The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Is the new 27" iMac the replacement for the Mac Pro?

6x6

Member
In answer to the original question a higher end Macbook Pro, Mac Mini or iMac coupled with a Promise Pegasus disk array will be a pretty good choice for photographic needs. In my view, for stills photography, it is no longer so important to have the most cores or the fastest processor. In fact the biggest problems for photography are disk access speeds and memory. These are where most bottlenecks are.

A fast Thunderbolt array (I use the 6 disk Promise Pegasus) will make a much bigger difference to your workflow speed and is probably the best place to put your money at the present time. If Apple come up with a new MacPro it will have Thunderbolt, as they are strongly behind it. So maybe if you wanted to hedge your bets you could buy the Mac Mini with 16GB RAM, some MacSales SDD drives and a Promise Pegasus. Then when Apple release a MacPro, simply install your software and plug in the Thunderbolt drive. You can then recoup some investment by selling the Mac Mini. Plus you can use your existing monitor if you already have a good one.

My specs, for reference:

Phase One P40+
>50,000 images in Lightroom 4.2

Macbook Pro 2.5GHz (late 2011)
16GB RAM
240GB OWC SSD

Promise Pegasus 6TB Thunderbolt Drive

I used to have an 8 core MacPro 3.0GHz. The Macbook Pro runs faster.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
In answer to the original question a higher end Macbook Pro, Mac Mini or iMac coupled with a Promise Pegasus disk array will be a pretty good choice for photographic needs. In my view, for stills photography, it is no longer so important to have the most cores or the fastest processor. In fact the biggest problems for photography are disk access speeds and memory. These are where most bottlenecks are.

A fast Thunderbolt array (I use the 6 disk Promise Pegasus) will make a much bigger difference to your workflow speed and is probably the best place to put your money at the present time. If Apple come up with a new MacPro it will have Thunderbolt, as they are strongly behind it. So maybe if you wanted to hedge your bets you could buy the Mac Mini with 16GB RAM, some MacSales SDD drives and a Promise Pegasus. Then when Apple release a MacPro, simply install your software and plug in the Thunderbolt drive. You can then recoup some investment by selling the Mac Mini. Plus you can use your existing monitor if you already have a good one.

My specs, for reference:

Phase One P40+
>50,000 images in Lightroom 4.2

Macbook Pro 2.5GHz (late 2011)
16GB RAM
240GB OWC SSD

Promise Pegasus 6TB Thunderbolt Drive

I used to have an 8 core MacPro 3.0GHz. The Macbook Pro runs faster.
This is basically is what I have done . New 2012 MBP 16 gb go ram owc SSD 6g 240gb hard drive a internal 1tb spinning drive in the optical bay, than a T bolt Pegasus 4tb running Raid 0 which is as fast as the SSD drive. It flies and I really can't complain about its abilities . It does very well on all my Phase files and Nikon. My biggest hogs are C1 and PS and they both do very well. I just did a image 24x30 with 24 layers in it of more images went to large format extension and it flew right through it. Than I have a 30 inch NEC as my working monitor. Plus a Epson 7900 printer and a bunch of other stuff attached. I like having USB 3 now as I use that for backup drives. I honestly don't even want a MP as it really does me no good at this point since I need a laptop more. I figured this was my best option going forward for what I need. YMMV
 

kuau

Workshop Member
For me, being a "high end" hobbiest in both photography, printing, and computers, my first "real" computer was a DEC Rainbow running CPM, this was before DOS.
Fast forward to the future.

I have a 2009 Mac Pro 16gb ram and a bunch of SSD drives and 2 4TB drives one for images and one for time machine, and a 2010 NEC 26" display. Yet like most of us, I was looking for a new Mac Pro to be released.

News flash, IMHO never going to happen.
No Steve Jobs, and Apple now the largest or second largest company in the USA... It's all about the money and the share holders.
There is just not enough Mac Pro users out there to justify a new Machine, if there was Apple would have already introduced it last week with the rest of there cutting edge technology apple mini, 13 Mac pro, Mac mini, and and new iMac.

I think the new 27 iMac with its new display "maybe" the ticket, not for all of us, yet until they are shipping just have to wait and see, the monitor is factory calibrated but to what standard? Who knows and apple does not say.

In the mean time I've moved back to the "dark side" Built my own I7 Ivy bridge box fully loaded for well under 2k and I think the only thing I am missing other then the OSX experience is a true 16bit printing pipeline out of LR, that's it.

My Mac Pro is now my Web surfing, and email box with my older Apple cinema display.

Steven
 

kuau

Workshop Member
Guy,
Are you absolutely sure you can add another internal SSD to a new Mac Book Pro? I don't think you can.

