Mac vs. PC for storing and editing my pictures.

[ADIRVING]

I am having a hard time deciding if I want a PC laptop or a Mac powerbook to store and edit my pictures. Anyone have suggestions? I will be using photoshop elements to do my editing. The computer won't be used for anything but digital photography. I was hoping to stay in the price range of $1300....Please help me decide!

[Rhys]

I am having a hard time deciding if I want a PC laptop or a Mac powerbook to store and edit my pictures. Anyone have suggestions? I will be using photoshop elements to do my editing. The computer won't be used for anything but digital photography. I was hoping to stay in the price range of $1300....Please help me decide!

I'd go with the Mac just in case you need to upgrade the O/S or to go online. Vista is an unknown quantity and XP is prone to malware/spayware and viruses.

I'm going Mac sometime myself

[Elisha]

they will both work great.....i have a Mac and PC and i prefer PC.
i only use the mac for surfing on the net.

[TNB]

I've been looking into Mac again, but with Vista being new to the market and Mac also releasing a new operating system "supposedly" early this year, I'm holding off on a new computer--currently, I run a PC. Eventually, I may get another Mac (used them long ago) and run both the new Mac OS (Leopard) and the PC OS (Vista Ultimate) on the same machine (Bootcamp).

[Elisha]

windows runs faster via bootcamp on a MAC than OSX does. a shame really. Leopard is supposed to fix that issue with more dual core optimizations.

[TNB]

windows runs faster via bootcamp on a MAC than OSX does.
A diehard Mac fan recently told me the same thing--I wrote "diehard" because he has owned a Mac business for years and we have gone around and around over the "chip" issue and about how some programs are written toward specific chips for years as well. Of course, now that Mac is running Intel.... ;)

[Elisha]

my Macbook has 2gb or ram and Vista too runs faster on it than OSX.

whatever you do....don't try running OSX on 512mb of ram......its painful.

[TNB]

whatever you do....don't try running OSX on 512mb of ram......its painful.
Running Adobe CS2 on a notebook with 512MB of ram would also be painful. I also tried it with 1GB, but moved up to 2GB. By default, CS2 wants something like 50-55% of the RAM.

[Elisha]

you should check out Adobe Lightroom.
its in beta and free for OSX and Windows.....the best program ever.
of course you want to crop and USM in Cs2/3 first before you use Lightroom.

[John_Reed]

you should check out Adobe Lightroom.
its in beta and free for OSX and Windows.....the best program ever.
of course you want to crop and USM in Cs2/3 first before you use Lightroom.Adobe just released Lightroom 1.0, for both Windows and Mac, and I think the "intro" price is $199. Is it worth it? Could be, as it works with RAW files from most cameras (through Adobe Camera RAW), and does cataloguing, organizing, and touchups.

[Elisha]

i'm still using the Public Beta 4 and i love it.

[ADIRVING]

Thanks for the tip on Adobe Lightroom. Does it work with Elements or just CS2?

[Elisha]

no idea.....i never use Elements. i use Lightroom as a standalone.

[John_Reed]

Thanks for the tip on Adobe Lightroom. Does it work with Elements or just CS2?Lightroom is a "standalone" application, needing neither Elements NOR CS2 to work its functions. I'd say it's more powerful than Elements, broader capability, though not as specialized, as CS2, though others might disagree? I only tried an early Beta version, so Elisha would be better informed than I?

[John_Reed]

Thanks for the tip on Adobe Lightroom. Does it work with Elements or just CS2?Lightroom is a "standalone" application, needing neither Elements NOR CS2 to work its functions. I'd say it's more powerful than Elements, broader capability, though not as specialized, as CS2, though others might disagree? I only tried an early Beta version, so Elisha would be better informed than I?

[Elisha]

Lightroom is basically for development purposes of a pic.......mostly lighting and colour adjustments.
it has sharpening/smoothing and de-noising but not sure how well it works.

its not a replacement for CS2/3 but it does hues/saturation, brightening, highlights/shadows and fills better than Photoshop ever did.

[RichNY]

I'm happy with my decision going with a 2Gb 24" iMac. It is a great hardware platform for running both OS X and Microsoft Operating Systems.

I'm surprised nobody mentioned being able to run Aperture- a really sweet application that was one of the deciding factors for me to go Mac. If you haven't seen this video on Aperture its well worth a 2 minute look.
http://movies.apple.com/aperture/resources/tutorial/

[John_Reed]

I'm happy with my decision going with a 2Gb 24" iMac. It is a great hardware platform for running both OS X and Microsoft Operating Systems.

I'm surprised nobody mentioned being able to run Aperature- a really sweet application that was one of the deciding factors for me to go Mac. If you haven't seen this video on Aperature its well worth a 2 minute look.
http://movies.apple.com/aperture/resources/tutorial/It seems like its "stock in trade" is using an original RAW file as a base from which to develop any further JPGs, different RAW files, etc. So if you're coming from JPG, its not so optimal. Moreover, Apple's RAW camera support seems quite limited, maybe just to the "major" brands, such as Canon and Nikon, a few others?

