Photography Computer Question

[CEK40]

Good Afternoon to All!

I am in the process of updating my desktop computer and was wondering if anyone had in recommendations for specs that would be helpful for working with photography such as: hard drive, memory, graphics, processor, etc.

I am not a professional but have used a camera most of my life (over 40 years) and have just really gotten into using digital photography (I'm still stuck in the film age) and using a computer to manipulate photos, store and print. There is just so much out there I have no clue.

Recommendation on a good printer would be nice too. I have also looked into a photo scanner, Epson since I have thousands of photo prints that I would like to scan and make DVD for each of my children of the prints that I have.

I appreciate any other information that you may be able to give me and look forward to hearing from you.

Thanks in advance,
CK in VA

 

[photo_chick]

The specs realyl depend on what software you want to use. Usually when I shop for a machine my primary considerations are memory and the video card. Then I consider processor speed. Hard drive space... a 1 TB drive is probably more than big enough if you're getting started. Just remember to plan for backup methods as well.

stats for the laptop I use most of the time right now. It serves me well though it does bog down a tiny bit when creating large panoramas from RAW files:
2.67 Intel i5 dual core mobile processor
8 GB RAM
Radeon 6550 graphics (with switchable Intel HD graphics to save battery life)
1 TB hard drive

The desktop I use (when I can kick my husband off) has a little more power to it with an i7 processor and slightly better video card.

As far as printers, I use an Epson R2880. With the right paper I get prints that rival traditional silver prints. In hindsight I wish I'd gotten the 3880 so I could make 16x20 prints and have a few other options that the printer offers like easier switching between matte black and photo black inks as well as a better ink waste system.

I scan my film and prints with an older Epson 4870 and it does a good enough job to get scans I can make prints from. The newer V500 is comparable though it has a smaller transparency unit. The V700 is a step up model wise and has he larger transparency unit, but it also costs a good bit more.

 

[Cafeen]

Just like cameras, budget will affect this quite a bit... but a couple key areas are going to be:
1) Processing Power/Speed (CPU)
2) Storage
3) RAM
4) Video Card (GPU)

While you are working with graphics and such, the processing is mostly done by the CPU and the GPU doesn't really do much. As such you can skimp a little bit on that (so long as you're not using it for gaming as well ). RAM is relatively cheap these days, so as long as you have at least 8GB, you'll be fine.

CPU and Storage are the prime considerations. Since storage is pretty easily upgradeable (especially for a desktop), you're going to want to focus mostly on the CPU. This doesn't mean get the quickest and strongest out there, though, just when you're weighing options over cost, the CPU should be weighted as a priority. If getting a better CPU means you skimp on the video card, so be it. For reference, when exporting stills, I regularly peg my CPU and it's not some little thing . RAM, even before at 6GB I rarely capped it out.

Storage is another consideration, but as mentioned is cheap enough and easy enough to upgrade on a desktop. I'd look for at least 1TB here and that should keep you for awhile. You'd also want to look at an external drive and online storage of your files for this, as Hard Drives can wear out quickly (especially with all the read/write they go through).

So, for me, my minimum specs (discounting the gaming I do) would be along the lines of
CPU: i5 dual core (pref: i7 quad)
Storage: 1TB drive (pref: 1-2TB data drive, 250GB 10k RPM OS/Program drive, 1-2TB external)
RAM: 8GB
Video: Meh, whatever (Dedicated would be better than integrated)

My personal machine sits on an i7 quad core with 3 HDs ranging from 250GB to 700GB (erm..2 now, one died ), 12 GB RAM (Triple Channel, it accesses 3 sticks at a time instead of 2, making it slightly faster, at least that's the rationale I used when I built it), ATI Radeon 5770HD Graphics card (1GB VRAM) (used to be 2 of these...but one of those died too). Of course, I do a lot of gaming (erm, used to, I haven't for awhile...) so my the focus on this machine was different.

Printers and Scanners, I have no idea about. I have to buy ink every time I use my printer because it dries out in the 3 years between uses .

 

[photo_chick]

While you are working with graphics and such, the processing is mostly done by the CPU and the GPU doesn't really do much.

I'm going to disagree here. The GPU matters, especially if you're using applications like photoshop or want to do any video editing. It affects the redraw, how changes are previewed, in the newest versions of photoshop even features of the software. It will also affect when you work with things that need to be rendered like HDR, panoramas and anything with video. When you export in Lightroom or save a jpeg you're rendering and use that GPU. Same when you process RAW files. And then there is the overall quality of the displayed image on screen. You don't need as much as you would if you were gaming, but if you really want to edit images you need a solid video card. It gets really old having to wait for the image on your screen to redraw when you zoom in and out, navigate around it, or move the window when you have a crappy video card.

