (Aug 27, 2010)

Well, my home PC is about six years old so I was looking to try and kill 2 birds here...Like I said portability isn't really an issue.  I'm mainly trying to figure out if there is a difference between the two sizes of imacs in terms of color accuracy.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 27, 2010)

Village Idiot said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > A G-5 tower and an Apple Cinema Display would be the best.
> ...




He's a college student....

I hear a "whooshing sound" coming from the other side of the country....can he afford a brand-new,expensive top of the line machine and monitor, without deflating his budget balloon? Or should he drop another $2,000 so he can shave 4 seconds off of a save operation??

You young guys kill me with your idea of where money ought to be allocated! It's no wonder you're always broke. There was a time when one of 
L.A.'s top graphics shops used 100 megahertz Macs with 8 megabytes to as "much" as 16 megabytes of RAM to create large 100-megabyte graphics combining as many as 10 or 12 images...back when you were in junior high school...

You have no idea what "aging technology" means. Back to your video games now,boys!


----------



## Raian-san (Aug 27, 2010)

To be fair Derrel, he never mention his budget and he's asking for Mac. He didn't mention used or new either so most of us assume new since he's looking at new iMac and MBP. 

To the OP, it would be nice if you suggested your budget.


----------



## MohaimenK (Aug 27, 2010)

Derrel said:


> You young guys kill me with your idea of where money ought to be allocated! It's no wonder you're always broke.


 
I'm guilty of this Darrel! I won't even lie to you! 
Hey but he's got a $500 (or $700) junkpad w/ him so he may have money  (sorry man I can't stand the iPads)


----------



## cfusionpm (Aug 27, 2010)

Derrel said:


> There was a time when one of
> L.A.'s top graphics shops used 100 megahertz Macs with 8 megabytes to as "much" as 16 megabytes of RAM to create large 100-megabyte graphics combining as many as 10 or 12 images...


Good thing this isn't 1993 anymore!  That must have been absolute hell working on those computers.  The last image I worked on was a 700mb psd file, and I was getting annoyed with the minor slowdown! (while concurrently running LR3 with ~300 18mp raw files up).  Us young whipper snappers don't know how good we have it!  *hugs my computer*

But yeah, if someone has the money to invest in a giant iPhone that doesn't fit in your pocket and can't make calls (sorry for the cheap shot! I hate that thing too...) an expensive Mac probably wouldn't be out of the question.  Then again.... when was the last time you ever heard the term "inexpensive Mac"?


----------



## Village Idiot (Aug 27, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...


 
Aging technology is when you buy a computer and vital programs that are coming out won't even work on it anymore. You think Adobe is going to make PhotoShop for PPC macs forever? And you think that schools are going to be OK with students using CS3 when they're teaching CS8?

A friend of mine that's 24 just started school this semester. With loans and grants he's got enough to pay for school, housing, a new computer, and have money left over.

Also, as stated, OP never disclosed his budget and with everything in his post, it doesn't look like he's hurting for money.

Reading comprehension is a valuable skill there bud.

Oh, and shaving 4 seconds off a save operation becomes hours when you're doing it that much.


----------



## oldmacman (Aug 27, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > A G-5 tower and an Apple Cinema Display would be the best.
> ...



Thanks for the compliment, it's been about 20ish years since I even looked young.  I just checked craigslist and a 2.66 Intel Mac Pro has an asking price of $950. Asking price for a G5 Tower is $550. It's not just about saving time on startup and processing, though. It is compatibility. Unless you are an established shop with a set of software designed for your machine, it is going to be difficult to get add ons for your G5. Hard drive, video cards, memory and software upgrades will all be difficult to find. If the OP is going to school, there will likely be specific software lists.

I also remember working in PS in the 90s. Work flow was something like:
- open file
- create duplicate layer, blur, blend
- go get coffee while computer mulls over requests
- sit back down just as process completes
- things were much sloshier back then and washrooms got used more

You know I'm not joking about the time part, though. Many heavy processes were left to the end of the day as you walked away from your computer. You just accepted that was the way things were.

