Computer specs for photo processing

[Rupert49]

There are 16 pages of previous posts within this computer related section of the forum and I am well aware that my query will have been partly addressed already. However, I urgently need succinct jargon-free guidance as to a good spec for a computer that will mostly be used for photo processing (PSE7) as well as a little bit of internet surfing and emails. I don't play computer games, I don't download music or movies, myspacefacetwitterbook have all happily passed me by, but I do have a budget of about 2-3K (there is a bit more if necessary) for a computer plus peripherals. Until now I've only had my work laptop for all this and it's very slow with RAW and large jpeg files.

I'm probably going for a Dell for the heart of the system, Samsung or LG for the monitor, Epson for a scanner (prints and negatives) and Canon or Epson for a good quality colour printer (up to A4 - can't see me wanting anything bigger!).

If anyone can spare the time to list what they believe to be the minimum specification for the computer itself - processor (I think I've heard of 'dual core'), size of memory (is that the RAM?), speed of operation (is this the gigabyte/terabyte part?), etc. I'd be extremely grateful, because I need to make this purchase before I retire at the end of September

Many thanks in anticipation ... Rupert

[Roy5051]

19" Widescreen Monitor, dual Core Computer Processor, say 2.5MHZ, 2GB RAM Memory (if you are not going bigger than A4, this should be enough), Epson R800 printer or Canon iP4600 printer, Canon 8800F Scanner (especially if you want to scan slides). Should be able to pick up the lot for less than £1K

[Rupert49]

Thanks Roy, this looks to be a great starting point. I'd like my set-up to be future ready if possible (I only plan to do this once!) and since my budget can stretch a bit further, on what would you suggest I spend a little more ... higher capacity memory, faster processor (how is this expressed in the technical specs?), bigger or higher resolution monitor, higher resolution scanner, etc.? Would you recommend a graphics tablet, or perhaps an external screen calibration device?

Many thanks again .... Rupert

[Roger_Provins]

If you want to "future-proof" for 2-3 years. I'd say a 24" wide screen monitor and a computer with at least an Intel Core 2 Duo 2.8 GHz processor with as much RAM as you can get on the mother-board (at least 4GB), a couple of hard disks of at least 500GB each. You'll easily get this within your budget with plenty left over for a scanner, printer, monitor calibrator and other peripherals.

You probably will wish you had an A3 printer - sooner rather than later and you could spend a good chunk of you budget on Adobe CS4

[Rupert49]

Really appreciate your contribution here Roger, thanks for taking the trouble. I was wondering about the CS4 thing .. 10x the price of PSE7 that I've just bought - will I really make good use of all the additional facilities? I'm not a graphic artist, but in my retirement I do intend to spend time getting my photography to look just how I imagined it could, having got it right in camera first of course! (5D MkII with 'L' lenses)

Kind regards ... Rupert

[Roger_Provins]

We could all manage with PSE7 I'm sure. BUT if you have the dosh CS4 is the one to get - really

Why do you have a 5D MkII with 'L' lenses and not something you could manage with for a tenth of the price?

[Rupert49]

Point taken!

[john_g]

I'm at the point where I wish I could afford Photoshop instead of Elements but, if you've already got Elements, why upgrade before you feel a need for some of the features that it lacks?

If I were starting out with a healthy budget, I'd want to select a decent monitor that can display most, if not all, of the Adobe RGB colour space, I'd definitely get an A3 printer rather than A4, and I'd get something to calibrate the monitor (and maybe profile the printer too, as the ColorMunki can do). I'd maybe look at a graphics tablet and only then see what was left for the computer itself. Even then, I'd prefer extra RAM to a slightly faster processor.

If you're going for a Windows-based machine, Windows 7 is due for release on October 22nd but, as I understand it, anybody buying a new PC after 26th June (i.e. a couple of days ago) will be eligible for a free upgrade from Vista to Windows 7.

Some info (as well as good reviews of lots of relevant stuff) here:
http://www.trustedreviews.com/software/n...--Promotions/p1

[Jonty_Sterne]

Hi Rupert.
I recently upgraded my setup. I however was not fortunate on having a £3000 budget.
I recommend building your computer (you do not actually have to build it)
You can have someone build up a computer to your specification here

Going onto the spec I would reccomend:

Go for an intel quad core processor or core 2 duo
Have a decent amount of RAM (3-4GB)
Get a high resolution monitor. (look for around 20" HD)
Have two 500GB harddrives

As for peripherals get an epson r800 A3 printer. If you are willing to spend alot on ink every fill up.
Get a monitor calibrator
A scanner cn be handy and also an external hard drive if you do not wish to use one of the two inbcomputer hard drives for back up.

I have adobe CS2 running on my computer which has a quad core intel processor (Q6600) and 3gb of RAM and ony 1 single 500gb hard drive.
I got the package with vista premium for £320 and later spent £150 on a samsung syncmaster t200 monitor.
For £3000 you could get a computer that a pro might even envy.

Try looking also for a computer specialist in your area and he could tell you your requirements and get it built for you.

Without building the computer you could look into a high spec dell.

Good luck and if you don't understand it all just ask

[Rupert49]

Thanks for the advice and the link John, I'll have a good trawl through it all. I've heard of compatibility issues with Vista so I thought I'd stick with XP for the time being.

Thanks again
....................................
Rupert

[Rupert49]

Thank you Jonty, all useful info and I will certainly take note of your advice.