 

[TerryLP]

Consider going to some local computer repair stores. Get some estimates. Many of them build computers on site. There are many advantages to this as opposed to buying most of the name brand boxed units. Many of the boxed off the shelf units use proprietary components. This means that you have to go back to them for any repairs or replacement parts. You have to use their technical support. Repair requires doing without your computer sometimes for weeks. You will be lucky to get someone who speaks understandable english. Usually your computer will come loaded with a lot of software that you do not want, or need. If you have a local shop build it for you, the only parts and software are the ones that you specify. If you need help (not your software) you will be able to talk to the person that built it and knows your computer. If you need a repair you just take it in and usually repaired in one to two days. The cost is very close to the boxed shelf units. It is also easy to upgrade and just replace the parts that you want. You will also get a full version of Windows and not some companies set of restore disks. I have had my last three computers locally built. As you were told earlier, both the GPU and the CPU are valuable componants,but there are other things to consider. I suggest that you have at least one system drive (C-drive) and at least one internal storage drive. Only put your programs on your system drive. Store all of your photographs on your storage drive. That way if you get hit by a virus, in most cases, you will only lose what is on your system drive and all you have to do is format your drive and reload Windows and your other programs. Your creations should be safe, but just in case keep a backup on a removable external drive. All of this is under the assumtion that you are going with a PC and not an Apple Machine. Good luck.

 

[SplashMo]

The monitor is important as is the printer. Or you can print online... Costco has profiles available for each printer in their stores through drycreek.

I would look for an IPS monitor. I like the 1900x1200 resolution 24" or a highter resolution 27" or 30". However if you search for photo monitors there are budget choices from Dell and HP and there are non-budget choices.

It will be cheaper maybe to go 1900x1080 on a 24" and that is OK as well. Do try for the IPS. I have had gook luck with Epson printers. However I print mostly online to save money...

 

[zackiedawg]

I recently replaced my 6 year old desktop too, for photo purposes. My machine is similar to Cafeen's setup, and something I specifically did to allow for sufficient storage, good processing power for memory-intensive photo editing software, and capacity for multiple image processing/stitching/etc.

Mine's an i7 processor, with 12GB RAM, dedicated video card, running twin 2TB drives in a RAID0 backup array, which has daily backup to a twin 2-TB external drive system, and I also keep 2 1TB passport drives handy so I can manually back up photos/music/video etc to those drives for an extra redundant backup every month or two. I keep the Passports stored at work so they're in a separate location in case of disaster.

 

[rex008]

Probably well known by now, but worth mentioning that you should make sure you install a 64 bit OS otherwise you can't use more than 3Gb of your installed RAM. And then use 64 bit versions of Lightroom or Photoshop otherwise the same restriction applies. Lightroom will happily gobble all the RAM you can throw at it.

As for video cards - I know Lightroom doesn't use GPU acceleration at all (not even for rendering, no OpenCL or CUDA there, yet). Photoshop does use OpenGL on the GPU for some processing (if the card supports it). Video rendering also usually does use it, but depending on what you're planning I'd balance your speed/$ towards CPU/RAM rather than video card.

My setup is an overclocked I7 quad with 8Gb RAM and an NVidea 550Ti card. 1Tb HD, plus a 64Gb SSD with the OS and common apps on it. Got an Asus IPS monitor (makes a big difference compared to my old monitor). I also run a Synology NAS with 2Tb in it, which has some great built-in apps for photo sharing and the like. That can also then backup to an external drive.

 

[photo_chick]

As for video cards - I know Lightroom doesn't use GPU acceleration at all (not even for rendering, no OpenCL or CUDA there, yet). Photoshop does use OpenGL on the GPU for some processing (if the card supports it). Video rendering also usually does use it, but depending on what you're planning I'd balance your speed/$ towards CPU/RAM rather than video card.

I've got switchable graphics on my laptop so maybe it makes for an easier comparison. The VPU makes a difference. You don't loose features like you do with Photoshop, but it does make a difference.

 

[boBQuincy]

One thing I would add is that Photoshop and some other programs write intermediate data to a scratch drive. Using a small Solid State Drive for the scratch drive can really boost performance. Running the programs from a drive other than the system drive may also increase performance.

 

[rex008]

I've got switchable graphics on my laptop so maybe it makes for an easier comparison. The VPU makes a difference. You don't loose features like you do with Photoshop, but it does make a difference.

I'm sure it makes a difference in terms of screen refresh and smoothness in moving windows about, but if it makes a difference to render/export times, then Adobe are lying. Just saying . It may be that on-board graphics ties up some CPU resources that the export can use, and you free up by moving to discrete GPU, but according to Adobe:

Q. Are Camera Raw or Photoshop Lightroom GPU accelerated?
A. No.

And that is quoted for all versions of Lightroom, including 4. 32/64, PC/Mac. Saying that, if spending $40 on a basic video card gets the CPU freed up, it's probably worth doing. But you shouldn't see any difference in Lightroom performance between a $40 card and an $800 card.

Getting back to the OP, see also
http://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/kb/optimize-performance-lightroom.html
for performance tips - some good stuff there on improving speed by configuring cache and previews.

 

[photo_chick]

Interesting rex008. I've been told differently on the subject buy one of the devs who worked on the software. But then this is Adobe who gets all the bugs fixed in CS5 only to turn around and release CS6 which is full of newer, more exciting bugs.