I don't know as much as the new Mac Book Pro is way cool, for $3700.00 loaded IMHO is way over priced for me.

For $1200 you can get a new mac mini with the same I7 processor and 255GB SSD and add your own 16gb ram and get a 30" NEC Display.
Sounds like a better deal, unless you have to have a portable...


Steven


Interesting article on the MBP 15 inch standard and Retina. I actually could add another SSD for 300 dollars run RAID 0 and fly at warp speeds. Kind of tempted too. Lol

OWC SSDs Make 2012 MBP 15" a Speed Champ | Other World Computing Blog
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I don't have the Retina model and yes I do have a 1tb drive in the optical bay. The connection now is 6g like it is on the main hard drive side so given that i could do that now. It was a kludge to do this in the 2011 model because most of the connections in the optical bay where only 3g. The retina model is really nice but i still wanted to be able to remove and replace hard drives so i stayed with the classic model.

Yes my issue is do have have to be portable.
 

kuau

Workshop Member
Guy,
Just checking, yes you are right older mac book pro, upgrading it no problem, for sure the way to go.....
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Just not sure Raid 0 would buy me much as this SSD drive as a single the reads and writes are just shy of 500
 

dchew

Well-known member
Guy my setup is very similar to yours. I have the 17" purchased just before the new Retina's were released plus the NEC PA241w. I have the OWC 960 3G SSD in the optical bay so I can put quite a few images on there, and the OWC 480 6G to boot and run off. The 960 is really (2) 480's in Raid 0.

It is just so nice to take a very complete catalog with master images everywhere without any external drives. Pretty quick too; not 6G but 3G is good enough for me. Also backups are done via the plugin esata pro card from Sonnet.

Although I'm not a full time photographer I am dealing with IQ180 files, sometimes stitched / focus blended tiffs @ 500mb each.

Dave
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I also update my 17inch MBP with a 512 Gig SSD and 8Gig and it runs fine.
I also have an Eizo with calibration as external display, can see the difference but dont find it worlds apart.
I dont like the idea to buy a computer integrated in a display.
A MBP and a external display has the big advantage that I can also use the MBP as a mobile unit.
Since I need a second unit I am undecided.
What I want is a compact light MBP 13 inch with the resolution of a retina display but the processor power of the 15inch MB retina, but without glossy display and being able to replace the disc myself with a large SSD. ;)
 

thomas

New member
What you are missing here is your not seeing your Prophoto color space it's out of the SRGB color gamut which is very small. It's a big difference and when processing I am far more accurate in my shadow areas and highlights. Frankly why you even bothering with Prophoto color space images if you can't see the whole gamut. Wide gamut you can see it and process to it.
Nope. You can't display ProPhoto on any real world device as ProPhoto contains theoretical colors (for instance the highest saturated blue is Lab 0|90|-128 ... and L*0 by definition is black). The whole debate about color space comparisions is pretty misleading, IMO. A color profile is just a container ... the question is: which colors of a given photograph are actually utilized within this color space. I'd say for the vast majority of photos sRGB is sufficient. Only subjetcs containing really high saturated colors (for instance flowers in bright sunlight) may profit from a larger color space. Then again Capture One (the converter you are using) is limiting the utilized colors through the input profile of your camera anyway. And the camera input profiles in C1 are all much smaller than ProPhoto (fortunately!).
When "godfrey" and "Shashin" are stating that their displays match their prints ... well, than this is not debateable.
In my experience the gamut of a display is not that important (although I use a wide gamut monitor). However, high bit displays and hardwarecalibration can make a difference, IMO. And - most importantly - controlled, appropriate viewing conditions.
 

PeterL

Member
I also have no problems matching my prints (Cannon IPF 6300) with my display on a 15" MacBook Pro (late 2011 - High Res Matte). I use the Xrite ColorMunki for color management, and I'm very pleased with this. I have concluded that it's not worth it for me to invest in a Nec or Eizo, even though they are undoubtedly superior to the Apple displays, however Apple displays have improved a lot over the past year or so, so maybe not what Guy and Jack originally tested against.

For what it is worth, here are recent measurements by Anandtech. These gamut numbers are in % of AdobeRGB 1998.

