Opinions on Imac setup ??

[bigdazzler]

OK so ive decided to switch to mac ..

I only use my home PC for internet , email , music & photos .. thats it

I think ill set it up as follows;

24" 2.8 imac .. upgrade ram to 4 gig ..

with Aperture , PSE7 and Lightroom ...

that should keep me going for a while ?? Any other thoughts or suggestions ?? I would like to set the mac up from the outset so I dont need to add anything to it for quite a while as Im quickly running out of money ..

[Calxoddity]

Good setup - that's what I run here at home - but no PSE7 for Mac - it's PSE6 (no biggie - hardly any difference). Upgrading to 4GB is important. If you can afford a little more, spend it on an external hdd and usb hub. I have iomega unit with 2x500GB and 3 port usb hub.

Regards,
Calx

[Jimbo]

One question: why Aperture AND Lightroom? Don't they more or less do the same thing?

Oh, and welcome to OSX btw

[Calxoddity]

One question: why Aperture AND Lightroom? Don't they more or less do the same thing?

Oh, and welcome to OSX btw

Perhaps he's got too much money?

[MarkW]

Hi Bigdazzler

Both Aperture (Aperture2) and Lightroom will both want to have their "Library" system setup on the C drive and that will chew up enourmous amounts of drive space. Much of this can be changed to an external drive which is almost a necessity with an IMac but the app still needs a fair sized C drive space - especially in Aperture 2.

Another issue I found with both those applications is their refusal to actually change the master image but rely on an output MXL type file. This didnt suit me as in many cases I want to do basic changes to the master image then have a range of alternate sub images ie web suitable jpg's or cropped images etc, and those images actually as image files not an MXL info file.

In the end I chose CS3 and Nikon's own image applications - Nikon Transfer, View NX & Captuure 2 (there are some things that Nikon actually do better than Adobe - albeit you can now get a pluggin to do the same). All of these apps allow full external HD storage including any thumbnails for search/retrieval systems.

[Allann]

Hi Bigdazzler

Both Aperture (Aperture2) and Lightroom will both want to have their "Library" system setup on the C drive and that will chew up enourmous amounts of drive space. Much of this can be changed to an external drive which is almost a necessity with an IMac but the app still needs a fair sized C drive space - especially in Aperture 2.

I run Lightroom 2.2 catalogs straight from 1Tb external drive (eSATA connection). Data is also stored with the catalog (in a seperate directory). Only the application resides on my root drive. Never used Aperture, so can't comment, but that seems strange to me. I ensure that images NEVER reside on my root drive (only exception is when doing an export to my gallery, and then it's only temp). This could be a mac thing but seems strange the same program would work so differently.

Another issue I found with both those applications is their refusal to actually change the master image but rely on an output MXL type file. This didnt suit me as in many cases I want to do basic changes to the master image then have a range of alternate sub images ie web suitable jpg's or cropped images etc, and those images actually as image files not an MXL info file.

Again not sure if this is a mac thing, but on PC version of lightroom you can create virtual copies which are stacked with the original. Before I make an edit of the original I create a virtual copy and change it. Always good to be able to go back (but then I have the backup created on import if I forget).

Hope this helps, happy to create a post on Lightroom workflow if people are interested. Sorry to see you go to the dark side

[Calxoddity]

Allan,
You just beat me to it: Aperture allows you to catalogue your photos in either referenced or managed modes - or a mix if you like. In referenced mode, Aperture leaves the photo where it is and just points to it. In managed mode, Aperture imports the photo into its database.

Where you keep your Aperture library is up to you - there's nothing to stop you from keeping it on the internal iMac drive, as you get the speed benefit, but your backups had better be good! (and mine are!!!). There is an inherent compromise in selecting an iMac that means external storage is not optional...

I'm not sure I understand Mark's comments about Aperture - it does non-destructive adjustments to your photos, keeping a record of the adjustments so that you have infinite undo capability. I've got multiple versions of several photos, by creating new versions such as:
- one optimised for a particular photo printer
- another as a monochrome
- another as a cropped version I'm playing with
- plus the original photo as the reference point

From my trial experience with Lightroom 2, this is the same as the virtual copy capability.