Please don't be envious of my 3K budget - that's an absolute maximum and it's meant to cover everything! If I can get something that's as good as I think I'll need and it costs less than that I'll be delighted, believe me!

Thanks for the offer of help in future .. I'm trying to avoid getting bogged down in jargon and technicalities, but I think a little knowledge and understanding is going to be required if I'm to end up with what I want

Regards
.................................................. ...
Rupert

[Wodge]

One point (and apologies if it has been raised). If you go for XP, or Vista 32-bit, there is no real point in getting more than 3GB of RAM.

If you go for Vista 64-bit, then go for as much RAM as you can (as I think has been mentioned). I would agree that it is more important that a (minor) speed increase in the CPU.

[kfm]

I'd suggest Adobe Lightroom - worth a download of the trial at least - rather than CS4.

I find that LR does all I want - and more. I have PSE6 which is good too but LR has everything the DSLR user needs in one easy to use interface.

Well worth checking out.

[Gordon_McGeachie]

Thank you Jonty, all useful info and I will certainly take note of your advice.

Please don't be envious of my 3K budget - that's an absolute maximum and it's meant to cover everything! If I can get something that's as good as I think I'll need and it costs less than that I'll be delighted, believe me!

Thanks for the offer of help in future .. I'm trying to avoid getting bogged down in jargon and technicalities, but I think a little knowledge and understanding is going to be required if I'm to end up with what I want

Regards
.................................................. ...
Rupert

Jonty mentioned a pc specialist.................

you coult look here then.........

http://www.pcspecialist.co.uk/

[Rupert49]

Thanks Gordon, looks like a helpful website
.................................................. .
Rupert

[Rupert49]

If you go for XP, or Vista 32-bit, there is no real point in getting more than 3GB of RAM. If you go for Vista 64-bit, then go for as much RAM as you can

Thanks for your advice Wodge, however I have no idea what is meant by 32-bit and 64-bit with reference to computer specifications. Geoffrey Crawley's article on Bit Depth (AP/13.6.09) left me fairly confused as it was, but I think he was only talking about a DSLR's ability to record colours

Everyone is telling me to get as much RAM as I can - presumably irrespective of all the other stuff - so that's probably what I'll put at the top of the spec list

Regards
.................................................. .
Rupert

[Wodge]

Oops - should have explained better.

If you are going to buy as much RAM as possible, make sure that when you purchase the operating system that is 64 bit (assuming you are using Windows).

If it isn't (i.e. it is 32 bit) you will be paying for RAM that your computer can't make full use of!

Hope that is a little clearer.

[Jonty_Sterne]

Basically windows comes in two versions, 64bit and 32bit.
64 bit can support more RAM than 32bit.
The bonus of more RAM is that your computer will be able to run programmes need more 'power' to run a lot faster. For example Photoshop.
Compatibility for vista is usually only a problem for older peripherals. I have vista and CS2 and have no problems and an Epson printer and have had no problems.
If you are not very fussy then xp is fine. I know loads of hardcore gamers who use xp as it is alot less 'power hungry' than vista. In this case 3gb of ram is more than enough. I have 3gb in my vista computer and run photoshop more than happily.

As for the envy all I'll say is I could do with 3k but I have all I need in a computer o bought for less than 500.

I would recommend spending up to 1500 and then getting new lenses or lens for your camera.
As a computer novice you won't get much out of a 1k computer minus peripherals rather than a computer half that cost. But that is only what I would do if I was in your shoes.

hope I have helped.

[john_g]

It's ok to focus on the spec of the computer - but, in my opinion, only up to a point. Fundamentally, the higher specified the computer, the quicker it will run but, provided you have a reasonably decent machine, that's the only difference it will make. My computer is a modest one, but it runs as fast as I need. For example, when you are uploading images to the computer from your camera, the speed will be limited by the speed of the camera memory card etc., not the speed of the computer. When printing a photo, the time it takes will be determined by the printer, not the computer. Yes, the machine needs to meet a minimum spec and, beyond that, yes, a higher spec machine will be faster to some degree, but I wonder whether you are putting too much emphasis on this. It makes complete sense to go for a decent amount of RAM (memory) because this is a pretty cheap way of ensuring your machine can cope with the large amonts of data contained in digital images but faster processors are, in my opinion, a more complex thing to decide - there's generally, at any given time, an obvious optimal point where the processor is reasonably fast but reasonably cheap... try to save a bit of money and the processor will be much slower, try to get a significantly faster processor and the cost will shoot up. It's generally easy to see this just by looking through the computer manufacturer's options.

On the other hand, if you buy a poor printer, you'll get poor prints. If you don't have a decent monitor with a monitor calibrator, you'll never be sure that you've got the brightness, contrast and colour balance of your images right.

As I said before, personally I'd choose and cost the peripherals first, and then see how much was left for the computer itself.

Do others disagree with this approach and, if so, why?

[GlennH]

As I said before, personally I'd choose and cost the peripherals first, and then see how much was left for the computer itself.

Do others disagree with this approach and, if so, why?

Much as I like to disagree, I agree. It seems that many don't budget properly for peripherals, or even give them much consideration.

The best low-cost monitors (comparatively speaking) are probably some of the Dells - the Dells that use IPS or e-IPS panels manufactured by LG.

In terms of software - Lightroom isn't really a replacement for PS, but is more complementary. Elements lacks softproofing (as does LR I believe?), amongst other things.