True facts: my first three computers had no hard drive at all. My first computer with a hard drive had 10MB... mega bytes. I couldn't justify spending the extra $300 for the 15 MB drive. Computer number 3 was 4 MHz with a whopping 128 KB of RAM, 2 5.25" floppy drives, and 9" monochrome green display. Price? $4000. Year? 1984. Shoulda got the Mac Classic. My sister still has the $4000 machine kicking around in her attic somewhere. I think I told her to throw it out, but she knows what the original price tag was and cannot bring herself to do it.


----------



## sovietdoc (Aug 27, 2010)

> That's a great idea. Let's recommend old techonology that's slowly being phased out.


I accept the criticism, by "g5 tower" I was thinking of those "mac pros", they first came out with that case design with G5's, but haven't changed it since, so that's why I called it a G5 tower.  Of course, now it houses dual xeons, but then again, I don't think a college student has $2500 to spare on a computer with no monitor.

Oh and the cinema display, whoop-dee-doo, so the new ones they call "led cinema display", same thing.  I am not recommending old tech, I am just calling these things what I remembered they were called a few years ago.  

Get the idea right, don't pick on little technicalities.


In any case, I would probably recommend an iMac with over 2k resolution.  It's not a laptop, but it'll be a lot better than any macbook or macbook pro.


----------



## Village Idiot (Aug 27, 2010)

sovietdoc said:


> > That's a great idea. Let's recommend old techonology that's slowly being phased out.
> 
> 
> I accept the criticism, by "g5 tower" I was thinking of those "mac pros", they first came out with that case design with G5's, but haven't changed it since, so that's why I called it a G5 tower. Of course, now it houses dual xeons, but then again, I don't think a college student has $2500 to spare on a computer with no monitor.
> ...


 
The G5 and the Mac Pro are separated by the name for that distinction, PPC vs Intel. It's a very important distinction. Used and refurbs are an option as well.



sovietdoc said:


> In any case, I would probably recommend an iMac with over 2k resolution. It's not a laptop, but it'll be a lot better than any macbook or macbook pro.


 
2K resolution? Are you talking screen resolution? That would leave only the 27" imac, IIRC.

And even though portability isn't a factor, I'd personally be more willing to go with a MBP and external monitor. You could have two screen and then you could pick and external panel that does well with color calibration. That and the fact that you don't have to sell the monitor when you want to upgrade machines.


----------



## Sam6644 (Aug 27, 2010)

A G5 tower isn't compatible with any version of photoshop past CS3. 


which means you can't update the camera raw versions in it and will have to convert all of your raw photos to DNG before you open them in photoshop if you're camera is newer than 2005.

You'd be best off with a new iMac and if you're a student you can get them for $1149 from Apple. The base model is more than big enough and more than fast enoug to do everything you'll need.

Color accuracy is not very good and is not consistent on laptops.


----------



## FireGirl_Photography (Aug 27, 2010)

I have a 13" MacBook Pro for my primary computer.  I spend far too much time on the road so the small size is convenient and doesn't add to much weight to the camera bag.  Used a friend's 30" desktop the other day and now it's on the top of my to-buy list.  I can see the details in my images so much better!

Hopefully will get a larger screen for office use and keep the little guy for travel.

Mac all the way!


----------



## adversus (Aug 27, 2010)

Hardware wise, sorry to say but Mac's and PC's are nearly identical.  The high end Mac Pro's can scale higher for raw processing power, a Mac Pro will beat pretty any consumer or pro-sumer workstation as far as instructions per second and I/O.  But those are 5k+ machines at that point, and aren't relevant to this conversation.

For the original poster, on a budget, a current gen 15" Macbook Pro or an iMac will give him his biggest bang for the buck.

I say on a budget because if you spec out a non-Apple PC to the same specs, you will pay only slightly less.  The price difference isn't that great, unless you start sacrificing what makes Mac's cost a small premium (size/weight on notebooks, built in screen on iMac's, hardware/software integration etc).

I've developed software professionally on both platforms, and I can say with 100% conviction that hardware specs being equal (and software optimized to it's fully extent), a Mac will run faster than Windows.  