At any time (and I did this earlier today) I can choose one of the versions and export it as a reduced size jpg to post on this site.

Hope this helps.

PS - He's finally realised the power of the Dark Side.. bwahahahahah etc etc

Regards,
Calx

[Jimbo]

"Windows, I am your father...."

[bigdazzler]

I would probably create and manage my library on the int drive but back up to an ext WD or Seagate HD every couple of days ..

i like the sound of what Dav has done .. partitioned 100 gig of his int HD for photo storage .. it sound simple and easy

[bigdazzler]

REMOVED : Double post

[MarkW]

Maybe I didnt investigated Lightroom far enough to get the configuration correct to get everthing but the actual app out of the C drive. I did manage in both apps to get it to store the image on an external drive but it wouldn't catalogue on the external drive, it wanted to use the 'pictures" directory for cataloguing. Must be something I missed.

The other issue is I want to use destructive altering of the master image. I don't want to be told I cant change the master image without destruction of the other images. This also goes for naming the file. The big no no in Aperture is you cant change the name of a file once its in the image library cause it upsets all th other image XML files. I change file names to suit my cataloguing system, sometimes a file is miss-filed so I cant change it - no way.

Didn't purchase Lightroom just used a trail version, but I did buy Aperture 2 and it just sits on the shelf as it didnt do things the way I wanted them to. Oh well - each to their own. CS3 worked the way I wanted and now its the main app.

[davwhite]

My Imac came with a 300+GB HDD which I partitioned 100Gb to be my Photo drive.
I have a Lacie external HDD which takes the macs backup, it from memory, is around 150Gb. This constantly backs up only new info, deleting the oldest information when the disk is full.

I run Aperture 2 for all my RAW processing and storage until I convert to JPEG and at that time they go to the partitioned drive.

I only use CS3 for image size changes.

Just for fun:

I was asked by a friend to look at her laptop (Windows XP) After waiting 5 minutes for it to be ready with numerous error messages I could finally got to work on it . It was a great reminder to me not to go back to a PC

[jev]

I made the exact same switch a couple of weeks ago, got that exact same configuration (24" iMAC with 4 GByte RAM, standard harddisk and CPU). I did choose Aperture, still don't know if LightRoom is better but I'm quite happy with the configuraton.

As for photo editors, I absolutely loath photoshop. Tried it, found it much too heavy and much too expensive. Steep learning curve too.

So, what than? I tried three options: GiMP (free!), PS Elements and Pixelmator. Each of these have their own pro's and contra's, but in the end I decided to keep GiMP (hey, you can't beet its price / performance ratio ) and PixelMator. The reasons I dropped Elements:
- No full color management support (limited to sRGB and AdobeRGB)
- Only partly supports 16-bit color depth
- Provides a couple of pre-cooked curves, but you can't freely define your own
- Adjustment layers in 8-bit mode only
Now, the latter is somewhat deceptive, since it's the only one out of those three that provides adjustment layers at all, but at 8-bit color depth I'm not impressed. I keep hoping though that PixelMator will soon be extended with adjustment layers.

Pro's for Elements: it does provide these adjustment layers (but not very extensive) and it provides support for ACR. To me, however, the latter is not a reason to choose Elements since the RAW converted in Aperture is at least as good if not better anyway.

[Calxoddity]

For photo editing, I was going to chose GIMP or something other than PSE6, but a funny thing happened when I went to OfficeWorks to buy some stationery. In the bargain bin was a returned copy of PSE6 for Mac, marked down to $49 - some n00b had bought it thinking it was the PC version and realised the mistake later and returned it. At that price it was too good to pass up.

To make up for my absolute lack of knowledge in PSE6, I bought the Missing Manual for PSE6 for the Mac - it's really useful. As it turns out, I use PSE6 perhaps 1% of the time - all of my other adjusting and printing is done in Aperture (PSE gets a workout only when I need to chop up a photo e.g. double-exposure or special effects).

