New computer for photo editing

[Keith Discovering]

Hi Gents,
I'm thinking of getting / building a new computer and wondered if you'd give advice please. It's going to be used for photo editing mainly, using big
RAW files and photoshop.
Should i stick to Win XP (it's a known evil and the drivers have been around for ages) or wait and go for Vista next year?
If you could be specific on the spec it'd help e.g. processor, RAM (I think min 2MB), HDD (type / size), video card (to run two monitors).
I want to keep the price under $2,000 please.
Thanks for your time guys. Much appreciated
Keith

[frostbite]

From what I have heard, I wouldn't touch Vista for a long time.

Assume you mean 2gB?!

Perhaps a top of the range AMD processor.

[FlyingNikonian]

KD,
If you want to be able to run heavy RAW-files (as in: >12 Mpix + 16bit colour) on you computer, you should aim for as much RAM as possible. 2Gb is an absolute necessity. Get 4 if you can afford it!
Processor-wise,....well.... pick your choice! AMD's Turion 64's or Pentium's quickest P4 should do it.
Video-card doesn't really mean all that much, since you won't be interested in how quickly the computer can move your pic's around on the screen, and unless you work with a lot of toolboxes/windows open during editing, I don't see no real need for a dual-screen set-up either.
Go for a nice wide-screen instead! Samsung's 244T for example, or maybe the Dell equivalent.

I still run a set-up where my camera gear out-costs my computer by a factor of about 10. Then again, there are days when I wished I had a sharper computer. But they don't hit too often.....and when they do,...I just browse my favourite internet cam-shop! I then remember what makes good pictures.
It's the cam and the person behind it. Not the computer.;)

[Saab Dastard]

Second the recommendations to date.

Put your money into the screen, rather than the PC.

I would highly recommend a dual-core processor however. And a 64-bit processor will keep you reasonably future-proof. You don't need the latest and fastest of these, so go for the 3rd fastest - much cheaper!

Disk and memory are both pretty cheap, so get a pair of the biggest disks you can in a SATA RAID 1 (resilience) or 0 (speed) array. Shove in as much physical RAM as the PC will fit - 2, 3, or 4 GB.

Graphics card is relatively unimportant, as is sound.

SD

[Mac the Knife]

Graphics card is relatively unimportant....

I rarely disagree with Saab, but I will now. If you're serious then Matrox make the best cards for graphics work - thems what the Pro's use.

For colour accuracy and pin-sharp image handling there's nothing to touch 'em. I got a P650 which is superb. I don't use it much 'cos Matrox's Linux drivers vary from the poor to the nonexistent as a matter of policy

Go for the Parhelia series, they have a selection depending on whether you are going to use flat panels or CRT's.

Two monitors make complex image editing far easier and the Matrox drivers allow you to edit a magnified image in one monitor while seeing the effect in another (and lots of other tricks). I'd suggest two identical 21" CRT monitors for best comfort and accuracy (you'll need a big strong desk!).

And you'll need a graphics tablet - go for the Intuos3 A4

You don't need a superfast PC for still images. An Athlon64 3500+ with 1GB of good memory (buy the best memory you can afford, not for speed but stability).

And finally, I wouldn't use RAID at all, even RAID 1 (certainly not RAID 0) - better to have an eSATA drive connected, and use TechSoft's incomparable Mirrorfolder - http://www.techsoftpl.com/backup/ - to autosynch at regular intervals. When you pack up the eSata drive is disconnected and goes somewhere safe. You can double up on this if you're really paranoid, with a second "grandfather" mirror drive.

[Saab Dastard]

Mac,

I bow to superior knowledge - in this instance I was keeping one eye on the budget requirement!

SD

[Conan the Librarian]

For photo editing, it is:

Good screen,lots of RAM, Big hard drive. (or two) Processor isn't so important and nor is the OS, though with the former, a quickish one will always help. With the latter, XP is a plus. It may in some peoples estimation, be a bag of bolts, but it would be a known bag of bolts and everyone knows its plusses and minuses. The driver sitrep with Vista, I can' wait to see. Video cards are not a major req either. Even a bog std onboard will do initially, if the budget is tight. A few thoughts....

