New PC Purchase - Mac or Windows

[mikew09]

Team,
I a drawing close to a PC upgrade sometime this yr. I am less than 12 months into photography and have always been a Windows / Intel man but seems to me that my PC tool is not ideally suited for what I want to use it for.
I assume that all serious photo type people would use Mac or prefer too if within the budget. A couple of fwork buddies have just gone down the Mac stream, Mac Book Pro and a very large and brilliant screen desktop.

Went to good old JB and had a play with the new Mac and WOW - this is what I need for my photo processing.

So thought I would poll to see if my assumption is correct.

[peterking]

I voted for Mac simply because that is what I am using. Bought mine last year and am very happy with it, but up until then had been using a PC for decades.
Of the two there is not a lot of difference as you end up using the same software on either. My choice was based on the mac simply working and having what I thought I needed from day one. In hindsight I could have just bought the software for my PC and saved some money.
Having said all of the above I am glad I moved to the mac and have no intentions of going back to a PC although I do use them at work and have one sitting here occupying space.

[ricktas]

Your poll makes it sounds like professional photographers only use Mac, and three out of the four options are Mac related. Me thinks you do not need a poll and have already made up your mind, but may not have realised it consciously yet.

In reality, you can process photos on either a Mac or a PC. Both offer DAM software that is similar in Lightroom and Aperture, both can run Photoshop and other editing software, and in the end your choice of computer is just another link in the chain, same as Nikon v Canon. If I presented two photos on AP, one taken with Nikon and processed on a PC, the other taken with Canon and processed on a Mac, you would not know which was which, and your choice would be a guess.

Buy the Mac cause it is what you want (as your post and poll show), but remember that it isn't the thing that makes your photos any better.

[coolie21]

Just to point out that your title is misleading. Macs are intel too.

[Dylfish]

I have both a quad core windows machine and a 15" mbp. Personally I prefer using my MacBook but either are fine for pp. Are you on the go much or is it mostly from home?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kym]

Intel/Windows - not because I really want to but my bread and butter is based on that.
Windoze is the lowest common denominator product.

If I could it would be Ubuntu Linux but PS etc. don't run on that platform.
The GIMP is ok, but not up to everything I want yet.

FWIW: The AP server is the latest Centos Linux (free Redhat Enterprise Server) - but servers are a different game.

I've edited the thread heading 'Mac or Windows'

[mikew09]

Hi All, thanks for the comments and help.

Rick - yea, in looking back I suppose I just should have polled who uses Mac or Windows.
Coolie - good point, I think Kym has corrected that for me.

Oh well, my first attempt at a "pole" type thread. Easy enouhg to do but retrospect I think it requires a look more though on what the real question is to be answered.

Thanks again for the helpful comments.

Mike

[Dan Cripps]

Of infinitely more importance is the consideration you should give to your monitor and colour calibration workflow. The importance of the operating system is dwarfed by comparison.

[mikew09]

Zeke - I suppose that is why I am leaning towards the imac. From what I have experienced in the stores the imac is far superior in monitor and graphics display.

[Regnis]

I just received my 27 inch iMac today and I have to say it is absolutely amazing!! Possibly one of the best things I have ever bought in my whole life. The screen is amazing and everyones photos look sensational on it! Just switched to mac and can't say i'll be going back within this decade

[mikew09]

Regnis - I had a play with the 27" iMac at JB in the city today - absolutely bloody awsome. I am sure you will not look back.

[mal from cessnock]

I'd change to MAC tomorrow if I didn't already have 3 good PCs and all the software I need for PP images.

It represents a big change to swap from PC to MAC

At the end of the day the PC does the same job with a few limitations. The worst one being that Windows reserves too much RAM where I am told MAC doesn't (and this is here-say, I don't even know if this limitation is true)

Thankfully, "the computer does not take the photograph", it's our ability to see the light around us in this wonderful world and respond accordingly with the skills we have acquired that is the important issue.