Regards,
Calx

[bigdazzler]

perhaps a stupid question .. but does Aperture have layer and mask functions ?? After watching a million tutorials on the Apple.com i see noe reference to layers at all ..

[Calxoddity]

Daz,
Short answer - no. Long answer - that's not what it's designed for. Aperture is intended for digital asset management (DAM) and processing of photos, not for manipulation.

If you come from an Adobe background it can be a bit of a shock, because you have to unlearn some Adobe bad habits. As it does DAM properly, keywording and management of projects is the means of managing your collection, not the folders on the hard drive - and this is a conceptual leap that some people can't make.

It does very good processing of raw (better than ACR imho) and all the expected adjustments are there (sharpening, noise, white balance, highlights, shadows, flip, rotate, crop. straighten, saturation, colour adjustments), but not spot adjustments except for dodge and burn, unless you buy plugins.

Aperture has an "edit with..." option that allows you to round-trip your photo as a tiff to your favorite editor for the more advanced photo manipulation. Mine is set up for using PSE6, but only use it around 1% of the time. Your usage may vary depending on how often you cheat with your photos... (philosophical sore point - I'd rather take the photo than create the photo).

Anyhow, here's a pikkie of my working with some coastal shots I took recently, where I'm comparing 4 shots side-by-side. (BTW, this is the 4th project structure I have used, as I become better at using Aperture. I've been renaming albums, creating and deleting albums, splitting and consolidating projects to my heart's content until it has arrived at current iteration - which seems to be working pretty well.)

Feel free to ask more questions - it took me some time and some reading to really start using Aperture properly and leveraging the power of it.

Regards,
Calx

[mcdesign]

What size HD are you getting, you will need and external HD, I have two, one for backup (time machine is magic) and one for all my data, I don't keep any data on them main HD at all only system and applications and the necessary stuff that goes into the user library.
When buying a external HD make sure it is a Firewire one, there are two Firewire ports on the iMac, one 400 and one 800, USB is far too slow to read and write to with images.

Someone mentioned a C drive?????????????? (MarkW) never heard that one before and I have been using Macs for many years, I think you would be better off getting Photoshop than Elements, but I guess that is a personal choice and depends on how far you want to push your images.

If you need any help in the change over just ask and I hope you enjoy it as I do.

[MarkW]

Someone mentioned a C drive?????????????? (MarkW) never heard that one before and I have been using Macs for many years, I think you would be better off getting Photoshop than Elements, but I guess that is a personal choice and depends on how far you want to push your images.

OK so Mac dosen't call the single HDD within the case a "C" drive, yes I know its called the Mac HD (if you looked I do own an MBP) but for ease of communication to somebody who is changing from Windoze to Mac, this is a very easy way to describe the internal HD.

Personally I would generally refer to it as a c drive as after more than 20 years with Windows and IBM compats before them, its a habit hard to break.

BTW USB2 (480Mb/s) is actually better (marginally) than FireWire 400 (400Mb/s) and FireWire 800 whilst supposed to be 800Mb/s is rarely that fast and generally not much better than about 600Mb/s.

Bigdazzler
If your going to do backups or image transfers and walk out of the room while you transfer a whole HD then the difference between USB 2 and FW800 is pretty much negligible. If your sitting and waiting for every last second then use FW800.

You might also like to note that getting good quality shielded FW800 cables is difficult and the plugs fitted to them usully aren't overly reliable. I went through 4 different sets of leads before getting a good set but they are so thick - about 10mm that they are difficult to position in the office due to the wide bend radius of the cable (they dont bend easily).

For backing up to an image dtatbase HD, I use a program called Chronosync - works very well. System backup is Time Machine. Note where Windoze does backups which end up as a huge single compressed file, Macs dont do this. They just make a mirror copy of what ever you back up. There maybe programes out there for Mac which will make a Windoze like copy but my own preference is for the mirror copy which means you can replace bits and pieces if necessary or the whole thing if you have to.