New computer for photography

[Clyde]

Thanks for your input. Right now, I'm just delving (or is it diving)
into photography. Got an A1 and hope to learn how to use its bells and
whistles and how to take decent shots. And, of course, at the same time
I'm learning how to use Elements 2 (also have a copy of PS 5) along with
some peripheral programs in order to become proficient with PP. All
this is a pretty steep learning curve and I hope I can maintain my
enthusiasm so that I can develop some skills in these areas. I figure
if I can stay with it, maybe in a few years I see some enthusiastic
hobbist type results. Being retired and very physically active, I know
that there will come a time when I will have to cut back, and it is my
thought that photography can take up the slack.

My present 4 year old computer (see my original post) is slow and has a
small storage capacity, so I figure that it is time to spend a few bucks
and get a new rig. I know that I may be going for a bit of overkill in
some areas, but I might as well not hold back too much as who knows when
I may be interested in something that will require the extra bits and
pieces (like I may get into gaming, for example). Anyway, for about
$1000 (from Dell), I can have all that I want (and maybe more than I need).

As I've been checking around for estimates of what the unit will cost,
I'm starting to think that I just may be able to build it myself. I'd
probably only save a $200-300, but that's more money in my pocket to get
more toys. But, then again, if a reliable builder came along, I might
go with them.

I do part time professional wedding photography that is all digital. I
built a PC that seems to work pretty well:

3.0 GHz P4 with HT
1 GB of Dual Channel RAM (400 MHz on FSB that is 800 MHz)
120 GB SATA HD (7200 RPM)
CD/DVD burning drive.

Well, that is what I think the key parts are. If you really are going to
do photography, you ARE going to get Photoshop at some point. The number
one thing that Photoshop likes is lot of memory. Getting Dual Channel
also REALLY helps to get the data in and out of memory faster. BTW, I
haven't run out of memory with 1 GB; that will last for years.

It's also hard to have too much processor speed for Photoshop. My 3.0 is
pretty darn fast and does the job pretty well. However, when I am doing
batches of files with a bunch of heavy filters, I want even more. i.e.
3.0 works just fine when Photoshop is working at the speed I work. When
I do batches or combine a bunch of things into a Action (macro), I end
up watch it work. Since time is money in business, I want faster.

Of course, the value issue raises it's head then. A 3.4 GHz P4 would be
great, but it costs SO much more. Someday I'll upgrade when the
price/performance gets to the right level. I'd certainly look at the AMD
64 chip too. Those are suppose to be very good for graphics apps.

No matter how much memory you have, Photoshop will still swap to disk
for it's own memory management. It does do that mostly in background
though. So, my 7200 RPM HD is probably fast enough. To get significant
speed improvement there, I would have to go to 15,000 RPM and that's a
huge price jump. It doesn't affect Photoshop enough to matter.

The HD size isn't that big of issue either. Yes, I need enough for
working on large projects. However, I save everything to CD and/or DVD
after I'm done with it. So, a good burner is important. You will love
all the speed that you are willing to pay for on your burner.

Don't waste any money on a video card. My integrated one works just fine
with Photoshop. It's uses some of the system memory, but the only time I
notice is when I shutdown Photoshop.

Make sure you have enough cooling for that fast processor, but that
shouldn't be too hard. Buy the best power supply you can; not
necessarily the biggest, but the best. Get a UPS for the computer.

Otherwise, go as cheap as you can. Spend your extra money on a top
inkjet printer and all the ink you will be buying. That is why building
your own is good for a specialized need. For example, a lot of computers
that will get you the processor and memory that you want will also come
with an expensive video card and other stuff you don't need.

You could go the "white box" approach to get what you like - like
Systemax or someone. However, building your own is much more fun and
educational.

My $.02,
Clyde

 

[gothika]

I do part time professional wedding photography that is all digital. I
built a PC that seems to work pretty well:

3.0 GHz P4 with HT
1 GB of Dual Channel RAM (400 MHz on FSB that is 800 MHz)
120 GB SATA HD (7200 RPM)
CD/DVD burning drive.

Well, that is what I think the key parts are. If you really are going to
do photography, you ARE going to get Photoshop at some point. The number
one thing that Photoshop likes is lot of memory. Getting Dual Channel
also REALLY helps to get the data in and out of memory faster. BTW, I
haven't run out of memory with 1 GB; that will last for years.

