What about a computer for processing images?

rmp

Hi again skyeyes,

I am snowed in, so I played with a configuration on cyberpowerpc.com, but before you bother check it out, it is pretty much what Mike Gunther said above with more umph.

Price: $2,138.00
Case: Cooler Master HAF (High Air Flow) with a lot of noise suppression and liquid cooled (for increased reliability).
CPU: Intel I7-4820 at 3.7 GHz, (no overclocking) (i.e. fast enough, but can be overclocked if you need more speed.)
Memory: 32GB (according to Adobe, LightRoom can use all you have) (The more meomery you have the faster your processing. If you can afford more spend it on memory)
Disk: SSD -- 500GB Samsung 840 Sata III 520 MB/s read and write (i.e. fast) (If you want a faster disk, you will need to go into a RAID configuration of some sort.)
Display -- ASUS, 24", 1920x1080, 2ms response and the color gamut is a little beyond Adobe RBG. (There are better monitors or you can use your old monitor and save a buck.)
OS:Windows 7 Pro, 64 bit (64 bit so almost all LightRoom processing can take place in main memory with minimal disk accesses.)

I hate to wait on a computer, so this is the slowest configuration I would consider for processing photos in LightRoom (raw or jpeg).

tcole1983

Gosh I have to totally disagree with most advice given. PCs might take a little bit to upkeep but if you are any bit competent then it isn't a problem.

I guess I didn't look at it from buying something off the shelf. I built my own computer and it has been flawless for 6 years and still keeps up with most everything now. It was around $1000 and I was able to get just about the best of everything at the time. It takes some research and shopping but it can be done. So I don't buy the anything under $1000 is crap thought. Just like with camera stuff you can find all the info and more online.

Seriously a quick off the top of my head budget:
Ram $100-200
CPU: $150-250
Graphics card: $100-200
Motherboard: $100-200
Case: $50-100
Power supply: under $100
Monitor: $100-200
Fans: $30
Dvd or Bluray: $20-50
Hard Drive: $100
Windows 7: under $100

So around $1000 if you shop well. If you already have stuff even cheaper. If you need more stuff like keyboard and mouse then another $30-50. Still within your budget.

Also RAM is important for handling processes, but a slow CPU will bog a computer down just as much. I wouldn't cheap on the CPU. Also not all i5-i7 chips are created equal and stay away from i3 ones.

skyeyes70

So, you guys are pretty much going with desktops. Is there a significant reason a laptop would not be feasible?
I'm curious about the new all in one's and if they offer what is needed. I saw one at Costco the other day that can be used like a tablet but also had a base with a wireless keyboard and mouse. I think it was 24".

tcole1983

So, you guys are pretty much going with desktops. Is there a significant reason a laptop would not be feasible?
I'm curious about the new all in one's and if they offer what is needed. I saw one at Costco the other day that can be used like a tablet but also had a base with a wireless keyboard and mouse. I think it was 24".

Laptops are generally more expensive for less performance. Performance wise high end desktop > highest end laptop. Also overheating can be an issue if you have high powered stuff. Where a desktop is almost unlimited amount of room and with a couple fans it won't ever be a problem. Comparably I would say probably double the price for a laptop vs similarly specced PC and parts to upgrade are significantly more...and with things like RAM since there isn't room you might have to have 1 stick of 32 GB or RAM instead of 2 16's which can be cheaper. There is just limited space in a laptop so things like hard drives, RAM, Graphics cards and fans to dissipate heat aren't always doable.

The problem with all in one machines is you are stuck once you get it. It is probably hard if not impossible to upgrade and it will essential become worthless when it gets slow. IE you can't use the monitor on another system or anything like that. So money you paid to get that 20''+ monitor won't ever be used after your computer becomes outdated.


Don't take my word on the laptop stuff as the source though...I haven't shopped around and looked at this stuff in a while. At work we use laptops with docking stations and monitors + keyboard and mouse...nice option, but my 6 year old desktop is still about equal to a brand new mid range laptop.

rmp

Rate your requirement: price, speed, upgradability, etc. Then shop until you drop. There are too many options to make a fixed recommendation. I like full towers because I can upgrade components when I want, and I can overclock a $400 CPU to make it perform like a $1,000.00 CPU. I play with two different laptops and an iPad when traveling and several different towers at home/office. And like always, my choices and not intended to be recommendations to fit your requirements.

Msmoto

@skyeyes70

There are many opinions on how, what when, etc., but in configuring a computer the interaction back and forth might be confusing. You might send rmp a private message and discuss this back and forth. And while you are at it, look at his email address…

sevencrossing

Laptops are generally more expensive for less performance. Performance wise high end desktop > highest end laptop. Also overheating can be an issue if you have high powered stuff.