Nasty cheap bundled screens can be ok, but it is worth having a good one and a big one. Colour calibration starts at the monitor and especially if you are playing the RAW/Photoshop card. Budget for a hardware calibration device, such as Spyder2 or the Pantone Huey, to do the calibration for you. Forget Adobe Gamma. All of that mucking around with curves and levels will be wasted if your monitor is lying to you in the first place.

Hard drives? Go for "Colossal" just 2 years have left me with a filled 250GB external and also another 300GB in the backup drive. I need to double this and fairly soon too. Upgrading at purchase is often much cheaper than you think, but expect to use double or triple what you currently expect.

DVD/CD-ROM drive. God knows what the state of play with Blu Ray is at present, but that or the equivalent will give a much more attractive storage option, but nobody knows how long the discs will last, so to be sure, have 3 copies in total. First copy on Drive A, second on drive B, third on removable media. That way, you would be a tad unlucky to get stuffed on all three at the same time, unless there is a fire. Storage space for photographers is depressing, but how much are your images worth and could you replace them? Thankfully, it is all much cheaper than it was. Don't skimp.

Printers. If you are hardware calibrated, your printer might just produce decent prints. If your monitor isn't - then you stand a very small chance of your hard slaving over CS2, bearing fruit. Prints will often be cheaper if you outsource and you will be confident that what they see on their own monitor, bears a passing resemblance to what you see on yours. Trust me, it saves a fortune to get that hardware colorimeter as soon as you can.

If you want to really go the techno way, then two monitors appeal to some users, though having tried it, I have to admit to finding it a pain. All toolboxes can go on mon 2 whilst you drool over your latest creation on box 1. Most video cards wil only let you calibrate one monitor per video card and although looking spectacular to those more easily aroused, I do question the added value or benefit, over a good 19 inch monitor.

Conan

[amanoffewwords]

Surprised no-one's mentioned Macs in this case - I though they were "the bizeness" for images, graphics etc.:confused:

[Oceanz]

PC's are just as good these days and generally cheaper. And interchangability of files with Mac clients is no longer any hassle either.

[Keith Discovering]

Bloody hell, that was quick :)

Yes, I meant 2GB of RAM frostbite. Blame my all night flying roster :(

Thanks very much everyone. I've already got a Matrox P750 Dual monitor card on my system at the moment , so I'll probably use that one unless anyone can suggest something else.

I've got 2 CRT monitors and really like viewable area. Perhaps all that would change with one BFO monitor instead? :E . I love them but they take up space but am unsure as to the colour replication of the flat panel monitors. I'd appreciate a bit more advice please, especially if you could recommend a biggie for me.

I really can't thank all of those that replied enough. It has been a huge help

Cheers guys

KD

[Conan the Librarian]

LCD screens are surprisingly good these days, but are stirl left a litle behind by CRT. As long as you colour manage the screen as mentioned earlier, you will be ok with either, though a 19 inch LCD monitor is a nice, comfortable size to work with.

Most screens are sold to consumers and that is why the monitor manufacturers pump out software that makes their product look more atttractive and vibrant, though this is the kiss of death for serious photo editing. A hardware device will measure what the monitor throws out and applies a correction curve direct to the video card, so that "What you see, is what you got" It is critical to get this right if you are going to the trouble of editing via Photoshop or similar. Things now are much cheaper today than even a few months ago and I cannot tell you what a difference this makes to your output and how much you will save in paper and ink. The nightmare scenario goes like this. RAW file into the computer, which sees and displays different and somewhat arbitrary colours. You spend twenty minutes of fiddling and fettling with Photoshop and then, this goes to a printer that might be working in an entirely different colour space. If you get the monitor calibration right, you will stand a fighting chance of the rest coming out well.

Set everything you can to Adobe 1998 so that everything is working the same colour space and if printing at home, beware the lure of dirt cheap compatible cartridges.

Conan

[Keith Discovering]

Thanks again everyone....I'll let you know what I get :)