It's also hard to have too much processor speed for Photoshop. My 3.0 is
pretty darn fast and does the job pretty well. However, when I am doing
batches of files with a bunch of heavy filters, I want even more. i.e.
3.0 works just fine when Photoshop is working at the speed I work. When
I do batches or combine a bunch of things into a Action (macro), I end
up watch it work. Since time is money in business, I want faster.

Of course, the value issue raises it's head then. A 3.4 GHz P4 would be
great, but it costs SO much more. Someday I'll upgrade when the
price/performance gets to the right level. I'd certainly look at the AMD
64 chip too. Those are suppose to be very good for graphics apps.

No matter how much memory you have, Photoshop will still swap to disk
for it's own memory management. It does do that mostly in background
though. So, my 7200 RPM HD is probably fast enough. To get significant
speed improvement there, I would have to go to 15,000 RPM and that's a
huge price jump. It doesn't affect Photoshop enough to matter.

The HD size isn't that big of issue either. Yes, I need enough for
working on large projects. However, I save everything to CD and/or DVD
after I'm done with it. So, a good burner is important. You will love
all the speed that you are willing to pay for on your burner.

Don't waste any money on a video card. My integrated one works just fine
with Photoshop. It's uses some of the system memory, but the only time I
notice is when I shutdown Photoshop.

Make sure you have enough cooling for that fast processor, but that
shouldn't be too hard. Buy the best power supply you can; not
necessarily the biggest, but the best. Get a UPS for the computer.

Otherwise, go as cheap as you can. Spend your extra money on a top
inkjet printer and all the ink you will be buying. That is why building
your own is good for a specialized need. For example, a lot of computers
that will get you the processor and memory that you want will also come
with an expensive video card and other stuff you don't need.

You could go the "white box" approach to get what you like - like
Systemax or someone. However, building your own is much more fun and
educational.

My $.02,
Clyde

I have both Photoshop(photoshop CS) as well as Paintshop pro.
I find that all the plugins for photshop work just as well in PSP and
it runs tons lighter.
I do have occasion to open Photoshop for specific tasks though I
prefer PSP for the majority of my work.
Unless the poster is going to get into some heavy image
manipulation/rendering Photoshop can be a bit overkill.
The power supply issue is a given these days what with OS's and heavy
apps sucking so much juice.(I recommend at least a 450watt.)
Building youself is really the only way to go to get exactly the right
system.

 

[gothika]

Thanks for your input. Right now, I'm just delving (or is it diving)
into photography. Got an A1 and hope to learn how to use its bells and
whistles and how to take decent shots. And, of course, at the same time
I'm learning how to use Elements 2 (also have a copy of PS 5) along with
some peripheral programs in order to become proficient with PP. All
this is a pretty steep learning curve and I hope I can maintain my
enthusiasm so that I can develop some skills in these areas. I figure
if I can stay with it, maybe in a few years I see some enthusiastic
hobbist type results. Being retired and very physically active, I know
that there will come a time when I will have to cut back, and it is my
thought that photography can take up the slack.

My present 4 year old computer (see my original post) is slow and has a
small storage capacity, so I figure that it is time to spend a few bucks
and get a new rig. I know that I may be going for a bit of overkill in
some areas, but I might as well not hold back too much as who knows when
I may be interested in something that will require the extra bits and
pieces (like I may get into gaming, for example). Anyway, for about
$1000 (from Dell), I can have all that I want (and maybe more than I need).

As I've been checking around for estimates of what the unit will cost,
I'm starting to think that I just may be able to build it myself. I'd
probably only save a $200-300, but that's more money in my pocket to get
more toys. But, then again, if a reliable builder came along, I might
go with them.

Actually you can save much more.
I've seen AMD 2.4gig towers going for as little as 250-300 bucks brand
new in some of the catalogs ready to go out of the box.
You could build or buy a moderate system now and wait for the all out
for a year or so.
What with the advent of 64bit on the horizon you're going to see all
of todays high end systems prices fall radically in the next few
months.
That's when I plan to shop around for a P-4 for my video/film
workstation, when I can get it for next to nothing.
That's how I got the two AMD's I have now. My 1.2 I got on a closeout
for just over 250 bucks and my 2.4 I picked up just a few months ago
for 270.
All I did was add a promise ATA 133 controller card and a couple of
large HD's for another 200 bucks and my video station was ready to go.
You don't have to pay anywhere near a grand for what you want.

