I am very close to pulling the pin on a new mac for image processing - was considering the mac pro, but two things have put me off - the price of a well configured unit and the fact they close to overdue for update. Someone suggested the imac might do the job - but..

Does it it really have enough grunt to be running LR2.0 and CS3 with 21mpx and 39mpx RAW files?

I have noticed LR2.0 is extremley processor intensive if using local corrections, which I do a fair bit of and my real concern with the imac is it just mau not have enough processing power and ram.

For my own use I am primarily working with 130mb 16 Bit Tiff files, but with layers these can be over a gig. I live in LR and CS3 - so the machine has to not just cope with these, but hammer [obviously the mac pro will do a better job, but it comes at a significant cost premium].

Thoughts?

I have a couple of the early Intel Imacs and they cope fine with DsIII files, though anymore might tip them over the edge..

I've been using two cheaper Macs as opposed to one serious one for a while now so I can edit on one while the other burns, processes, backs up or whatever.

Makes for a little confusion when finding jobs sometimes, but overall very happy.

Hi Josh,
I got a new MacPro this year, and I have a few iMacs that surround me so that I can be productive. One 20" iMac runs a RIP & Portfolio, Apple Remote Access to control a headless Mini with iTunes, and the other (Intel 24") is my everyday working machine for my calendar, surfing, billing & money, database, e-mail and a few other odd jobs.

The last iMac I bought was the iMac 24" Intel model. I don't know why Apple has allowed it's quality control to slip but the screen on it is too bright to calibrate successfully. Maybe someone can give a reasonable explanation why after over 15 years of calibrating displays without a hitch, I now deal with a screen that is too bright. (Funny - in the past too dull was the reason to buy a new one). So you might end up having to do a work around which may be less than the best if you are looking for accurate calibrated color. Others on the forum have made similar comments. But for the everyday chores mentioned it's "insanely great." I can say that it is unlike my nearly 3 year old G5 20" iMac which has an LCD screen that calibrates normally and that still works just fine.

For the price I paid for this very functional 24" Intel Duo Core machine (it's less $$ than a refurbed 30" Apple Display alone), I can see why Apple might want to keep the video hobbled, but I do not like the trend away from standards and integrity, but that's usually just me. Most shoppers do not have 2 calibrators nor the inclination to use them just to compare and contrast their results ;-)

You get what you pay for is something that get's stated, and it's probably true, most of the time.

So it's really up to you and your wallet how much of a purist price you want to pay to be pure.

I'm not totally disappointed because for what I need this machine to do it works better than average, but if it were my only machine, I might consider putting up a larger ante to get in the pro game. The MacPro's are really rock solid and very much show the years of gradual dedicated improvement Apple has been making in that category for many, many years now.

I hope this helps.

[Anyone]: If I'm somehow missing something regarding my screen and calibration, I'm always opened to enlightenment.

So long for now, TOM

I purchased a MacPro 8-core last March. I use it for PS CS3, LR 2 and the usual Mac apps. It rocks with 12GB of RAM and 4 TB of internal HD space. LR 2.0 does not run too bad on my MacBookPro 15" either.

I like the fact that the MacPro can use my Eizo 24" monitor as compared to the iMac all-in-one form factor. You should be able to pickup an entry level MacPro for a reasonable sum. You can always upgrade the RAM and HDs later.

Bud James
North Wales, PA

THanks all for the quick response and help.

I should have noted I already have a 26" NEC Wuxi with SpectraView II - so I guess thats another reason to get the mac pro over the imac.

Accurate color is really important to me - so another reason to get the mac pro by the looks of things.

Looks like I will just have to pony up the dollars for a fairly close to entry level mac pro and upgrade ram and hdd at later date.

Probably the 2 x 3.0ghz 8 core with 8 gig ram and just a single 500 gig drive for now for the apps.

My images are stored on an external NAS runing RAID 1 - so I can live without raid in the mac pro - although raid 0 in the mac pro would be nice for speeding up apps - but its more $.....

Thanks again.

Forgot to add - whats the real world difference between getting 2.8gz or a 3.0 ghz mac pro - all other things being equal?

You can search the web for some speed comparison between the various Mac Pro configurations. My unit is 3ghz. I think the 2.8 ghz model is sufficient if you get enough RAM (minimum of 4GB, but 8GB+ is better).

Regarding the HDs, I use a ReadyNAS NV+ with 4x1TB drives connected to my gigabit network, but it is way too slow to use as a working drive. You can get Seagate Barracuda 1TB eSata drives for about $225 online from www.newegg.com and a bunch of other reputable online stores. I have 4 of these installed in my MacPro and they rock. I have 2 of these in RAID 0 configuration for 1.82TB of capacity. The 4th 1TB drive in bay 4 I have partitioned for 100GB as my PS Scratch Disk and 900GB to make SuperDuper image clones of my boot drive in Bay 1.

To start out, you can use the single 500GB drive that comes with the MacPro for your programs. Install a single 1TB drive in bay 2 for your photo and data files. You can always add more drives as you need them. If you are working with a lot of hi-rez images, the few extra bucks for a larger drive is well worth it.

If you are serious about your images and color fidelity, I think that you are better off with the MacPro than the iMac.

If you are using this for a business, not a hobby, you may want to explore leasing instead of buying the equipment. This will conserve your cashflow and at the end of the 2 or 3 year lease you upgrade to the newest model without having to worrying about disposing the old one.

Good luck.

Bud James
www.budjamesphotography.com

Thanks Bud - that all sounds like great advice, which I intend to follow.

Yes I will be using for business and looking into the leasing option at the moment.

We just built and installed a 2.8 8-core with 8GB RAM for a friend of mine who has the Hasselblad H3D. I honestly thought he was over the top building that badass a machine, but we did it.

I felt that way right up until I started up Photoshop on it.

That thing ROCKS.

He's running the 500GB drive too, with a 4-bay FW RAID, and opted for the Apple 30" display, rather than the smaller Lacie or Eizo, for processing efficiency and speed. (He can view his files at the size they'll print... and have room for toolbars too.)