+1
if you are traveling then a laptop is your only option
but for Home use a Tower is going to a better option

Consider a Asus X102 Laptop, AMD A4, for traveling; backed up by a HP Pavilion, Intel Core i7 at Home

I saw one at Costco

These are the computers that sometimes give PCs a bad name
they are fine for surfing the net and e- mails but not usually designed for serious photo editing
Stick to one of the main brands, HP Pavilion, Dell XPS, ASUS, Lenovo,

haroldp

I am using a 4 core (nominal 2.6 ghz) i7 16 gb mac mini with 256 internal SSD that cost less than $1,300 and
runs cs6 and NX2 very quickly. All f my realdata including photos are on external raid (1) drives which would be the case on any computer I used.

.... H

tcole1983

Just do some online comparisons. Go to Dell and price a desktop and laptop with similar configurations and see what it costs. The problem is you can't really build a laptop yourself. Then go to Apple and see theirs (it will cost more then the PC configuration). I am not saying buy a Dell and I hate HP, but just compare. There are sites you can pick and choose components to custom make your PC...like Dell kind of, but you actually pick parts like the motherboard (which dell won't and won't tell you which one they are using). Just another option. As mentioned what works for someone else might not work for you.

I think my biggest issue with the laptop is you are going to need some sort of other hard drive to store pictures. Secondly the RAM and graphics card. It seems like it costs about two or three times as much as just buying your own RAM to get a machine built with over 8GB of RAM. I think you can find something good enough to run lightroom just fine...get enough RAM and a decent CPU. As I mentioned you could have a docking setup at home with a monitor if you wanted. That is a simple setup where you can leave a keyboard and mouse or external hard drive.

birdman

I have both a custom built gaming desktop running Windows 7 and a MacBook Pro (mid-2012 15" NON-RETINA). Macs are great but overpriced IMHO. They have simplistic functionality - which is why so many people rave over them.

If money was not an option, I would have an iMac or specked out MacBook Pro -- that way you can run both Windows and Mac OS. Windows is what 95% of the world uses...or at least the percentage is close to that it seems. Therefore, lots of software is available (for PCs) that simply is not made for Macs. To each his own, but I love both PCs and Macs. I guess I'd never be a good politician

MikeGunter

Hi all,

@ skyeyes70

I think like a beginning reporter, I buried the lead.

Lightroom isn't a hog for resources. Unless you really plan to immediately add a lot of plug-ins, manage hundreds of thousands of photographs, high resolution video clips and other multimedia at a time across 24 TB of drive space as I and others who use the full Adobe CC Suite, I think you'll be fine with any modest off-the-shelf brand name computer. You might find a larger monitor more to your liking just to see your photos.

Computers are a lot like socks. You'll need to change them from time to time as they wear out, more due to technology advancements than wear and tear, so you might think modest investment now, and upgrade as you fell more aggressive.

If you run Lightroom by itself when editing, you should find 8 GB of RAM fine, 16GB better, 1 GB graphics great, but really, a $800 - $1200 machine with a $200 monitor should suite you fine.

If you want to add Adobe CC with Photoshop CC, that should work, too, but the rest of the CC suite might have some problems.

An additional drive or drives via USB will be very handy for files and backup.

My best,

Mike

PB_PM

^^^ Aside from the $200 monitor comment I agree. If you are really into photography, don't cheap out on the monitor.

skyeyes70

Thanks again for the wealth of info! Now, if I only had the wealth to go all out! ;;)
@Mike, I'm sure you are right with your recommendations. Right now, I'm running a cheap-o laptop (Toshiba Satellite) that's around 4 years old. That's why working in LR is killing me right now! LOL

I'll poke around online and look at different systems and see what I can come up with. I love my laptop and my comfy couch though but see how a really awesome monitor will help with the editing process.
`

MikeGunter

Hi all,

@ skyeyes70 - You might find that just 'uninstalling' some of the fat on the laptop will do. The graphics card might be a problem as the installed memory, too.

Right click the "Computer" and check the Properties. From there, look at the installed RAM and Processor. That will tell you what you have at least.

Your laptop can likely be upgraded, too, which is an option. If you take all your media off the hard drive (that would likely be C:/ ) to a portable drive), you would notice some improvement in performance.

Check your total disk space in your c drive. You want it to have about 35% free for working in Lightroom.

And, you should also check any start up programs in the laptop. There are a lot of things you likely don't need that waste your computer's resources. You can download something like Glary Utilities and run it to find these hogs and kill them so they won't "start up" when you start the computer.

These tricks alone may make Lightroom work fine for you.