Apple MacBook Pro with Retina Display: 67.3%
Apple 15-inch MacBook Pro with High Res Matte (Early 2011): 74.7%
Apple 13-inch Macbook Air (mid 2011): 45.4%

AnandTech - The next-gen MacBook Pro with Retina Display Review

Apple 27-inch LED Cinema Display: 83.2%
Apple 27-inch Thunderbolt Display: 76.1%
Apple 15-inch MacBook Pro (2010): 75.6%
Apple 27-inch iMac (2011): 74.9%
Apple 30-inch Cinema HD Display: 72.96%

AnandTech - The Apple Thunderbolt Display Review

Cheers, -Peter
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
About 2 or 3 years ago whenever I bought my NEC the difference was pretty large. I do have a Epson 7900 printer as well. BTW I never said not to buy the Apples displays. These wide gamuts are 10 bit and see 95 percent of the Adobe 1998 gamut on my digital back at that time i had the P40 plus I could see far deeper into the shadows on it and the tonality was much bigger so yes I did have the 50 k back well not quite but that was all I was pointing out. I would buy one again if it comes up. Just my preference on it. I certainly hope these new displays are better from Apple otherwise I think your cheating yourself , that is the way I felt back than. I felt I was kind of wasting all the money spent on the digital backs since I could not see what was truly there. Again if my wording was wrong on some of this than I am sorry but I was simply just pointing something out.

I still think though maybe the laptop at this time waiting it out for a MP is not a bad idea. I know costly but it does work well and you do get the option of being mobile. To me it's pretty dang fast even with my IQ 160 files. It's a really tough call but I'm not in the camp of Apple actually producing a new MP. I tend to think its long gone but I hope so for others.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Monitor gamut is a very real issue. Most basic and laptop monitors are essentially only as large as sRGB, while most wide gamut monitors cover close to Adobe RGB. Unfortunately, you cannot show these color differences easily on the web to somebody with only a narrow gamut monitor, so examples are pointless. Having these same folks print out an example for themselves is also pointless unless they have a recent generation wide-gamut printer. I edited on a Mac Cinema display up until I got the Epson 7900 printer --- it was my first printer with a wide enough color gamut that the need for a wider gamut monitor became immediately apparent; without it, I couldn't see many of the colors it could render. I could have made do with the older display and the "view proof" option, but editing higher colors in either CS or C1 (especially C1's color editor) was much easier on a wide gamut monitor. (Note that the 7800 before my 7900 also printed outside sRGB, and you could see the differences, but I felt I could edit using close enough using my smaller gamut monitor with the "view proof" profile option.) Most notable here in the x900 Epson for me as a landscape photographer were more saturated greens and deeper sky blue tones, and of course reds are affected as well. Is it absolutely necessary? No. But it certainly makes life easier.

I respect that others opinions will vary, but the reality is it is real and we do show real examples of it on our printing workshops.

Cheers,
 

Marlyn

Member
You have all that color information on your display, now what? Will you see all that gamut in a glossy magazine? What about ink-jet prints. Will the finest printers recreate all that color space? If not, what's the point?
Eduardo
Yes it will.

Both Epson and Canon Pro printers exceed the render on screen. (of wide gammut monitors). As for sRGB, They can print miles outside of it.

Having put several normal sRGB, and wide gammut monitors side by side, I will never go back to doing editing on a SRGB screen. Far too much usefull information is going in the trash with narrow gammut monitors.

Play with a copy of Chromix ColorThink sometime to see the differences, but the real proof is on screen and on the Print.


Personally, I use NEC and EIZO. I spend a lot of money on cameras, I want to use as much of that data as possible !!.


Regards

Mark.
 

Wayne Fox

Workshop Member
There is more to a high end wide gamut monitor than just the color space, and some of those features may be more important. After all, no monitor can display all the colors of current printers, but then that's the purpose of color mangaement systems, to remap colors to allow different devices to appear similarly. Those that claim you can't manage colors you can't see just don't understand color management.People have been making great prints for a very long time, and an iMac can definitely be a decent tool.

It is certainly easier and more consistent with a great monitor, but the iMac is pretty decent. To me the complete control of the black point/white point contrast as well as colors inside the monitor itself is the real strength of these systems and what allows them to provide better visual feedback to prints. I have a 30" ACD side by side to a NEC 301w, and to me that's were I see the biggest advantage when working with image files.
 

Marlyn

Member
There is more to a high end wide gamut monitor than just the color space, and some of those features may be more important. After all, no monitor can display all the colors of current printers, but then that's the purpose of color mangaement systems, to remap colors to allow different devices to appear similarly. Those that claim you can't manage colors you can't see just don't understand color management.People have been making great prints for a very long time, and an iMac can definitely be a decent tool.
Agree completly. You can certainly manage them. But it is easier (I feel) to be able to see as MUCH as possible !.

As for features, Probably the next biggest (for me at least) is consistency accross the display. Even backlighting, even tone etc. Using a 30" display without that is shocking.

Regards

Mark
 
Top