[mattdm]

It seems like its "stock in trade" is using an original RAW file as a base from which to develop any further JPGs, different RAW files, etc. So if you're coming from JPG, its not so optimal. Moreover, Apple's RAW camera support seems quite limited, maybe just to the "major" brands, such as Canon and Nikon, a few others?

http://movies.apple.com/aperture/raw/cameras.html

When you consider that the "few others" are Fujifilm, Konica Minolta, Leica, Olympus, Panasonic, Pentax, and Sony, it doesn't sound so bad. :)

[RichNY]

It seems like its "stock in trade" is using an original RAW file as a base from which to develop any further JPGs, different RAW files, etc. So if you're coming from JPG, its not so optimal.

John- Let me preface my comment by stating that Aperture is the first and only program I've personally used since getting involved with digital photography. Yes, I shoot RAW and make all my adjustments in Aperture. If I want to post my photos or have them available for further enhancement in Photoshop that's the only time I'll convert them to JPG.

As I understand it, even for those who shoot in JPG will have the same benefit of one master file that never gets changed and the ability to have multiple versions with changes made to it. Aperture is only 'not optimal' with JPG in the same sense that any application would be with JPG (ex. Using AutoWhiteBalance and adjusting PP).

It appears that Lightroom and Aperture are going to be pretty close functionality wise with Lightroom running away with market share because its also a PC application.

I am a bit confused by the comment that one should crop in CS2 first before using Lightroom. I believe that the correct sequence would be to import, rate, adjust, crop in Lightroom (or Aperture) first, and then only use CS2 for any fine adjustments that need to be made to portions of the image.

[John_Reed]

http://movies.apple.com/aperture/raw/cameras.html

When you consider that the "few others" are Fujifilm, Konica Minolta, Leica, Olympus, Panasonic, Pentax, and Sony, it doesn't sound so bad. :)Check Apple's latest "supported" list for Aperture RAW: Only the Panasonic LC1, no Pentax K10D, K100D support, yada yada. Like I said, it's limited. My old FZ30, a veteran of ~2 years of shooting, isn't yet supported.

[Elisha]

how come we hear not much talk of the LC1?
it looks so purdy.

[RichNY]

John, not to dismiss your comment about the Pentax cameras, but don't you shoot the FZ30 in JPG so it wouldn't be any issue.

I believe we will be seeing quite a few more supported cameras when the next update to the OS ships.

* Two important features in Aperture not found in Lightroom: Stacks for selecting between images captured in a burst (or between a user selected time interval) and Vaults for protecting your images.

[reppans]

To the original poster....

Go with the Mac... I just converted a couple of months ago. The Mac is just so much easier to use, integrated and virus free (nearly). Make slide shows and movies from your photos and videos and burn them right to a DVD with your music... right out of the box.

[John_Reed]

John, not to dismiss your comment about the Pentax cameras, but don't you shoot the FZ30 in JPG so it wouldn't be any issue.

I believe we will be seeing quite a few more supported cameras when the next update to the OS ships.

* Two important features in Aperature not found in Lightroom: Stacks for selecting between images captured in a burst (or between a user selected time interval) and Vaults for protecting your images.You're right, I primarily shoot JPG, although I have shot RAW on occasion. Given my heavily "burst mode" shooting, especially for birds-in-flight, RAW wouldn't work too well for me in general. But alas, there are several other Panasonic cameras omitted on that list, namely the LX1, LX2, FZ50, & L1. Also, the Leica "sister cameras," i.e., the digilux 3 and the VLUX-1 are not supported, nor is the M8.

By the way, Rich: "Aperture" is the correct spelling of not only this piece of software we're discussing, but also of a very important shooting parameter. You're not alone, but it also seems to be one of the most frequently misspelled words in the camera world!

[BryanMsi]

Here are 3 reasons to go with Mac.

1. you'll get the included iPhoto application which is a dandy photo storage library for mere mortals that also happens to tie in nicely to iTunes, iMovie, and iDVD so you can make photo slideshows with music and burn 'em to DVD to share. WAY less fun to do this on a PC.

2. XP has far more more security problems than MacOSX, and Vista is unknown from a stability and security perspective. There are still no real MacOS X virus threats and most spyware won't run on a Mac at all.

3. Buying an Intel Mac means you can have a PC to, either with BootCamp or Parallels. So one machine is really two! But if you get a PC, you can't run MacOS later...

[erichlund]

The usual debate, which really leads to nowhere. The real question is, if Mac is the preference, how much Mac can you get for the quoted $1300, vs. how much PC. Digital editing is a pretty heavy task, and more computing power may tip the scale to PC. The Mac will be prettier, but you still have to get the job done. If $$$ are no object, then get whichever you like. If $$$ are limited, you may get more bang for the buck with the PC.