 

[Louise]

I don't believe you are "trapped". There are companies out there that
build computers and will include OEM versions of XP and/or Office. Some
also offer a wide range of choices.

Dell will probably be less expensive in the short run - but only in the
short run

For example, because I have a particular issue with noise, I just had a
system built by endpcnoise.com - they offer choices, they offer OEM
versions of XP and Office etc. - take a look.

Alienware also has a good reputation but they are "big on cooling" and
therefore, there may be some fan noise - it's the reason I didn't go
with them, although the salesman I spoke to was more knowledgeable than
any Dell tech support person I ever spoke to.

There's also Tasty Computers - they will build to order. But check how
they warranty the different components, because I am under an impression
this could be something of an issue.

I'm sure there are others - but I don't think you're limited to Dell
because of the need for OEM operating system and software.

BTW, I don't love them, but I believe that CDW also sells machines
providing OEM OS etc.

Louise

 

[Al Dykes]

I don't believe you are "trapped". There are companies out there that
build computers and will include OEM versions of XP and/or Office. Some
also offer a wide range of choices.

Dell will probably be less expensive in the short run - but only in the
short run

For example, because I have a particular issue with noise, I just had a
system built by endpcnoise.com - they offer choices, they offer OEM
versions of XP and Office etc. - take a look.

If noise is important to you consider buying from a local no-name
computer builder. He can show you a machnine based on the same fans
and you can listen for yourself. Then he can build you a machine to
your specs. He can sell you the OS at the OEM price. He'll be happy to
see you for upgrades, later, and may be able to do them on a same-day
basis if you make an appointement. (FWIW the bigest brand of desktop
PCs is "noname". They outsell Dell, and everyone else.)

Having a relationship with a local system builder can be great. FInd
one that's been been around for a while. Get in the habit of stopping
in once in a while to see what's new. Give him a chance to quote a
price on any computer stuff before you mail order.


If you don't absolutly need MS Office, consider downloading OpenOffice
(www.openofice.org). It does everything the MS Office does, and the
price is right. If can read and save in MS .DOC format (and all the
other formats) and can save as PDF for documents you have to send to
someone.

If you get documents in .DOC format and just have to view/print them,
Nicrosoft has a downloads of three file "viewers", one each nfor
Office, Excel, and Powerpoint that are free. I have these set up with
the filetype associations so when I get an attachment I click on it
and see it in a viewer. It starts much faster than Office, and it
can't catch a Word Macro virus. I don't have the URL handy. Post a
querry and I'll answer.

If you just need MS Word, buy MS Works. It includes real Office,
and costs as little as $30. Bill doesn't need all your money.

Every system seller can sell you OEM versions of Microsoft
products. make sure you get a Microsoft CD for each product
you buy.

 

[JK]

The cpu doesn't make the noise, the heatsink fan and the power supply fan
make the noise. If you choose these carefully, you will have a very quiet
system.

 

[JK]

Do it right and get an Athlon 64 based machine. If you get a machine with
a 32 bit processor, you might regret it later when 64 bit Windows XP is out,
and especially when 64 bit photo editing software is aavailable.

 

[Mac Cool]

The cpu doesn't make the noise

never said it did

 

[JK]

never said it did

You implied it. You made poor choices in your power supply and /or
heatsink (fan) since they were noisy, then you implied that is was
somehow the fault of the processor, and not your fault for not
choosing a quieter heatsink(fan) and/or power supply. One can build
a quiet or a noisy AMD based or Intel based PC.

 

[Mac Cool]

You implied it.

You inferred it.

You made poor choices in your power supply and /or
heatsink (fan) since they were noisy, then you implied

you inferred

that is was somehow the fault of the processor, and not your fault
for not choosing a quieter heatsink(fan) and/or power supply.