My best,

Mike

Killerbob

+1 for the Apple way:) Once you go Mac you never go back...

I know they are more expensive, but honestly, you get so much more enjoyment from a computer which just works, and which will keep working for a long time.

My first Apple computer, a fully buffed up Mac Pro 2008, still runs most of my photo workflow at home. My first MacBook Pro from 2009 is still in use, and excellent for LR and Aperutre work. Even PS runs like a charm. Yes I have never laptops, but actually my 6 year old Mac Pro is still wickedly fast. I've upgraded to a PCIe Accelsior card for storage, and a GTX680 videocard for gaming, but the CPUs (2x2.8GHz Quads), and the 32GB RAM is still more than enough.

If I was starting out today, I'd consider the MacBook Air. Fully beefed up it is as fast as a MacBook Pro, and you can always buy an external monitor if the 13" is not enough. External HDDs are so cheap they are not worth mentioning, and even with the i7 CPU, 8GB RAM, and the 256GB Flash Storage, it is "only" USD1'500. That'll last you at least 4 years, and you can pound all the external storage on it you want. With OSX and the entire Adobe CS6, a various software packages, you still only use about 110GB, sp you need to take some pictures before your built-in storage runs short.

AND, funny enough, Windows actually runs best on a Mac.

PB_PM

AND, funny enough, Windows actually runs best on a Mac.

Poor driver support aside this is somewhat true.

I've been a Mac user for over 20 years, but I've still built my own custom PC's from time to time, simply because I enjoy doing it. Can't say my custom PC's were any less stable than running Windows on my Mac's in bootcamp. The only downside to running Windows on a Mac, as I mentioned before, is poor driver support. The driver's supplied by Apple are okay, but they don't update them enough. If there are bugs in the drivers, it could be a real pain. If you are tech savy it's not a problem, because you can install custom drivers, but I wouldn't recommend that for the average person.

TaoTeJared

Thanks again for the wealth of info! Now, if I only had the wealth to go all out! ;;)
@Mike, I'm sure you are right with your recommendations. Right now, I'm running a cheap-o laptop (Toshiba Satellite) that's around 4 years old. That's why working in LR is killing me right now! LOL

I'll poke around online and look at different systems and see what I can come up with. I love my laptop and my comfy couch though but see how a really awesome monitor will help with the editing process.
`

As @MikeGunter said you might look at what is installed and see if you can just upgrade the Ram. Traveling and for showing clients I use an HP ultra book (13" screen) to do quick edits and slide shows. It actually works quite well for what it is.

If you get into comparing processors basically runs like this - Desktop (current and fastest), Higher end laptop (non-gaming) (equivalent of the fastest desktop 3-4 years ago), Average laptop (equivalent of the fastest desktop 6-8 years ago), Ultra book - (basically out dated.)

Note that I said my Ultra book runs Lightroom and Photoshop well enough. I have a 6yr old desktop and a 8-yr old laptop that I do some editing on that works just fine. As long as you have enough RAM any computer from the last 6 years will work. The question comes down to how much and how advanced your editing is. My main machine is an i7 with 32gb - but I also have gigabyte files that I edit. As I said above, I go with business line of machines and they last much longer. A Costco rig I would expect it to not work well. For $100 more you can get business class and know it will work for a long time.

If you are use to PCs, stick with them. The only time I tried the "Mac experience" I wanted to take a sledge hammer to it every day as the experience was so frustrating trying to find basic stuff that it got in the way of everything. Nor do they "just work" either. If you are all Apple, they work - try to stray from that it is not a guarantee it will. I gave the machine to my mother who thought she would like it and 5 years later she still does all her "real" work on the PC and is just as frustrated with it and wants her next machine to be a PC. Most PC people I know have had similar experiences with trying to move to Macs.

PB_PM

If you are use to PCs, stick with them. The only time I tried the "Mac experience" I wanted to take a sledge hammer to it every day as the experience was so frustrating trying to find basic stuff that it got in the way of everything.

It's okay, not everyone is able to handle the Unix based NeXT world (aka Mac OS).

I've used many different operating systems; Windows, Mac OS, several versions of Linux, and haven't found a single one of them so frustrating that I couldn't use any one of them for every day work. There is very little that any of those other OS's cannot do that can be done on Windows. That is an old myth, spread by Windows fanboys (not saying you are one!). The way it is done may be different, which can be frustrating, but sitting and using something for an hour or two and saying it's terrible is just not fair to either side. I say that because I've met people in both camps that say the same thing. I just dismiss anyone who says things like that because they do not take the time to learn how things are done on the other platforms.