On the Apple site, a 13" MacBook with 2ghz processor, 1 gb ram, goes for $1300.

A Dell Inspiron with similar capability and Vista, but with a 17" screen, sells for about $1200.

[aparmley]

Lightroom is a "standalone" application, needing neither Elements NOR CS2 to work its functions. I'd say it's more powerful than Elements, broader capability, though not as specialized, as CS2, though others might disagree? I only tried an early Beta version, so Elisha would be better informed than I?

And I would be those Others John. I believe Lightroom is the most specialized of the three apps - photography related - one could go even a step further and say that its RAW shooter specific - except wait, it edits jpegs too. So we'll stay at photographer specific. Elements is a lot more powerful than Lightroom. Elements has a broader capability than Lightroom as well. I don't see how the broadest application, CS2, can be the most specialized? Graphic design artists, photographers, web designers, are just a few of the many types of individuals who use CS2. I'm sure there is a whole host of others I can't come up with. We aren't talking about editing images only here.

I don't really have more time to get into is as its time to leave for work.

[GaryS]

Personally, I'm a PC guy. But I work in IT at a big film company, and I have lots of respect for the Mac side too.

My biggest complaint about the new Intel Macs is about to be resolved, and that is the lack of a native Photoshop. Now that CS3 is coming, that is taken care of.

So my recommendation is now the same as it has always been. Look at them both, try them out in a store. Take a look at your experience level with both systems. Look at what your friends run, and think about how much you have to go to them for support and help. Think about the right configuration of each, and look at the cost of it.

Then buy the one you like. Remember that they are just a tool, and both will do a great job of storing and working with your photos.

[Elisha]

a MAC attracts more chicks especially in Starbucks......but i prefer using my PC desktop more than i use my new Macbook.

[TNB]

On the Apple site, a 13" MacBook with 2ghz processor, 1 gb ram, goes for $1300.

A Dell Inspiron with similar capability and Vista, but with a 17" screen, sells for about $1200.

a MAC attracts more chicks especially in Starbucks......but i prefer using my PC desktop more than i use my new Macbook.
Perhaps, some just assume the Mac owner has more money if it cost more to purchase a Mac than a PC.... Or just put an Apple sticker on it. I do know a few ladies that just love the Mac, but it's basically because of the photo slide show. Then again, they also prefer the colored iPODs and bluetooth cell phone ear pieces, which leads me to believe that it has nothing to do with function as much as a fashion statement. Myself, Apple has only spiked my interest again since the new models can run both operating systems.

[Elisha]

thats exactly the reason i bought my macbook.
not to run OSX but for XP and Vista.
the build quality is amazing even if you do not like OSX.

[TNB]

thats exactly the reason i bought my macbook.
not to run OSX but for XP and Vista.
the build quality is amazing even if you do not like OSX.
I also like those large Apple screens.... though I did notice that some of the MacBooks appear to run hotter than others (or at least the models I saw at Fry's Electronics). However, I didn't think to check and compare the processors in each model yet since I'm not ready to lay down the cash.

[Elisha]

the newer ones tend to run slightly hotter it seems because the default fan speed has been dropped around 200rpm to make it more silent.
but easily fixed with a few programs.

[BryanMsi]

Like I said earlier, buying a Mac means you can have BOTH Windows and MacOS. You can even run 'em both at the same time if you like, or pick one and boot into it. The MacBook makes a really nice Windows laptop. Sure it costs a little more, but you can't make a PC into a duo-boot machine at any price.

To me, that is the ulitmate flexibility....

[jcon]

Like I said earlier, buying a Mac means you can have BOTH Windows and MacOS. You can even run 'em both at the same time if you like, or pick one and boot into it. The MacBook makes a really nice Windows laptop. Sure it costs a little more, but you can't make a PC into a duo-boot machine at any price.

To me, that is the ulitmate flexibility....

You took the words right out of my mouth:D My brother recently purchased a Mac after his pervious laptop was stolen. He has it partitioned to run XP on it also, I currently just use PC but I WILL be getting a Mac as soon as I can!

BTW, Microsoft made a HUGE mistake with Vista. This platform will cause more problems than people can comprehend. It ruins video cards, Drivers, Screens, you name it. Most of the current software wont run on Vista. Its a major problem and many "experts" and software developers are shaking their heads at this one, but I digress...

Back to the topic, get a Mac.

[Rhys]

a MAC attracts more chicks especially in Starbucks......but i prefer using my PC desktop more than i use my new Macbook.

Lol. I think I'd run rather than walk out of Starbucks!

If girls are only interested in you because of something you own then they're cheap at best.

I get many admiring glances when I jump into or out of my Xterra but aside from the fact I'm married anyway (and happily so) I wouldn't touch a girl who was interested in me for anything other than myself.