[Kym]

At the end of the day the PC does the same job with a few limitations. The worst one being that Windows reserves too much RAM where I am told MAC doesn't (and this is here-say, I don't even know if this limitation is true

True. *nix systems have a very different approach to memory and resource usage.
MacOS is a Unix variant in case your were not aware. http://developer.apple.com/opensource/index.html

Indeed the X11 graphics system is radically different to Windoze as well.
This difference makes porting software between the two systems problematic.
But having Adobe PS etc running on MacOS means there would be much less work to make it available on Linux - Adobe are a pain in that respect.

[Tannin]

I assume that all serious photo type people would use Mac or prefer too if within the budget.

If you start with incorrect assumptions, you will get incorrect answers. You can't get much more incorrect than this.

[IanB]

I just received my 27 inch iMac today and I have to say it is absolutely amazing!! Possibly one of the best things I have ever bought in my whole life. The screen is amazing and everyones photos look sensational on it! Just switched to mac and can't say i'll be going back within this decade

This can be very misleading when the digital image is going to be printed.

I'd change to MAC tomorrow if I didn't already have 3 good PCs and all the software I need for PP images.

It represents a big change to swap from PC to MAC

At the end of the day the PC does the same job with a few limitations. The worst one being that Windows reserves too much RAM where I am told MAC doesn't (and this is here-say, I don't even know if this limitation is true)

Thankfully, "the computer does not take the photograph", it's our ability to see the light around us in this wonderful world and respond accordingly with the skills we have acquired that is the important issue.

I'm in the same boat.

[Dan Cripps]

Zeke - I suppose that is why I am leaning towards the imac. From what I have experienced in the stores the imac is far superior in monitor and graphics display.

iMacs are notoriously hard to calibrate, traditionally.

I have no experience with the current models, however.

[Calxoddity]

iMacs are notoriously hard to calibrate, traditionally.

I have no experience with the current models, however.

The main problem with previous generations of iMac is that they didn't have the capability to reduce brightness enough to calibrate properly unless you applied 3rd party solutions to reduce the brightness to 110-120 lumens (some free, some pay lots). People would be complaining that their prints were always too dark.

With the latest generation iMacs, the use of lcd backlighting instead of cold cathode appears to have gotten rid of this problem - you can reduce the brightness until the screen is almost dark.

So, unless you have an objection to glossy screen, the new 27" iMacs are really nice machines with really nice screens. With the stronger dollar, they're also good value.

Oh, one last point - a previous poster observed that the prints look really good on the screen. Sometimes it's "too good" - the print never lives up to the punch and contrast of the on-screen version and the user is disappointed. Again, good calibration can reduce/eliminate this effect within the constraints of the target printer capability and ambient light conditions in the workspace.

Regards,
Calx

[Regnis]

[QUOTE=IanB;490985]This can be very misleading when the digital image is going to be printed.

I have thought about this. I guess it is initially just going to be a case of trial and error. I must say though my shots on this computer are much closer to my prints than my 4yr old dell laptop was.

[mikew09]

Regnis - Same, my Dell on screen shots are nothing like my prints - very much trial and error but in general the prints are better. Hmmm, but what can I expect from a 4.5 yr old Dell laptop that struggles to run PS.
In the week I have frequented JB HiFi to play with the demo PC's and I have to say that I don't see much improvement in the Windows servers, especially with performance, but find the mac very impressive.
In review, I think I did a poor job in creating this thread as opposed to what I wanted out of it. Live and learn.

I have never owned a mac, a couple of mates (hobby photographers) have moved to mac in the last month or so and rave about them. Mainly I was interested in how mch of the photography realm used mac's for photo editing.

Regardless, I have found this thread very interesting.

[DAdeGroot]

I have never owned a mac, a couple of mates (hobby photographers) have moved to mac in the last month or so and rave about them. Mainly I was interested in how mch of the photography realm used mac's for photo editing.

I do, but as others have said, Lightroom and Photoshop are available on Windows too, and with calibrated screens on either system there's not a huge amount of difference, esp. if you go 64 bit Windows (OSX is pretty much 64bit native these days, but even before that, you'd still see all your RAM > 4Gb anyway due to a different memory architecture).