The quiet fans and power supplies you have available now, exist
primarily because people got tired of the noisy equipment that was
produced in copius amounts then. The aftermarket fan and heat sink
market grew so quickly because of the popularity of overclocking. The
AMD Thunderbird was the most popular CPU among overclockers. The
Thunderbird was a blast furnace, especially compared to the intel
offerings, and almost all aftermarket heatsink/fans were larger,
heavier, had more aggressive fans than stock units and sounded like
turbine engines. Some of the copper sinks weighed nearly a pound and
required extreme care when installing. Sure, there were quieter
solutions available, like the Zalman, but their cooling ability was
poor. Quiet power supplies were just beginning to emerge 3-4 years ago.
My solution was water cooling. Water cooling is nearly silent except for
the water pump.

We upgraded our computers at work with brand new Dells which were almost
silent. When it came time to upgrade I bought one of the Dells because
overclocking is no longer really necessary and with the deals Dell was
giving at the time, I couldn't have built anything close for the price.
I could sell my 2.5 year old Dell for what I paid for it, maybe more. It
was a good decision.

One can build a quiet or a noisy AMD based or Intel based PC.

I never stated nor implied that CPUs cause noise. The idea is
preposterous and perhaps you are only a newbie trying to help but
insulting people will only get you ignored.

 

[JK]

Why are you obsessed with ancient history? That is not relevant to
someone building a pc now. The focus is on Athlon 64. Discussing
Athlon Thunderbird chips now doesn't make much sense.

 

[gothika]

Why are you obsessed with ancient history? That is not relevant to
someone building a pc now. The focus is on Athlon 64. Discussing
Athlon Thunderbird chips now doesn't make much sense.

WHY spend more than is needed? Thats the point.
If there were affordable 64bit apps that offered some signifigant
advantage over more economical solutions then you MIGHT have a point.
Kinda like using a 500,000 lambhorgini to go to the corner market.
As for noise on old T-bird systems. All of mine are very quiet and
I've never had any overheat problems.

 

[JK]

WHY spend more than is needed? Thats the point.

The price isn't much more. A number of higher performing 32 bit processors
are priced higher than the lower end Athlon 64 bit chips.

If there were affordable 64bit apps that offered some signifigant
advantage

With a 64 bit operating system many 32 bit applications will
run much faster. Windows 64 for X86-64 may be released
within the next few months. 64 bit applications will start
appearing soon. Many people keep a PC for 3 or 4 years.
Many might wait for 64 bit Windows to be released
before they buy an Athlon 64 system.

over more economical solutions then you MIGHT have a point.
Kinda like using a 500,000 lambhorgini to go to the corner market.

Not really. There may be some Athlon 64 systems under $800.

 

[gothika]

The price isn't much more. A number of higher performing 32 bit processors
are priced higher than the lower end Athlon 64 bit chips.

Well I haven't seen them. In fact I've seen Athalon systems as fast as
3400 going for less than 300 brand new.

With a 64 bit operating system many 32 bit applications will
run much faster. Windows 64 for X86-64 may be released
within the next few months. 64 bit applications will start
appearing soon. Many people keep a PC for 3 or 4 years.
Many might wait for 64 bit Windows to be released
before they buy an Athlon 64 system.


Not really. There may be some Athlon 64 systems under $800.

My point exactly, I can build an Athalon system that is more than fast
enough for still photography for 200-300 bucks.

 

[JK]

$200-$300 for an Athlon XP system? Not for one with Windows, a DVD writer,
a decent video card, 200 gig hard drive, a gig of ram of ram, etc. You might be
able to build an Athlon XP 1800+ system with 256 meg, a 30 gig hard drive and
integrated video for around $300.I wouldn't want to build such a system now
though. You could build an Athlon 64 system for under $800, however I used the
$800 figure for a decent system. An Athlon 64 2800+ is only around $170,
which is only around $85 more than an Athlon XP 2800+. figure an
extra $25 of so for a decent motherboard for the Athlon 64 vs
a comparable one for an Athlon XP. Paying $110 more for
having an Athlon 64 2800+ vs an Athlon XP 2800+ isn't so much.
Using 64 bit windows, many applications will run much faster

 

[gothika]

$200-$300 for an Athlon XP system? Not for one with Windows, a DVD writer,
a decent video card, 200 gig hard drive, a gig of ram of ram, etc. You might be
able to build an Athlon XP 1800+ system with 256 meg, a 30 gig hard drive and
integrated video for around $300.I wouldn't want to build such a system now
though. You could build an Athlon 64 system for under $800, however I used the
$800 figure for a decent system. An Athlon 64 2800+ is only around $170,
which is only around $85 more than an Athlon XP 2800+. figure an
extra $25 of so for a decent motherboard for the Athlon 64 vs
a comparable one for an Athlon XP. Paying $110 more for
having an Athlon 64 2800+ vs an Athlon XP 2800+ isn't so much.
Using 64 bit windows, many applications will run much faster
on the Athlon 64.