The overhead of Windows is enormous.  It's gotten better with Win 7, but the simple fact remains that when you buy Win 7 you are also getting:

Vista
XP
98
95
3.11
Dos 6.22

When you buy Mac OS X, you get:

Mac OS 10.x

Mac's overhead is negated by the fact that Apple purposefully broke backwards compatibility in native code transitioning from OS 9 to OS X, and Microsoft basically ships every version of Windows (and Dos 6.22) in every copy of Win 7 it sells.


----------



## Raian-san (Aug 27, 2010)

FireGirl_Photography said:


> I have a 13" MacBook Pro for my primary computer.  I spend far too much time on the road so the small size is convenient and doesn't add to much weight to the camera bag.  Used a friend's 30" desktop the other day and now it's on the top of my to-buy list.  I can see the details in my images so much better!
> 
> Hopefully will get a larger screen for office use and keep the little guy for travel.
> 
> Mac all the way!



The 30 inch display is nothing but a monitor. Your macbook pro would be actually slower on the 30 inch display because your video card is not that good. The 30 inch cinema monitor are for people usually with Mac pro. If that's what you're aiming for, good luck. It's going to be pretty expensive. Unless you upgrade to a Macbook pro with i5 or i7 with a dedicated 512mb but even with that it's a piece of crap. The highest iMac with 27 inch with i5 with radeon 5750 with 1g of ram is already piece of crap. Did I say piece of crap too much? I really don't want to jusitify spending that much money on a computer that won't perform as I expected. Don't get me wrong, I love Mac and I will always use it for daily use but as a fanboy if you might say, I know what's right and wrong. Them charging that much for a computer that isn't up to par with the rest of the world is not right. 

If you really want a beast computer without spending your retirement money on, build your own PC with top of the line product and get a good monitor.  Although Mac will be more secure, I can't justify spending more money than I should. A macbook pro 15' and 17' that cost close and over 2G don't even have a freaking Blu ray, good HD, video card and etc. Radeon 5750 graphic card? really? Although yes they are designed in California USA, I know because I live 5 minutes away from Apple main office in Cupertino. They are assemble in China. I don't even know what memory and stuff they are made from. I'll enjoy my 13' MBP because it's the most reasonable laptop and best laptop for me. I do heavy duty on my PC and daily use on my MBP. Until Mac give us more option to explore when building a Mac without giving us POS hardware sometimes, I won't spend that much money on Apple.

P.S. before people saying I'm biased, I actually love mac and how it perform and how easy and piece of mind it is. But even with that, I won't be blind into thinking they are the best thing in the world without them improving. No Bluray, no good Graphic card, bad HD, No HDMI output, USB 3.0 and etc. That's BS to me. If I spend 2g on a freaking computer, it better have all of those. I would spend even more too if they had those but they don't. They will wait until everybody get sucker in and then release a new one soon with USB 3.0. And then pieces by pieces to milk everybody. They are not selling by the product they are given but by design. The hardware you're building it not good but you're buying for design. Instead of them giving you some of the top hardware in the market, they give you things that are outdated so it keep you wanting more. So when they update *usually withing 7 months* you will want a new one. That's messed up.

One of the question is why the Macbook Pro 13' doesn't have an i3 at least? yeah i3 comes with intel HD graphic but I'm sure Intel could had taken it off for Apple. Trust me, in 5 or so months you will see a refreshed MBP with i3. Then it'll slap everybody in the face that bought the new 13' MBP that came out in April like me for instant. If I didn't love Apple engineering, design, OS so much I would never have an Apple until they start being fair.


----------



## OffTheWall (Aug 28, 2010)

Village Idiot said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > A G-5 tower and an Apple Cinema Display would be the best.
> ...



I use a powermac g5 dual 1.8's with 3gb of ram and aperture 2.1.4 and the round trip from aperture to ps is quite smooth with itunes limewire dreamweaver firefox safari and toast burning stuff, its a great legacy machine . I haven't had a problem with it. Never anything wrong with using legacy hardware lol.


----------