Anyway, we are getting way, way off topic here.

spraynpray

I'm not going to add to the above debate, you have enough on your plate with all of that! However, I will give you one piece of advice:

When you have got this PC and it all works, don't just fall into the trap of upgrading your software/camera as the newest and latest comes out as it will render your PC useless pretty quickly. My PC was OK with my D7000 (16MP) and LR4 but since I went D7100 and LR5, it is tortoiselike. LR5 is 20% slower rendering a file than LR4 was (and that is a fact) so who knows what demands the next Adobe products will make on your PC.

TaoTeJared

I used that Mac for 4 months, every day. I wanted it to work out, but as an extremely logical minded person, The apple OS never made sense with me - at all. Everything I was use to be able to fix or do, I could not find, or do easily. I could write for hours and pages of BS I had to put up with it and all the problems I had. Everyone I know who have tried to make the move from (very experienced) PC user to Macs always say the same thing - PCs are laid out logically, Apple OS is not and it is frustrating as hell. Easily Summed Up with "Where are the damn directories?!?" There is not anything magical or something more to Macs - they just look and work differently.

I grew up on PCs with Dos and Unix, did my short stent in college taking computer engineering courses, was playing with Linux before anyone had heard of it, and used basically every operating system out there. I'm not a fan boy of windows - I just enjoy working on something that I am use to, know well, and since PCs run everything that I want to use, then there is no need to stumble through something different. When I was 18 it was fun, now in my mid 30s I don't have the same enjoyment or patience bashing my head into something for no reason.

I will agree 100% with that every OS out there can run all adobe programs well, and almost everything else just fine. That being the case, I strongly suggest in sticking with what you are use too. There is nothing fun about wanting to learn something like photography, and stumbling on trying to find the program or files on some new OS.

henrik1963

Wow. Pc vs Mac birings out more feelings than Nikon vs Canon :-)

haroldp

^^^ Aside from the $200 monitor comment I agree. If you are really into photography, don't cheap out on the monitor.

A full adobe RGB capable monitor (which is not $200), properly calibrated is the beginning. Lacking that, it does not matter what you do as your edits will be wrong (maybe fast, but wrong).

Laptops do not have such monitors.

Structurally, the mac miniis basically a laptop (fast and well cooled) without monitor or keyboard.

.... H

MikeGunter

Hi all,

@ PB_PM & haroldp @ et al ...

A nice big photo editing deluxe monitor would be terrific for any us. I wish I could outfit everyone with such a monitor and if I hit tonight's Powerball, the first 5 to email before midnight will get such a monitor. :-)

However, skyeyes70 has just joined the group, has a young baby to take care of and a new hobby (for now_ to learn and likely very, very little cash to use. (And for that hobby to be anything else, it's going to take a mountain of study and time.)

IOW, I don't think there's any dollar trees sprouting in the backyard to help her pay for anything.

So when it comes to 'baby clothes and formula' or 'camera stuff' which do you think gets priority?

Good enough is what should be on the table.

Cheap and capable, rather than expensive and unreachable or worse, expensive and punishingly expensive for a young family's debt spiral.

skyeyes70 can learn her craft on 'good enough' and certainly on 'less than perfect'. Academics (like myself) have heard too many stories of their students busting out of college spending far too much on stuff when they should have just stayed with learning the basics with what they had.

My best,

Mike

skyeyes70

What Mike said
Except, that the baby and formula is really a 15 year old and soon to be college student.
I did make, what I consider to be a significant purchase of the D7100 along with a lowepro bag and am just stepping into the DSLR world for the first time as well as the LR5 world. I still have a flash and prime lens in the budget. I'm learning quite a bit but have oh so much more to learn. I sure don't want to go into the apple world! I do know that the laptop I'm working on now is not ideal, far from it really. I am going to consider all the advise and look around to see what I can figure out.

heartyfisher

:-) just got into this discussion .. I guess you dont want a suggestion for a linux PC then .. :-)

I have been using a 4GB ram 4 core amd 4 year old PC with linux.. I do have 3 monitors though 8-) .. 2 are IPS and one is 27" ..
Works for me :-) running last years Linux Kubuntu OS. .. But got a nice pay check so I thought I should spoil myself and upgrade .. switched out the motherboard(yay! I have USB3 now) and got a 6core CPU added another 8G of ram total cost about 170 USD .. .. works a BIT better now :-) I guess what I am saying is you dont need to spend a lot .. a Desk top PC will give you 3-5 times the performance and capability of a laptop if you don't need the mobility.

And Yes i would stick with windows if i were you.. I think macs are great but why spend time learning a new OS (Unless like me you enjoy that kind of stuff .. I have half a dozen different OS running on that old $1000/- PC) keep your laptop and spend the money on a PC.. its better value unless you need the mobility which you already have with your current laptop.