The original poster was wanting advice on a STILL photography system.
You don't need a DVD writer, ANY 24bit video card will do.
You don't NEED a 200gig HD(massive overkill)
AND ram is dirt cheap.(I pay less than 100 bucks for 1gig of kingston)
If still photography is all he'll be doing 512 will be sufficient.
I wouldn't wish XP on my worst enemy. I use either win2kpro or Linux.
Windows on the machines that'll be used for simpler tasks and Linux on
my video rendering clusters
I have a couple of Athalon systems that I built for imaging work that
I spent less than 300 on.
1.2gig CPU, 1gig of ram, 80gig ATA133HD's
And that was last years prices.
I see 2400+ towers going for as little as 150 buck second hand or on
clearance sales.

The point is why over spend on something for such a simple task as
still photography work?
If you'd ever HAD to finance a business out of pocket that was
required to make a profit you'd see the wisdom in not overspending.
Why use a sledgehammer when a ballpeen will do the job?

 

[JK]

The original poster was wanting advice on a STILL photography system.
You don't need a DVD writer,

He could do without a DVD writer, however backing up all his images on
CD might take a huge number of disks, and be annoying. That is
especially true if they are high resolution images(perhaps film scanned
at 5600 dpi?).

ANY 24bit video card will do.
You don't NEED a 200gig HD(massive overkill)

That depends on how large his files are. Some people gave digital
images that are hundreds of megs each.

AND ram is dirt cheap.(I pay less than 100 bucks for 1gig of kingston)
If still photography is all he'll be doing 512 will be sufficient.

Not really. Photoshop is a memory hog. Some people who edit
high resolution digital images complain that even 4 gigs is not
enough. For using Photoshop, at least a gig of ram is recommended.

I wouldn't wish XP on my worst enemy. I use either win2kpro or Linux.
Windows on the machines that'll be used for simpler tasks and Linux on
my video rendering clusters
I have a couple of Athalon systems that I built for imaging work that
I spent less than 300 on.
1.2gig CPU, 1gig of ram, 80gig ATA133HD's
And that was last years prices.
I see 2400+ towers going for as little as 150 buck second hand or on
clearance sales.

Many people don't want a second hand pc or one with a 1.2 ghz
processor. Most people do want Windows XP, even if they
will be using other operating systems as well.

The point is why over spend on something for such a simple task as
still photography work?

You remind me of the people who ask why pay more than
$29 for a pair of shoes, or more than $100 for a bicycle.
Not everyone wants cheap junk.

If you'd ever HAD to finance a business out of pocket that was
required to make a profit you'd see the wisdom in not overspending.

Buying low quality items often results in great inconvenience and wasted
time. It also often results in additional purchases very soon. One of my
friends liked to brag about his $29 shoes. I buy $100 Rockport shoes
on sale for $50 instead. He would go through around 4 pairs of the $29
shoes in the 18 moths it took me to wear out the Rockports. Which one
of us is saving money?

Why use a sledgehammer when a ballpeen will do the job?

If I needed to make a hole in a wall, I would hate to have to do it
with a ball point pen.

 

[Jim]

I use either win2kpro or Linux.
Windows on the machines that'll be used for simpler tasks and Linux on
my video rendering clusters

What application do you like best with Linux?

 

[gothika]

What application do you like best with Linux?

Knoppix or Gnome.

However if you're thinking cluster/farming there are many sites online
with info on setting up a Beowulf type cluster and the many different
versions of Linnux that work well doing that.(Saw a large cluster the
other day with some version of Mandrake that really blazed.)
Also if you're the big budget type there's the Blades systems too.