MAC vs. PC for Digital Photo Processing

Considering how this thread has developed, I thought I'd throw in something else totally off-topic. It's one of my strengths...

Check this out: Joint Apple/HP iPod announcement

I'm going to MacWorld tomorrow. Will anyone from wetpixel be there?

I'm lusting after an Xserve RAID, which you can now connect to Windows and Linux boxes.

However, since I really don't have anywhere to put it, it will have to wait.

Although my 2 cents isn't worth much,

the only way to separate me from my mac is to pry it from my cold dead hands. The reality that the newer machines (PC and MAC) are unbelievably fast compared to the top of the line machines from last year. With Eric being the exception, most of us use the the same old clunker for a couple years until we are forced to upgrade by perhaps a new version of Photoshop coming out. PS CS caused me to upgrade from an iMac running OS9 to a power mac G5 running OSX 10.3. So for the next two years I am in Mac heaven, until PS version 12 causes me to once again "think different". OS X is such a beautiful interface compared to XP, I can't imagine ever switching back.

Use whatever works best for you, but if you are a first time buyer... buy a MAC. You'll be more productive faster (and look better).

Doug

With Eric being the exception, most of us use the the same old clunker for a couple years until we are forced to upgrade by perhaps a new version of Photoshop coming out.

Believe me -- I've done my share of using slow-ass machines, but that was back in college, when I had no money (and incidentally, when I was predominantly using Macs).

I have recently changed the way I buy computer hardware. I used to drop $3K every couple of years to get top-of-the-line machines (hey! it's what I do. I "need" a fast machine! . But for the past few years, I bought low-end $799 PCs every year or so and moved my RAID card, hard disks, and video card over. I use even cheaper $650 (shipped) machines as extra machines for roommates, for video work, and as burning/scanning/printing stations.

They're all so fast now that it doesn't really matter what you get.

But now that I have no real home, I have to use a notebook, and it's hard to get cheap, fast, high quality notebooks. Although... they are cheap compared to what they used to cost. And the small ones are finally fast enough to do "real" photo work on.

...but if you are a first time buyer... buy a MAC. You'll be more productive faster (and look better).

That's what Steve says anyway. It's often easier to keep a customer than to get a new one. That's why the school program is so important to Apple. Get 'em early and they'll be loyal for life.

I believe the advice that Macs are easier for new users comes from Apple itself. Not really an objective source. I've never been impressed that Macs were easier, but with OSX they have more eye candy and a certain consistency of presentation. I'd like to see that brushed metal concept hit the circular file though (and the top menu bar while they're at it).

Trouble is that platform familiarity prejudices our perceptions. I doubt I'll ever believe that Macs are easier because I know PC's too well already and I won't take Steve's word on it. Sure, MS has anacronisms, stupid dialog messages and the Luna theme is horribly ugly, but the OSX dock is pretty nasty and Macs are still married to ease-of-use concepts that were created when Mac screens were the size of postage stamps. Just how different is Photoshop on a Mac vs. a PC anyway? You still wait forever.

My personal goal is to rid myself of Windows and get out from under MS's cash machine. If it weren't for photo and video editing I could have done that by now.

But now that I have no real home, I have to use a notebook

Eric, what are you using these days for a notebook? I think I remember you saying something about a Thinkpad, either an A- or T-series. Prior to my X30, I had an A31, which was awesome in terms of power, graphics, etc, but was heavy, and before that I had a T21, which was pretty good as a compromise. I love the X-, but I'm looking at going back to the T-series now, because as of the T41, IBM has completely redesigned it. With the Pentium M processor, they REALLY reduced the thickness so that it's similar to an X-, but kept the screen size / resolution the same. You can also get a combo CD-RW/ DVD+-RW drive for the single optical bay, and an extended life battery that hooks on the back, making it a little deeper front to back that increases battery life dramatically.

I'm glad I get my laptops through work though, as it would be yet another thing to spend money on if I didn't.

Now if only I could convince them I need a server and a RAID setup....

I have a Dell Inspiron 8600. I used to use the same machines you used: an A31 (too damn big, and no USB 2.0, though, back then), T21, and Thinkpad 600. I love IBM machines, but this Dell was just too good a deal to pass up.

Let's see...

* Mac vs. Win - It's a wash as far as I'm concerned since Photoshop runs on both of them.

The Windows world is more compatible, but the Mac - when you intall a new application - doesn't have 4 SEPARATE and DIFFERENT files all named "Setup".

* GIMP / LINUX - The charm (and the curse) of Linux is that there is no central support for it. There is a community, but no one entity really defines where it goes next. People have been asking for years for a Linux version of Photoshop (along with several other tools) but in my personal experience, it's been 3 people a year. On the server side of things, the market is much different, but in the photography and graphic design world, where people are scared of Windows, Linux is an even greater reach. (Tell a designer they need to compile an application before they run it and see what happens.)

* Camera RAW - I'm walking a fine line here between what I can and cannot talk about but it's my understanding that the camera manufacturers aren't terribly open about their file formats. It allows for "protected" pictures (which is why Photoshop doesn't write BACK to the RAW format) but it also gives them a revenue source if no one else can read their files (before we created Camera Raw of course...) Hence, you're not likely to find the kind of raw file support we have in Photoshop anywhere else.

Daniel Brown

Sr. Evangelist > Digital Video

Adobe Systems Inc.

* Camera RAW - I'm walking a fine line here between what I can and cannot talk about but it's my understanding that the camera manufacturers aren't terribly open about their file formats. It allows for "protected" pictures (which is why Photoshop doesn't write BACK to the RAW format) but it also gives them a revenue source if no one else can read their files (before we created Camera Raw of course...) Hence, you're not likely to find the kind of raw file support we have in Photoshop anywhere else.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't dcraw predate Adobe Camera raw by quite a bit?

See http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/

You're right about having to do lots of support yourself if you decide to go with linux. However, I was quite happy using gimp until I switched to raw format. I switched to photoshop to get 16bit support not because I need a raw converter. I think people place too much importance in the raw converter. The most import advantage of the raw format is that you get the full output range of the sensors output (usually12bits) out of the camera instead of having it clipped to 8bits/color in tiff. This allows for better use of the dynamic range of the sensor.

A raw convert is need to do demosaic ( interpolate the two missing colors ). White balance can be done or changed in photoshop or gimp, especially for underwater photos. It's silly to even talk about accurate WB for underwater work when what should be white takes on different shades of blue or green depending on how far away the subject is.