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!

Time for a new machine... having trouble with Apple offerings

mjm6

Member
Well, this issue is back in the hotseat for me, because Adobe basically dropped support for my older Mac Pro (that I just upgraded in the fall with new HDs, faster processors, a new video card, and USB3).

I'm just about certain I am going to get a new iMac here in the summer. The 5K monitors are looking great for photo editing, and they have the speed to do the processing apparently (the best versions are faster than the base Mac Pros, and a whole lot cheaper).

My biggest problem now will be that I want/need to put together an external HD box of some kind, and I've had less than satisfactory results with the inexpensive boxes.

This is why I preferred the older Mac Pro style machines. I could internally add HDs, RAM, and other items as needed, but essentially all the Apple machines have eliminated this capability. Drives me CRAZY!


---Michael
 

RVB

Member
Well, this issue is back in the hotseat for me, because Adobe basically dropped support for my older Mac Pro (that I just upgraded in the fall with new HDs, faster processors, a new video card, and USB3).

I'm just about certain I am going to get a new iMac here in the summer. The 5K monitors are looking great for photo editing, and they have the speed to do the processing apparently (the best versions are faster than the base Mac Pros, and a whole lot cheaper).

My biggest problem now will be that I want/need to put together an external HD box of some kind, and I've had less than satisfactory results with the inexpensive boxes.

This is why I preferred the older Mac Pro style machines. I could internally add HDs, RAM, and other items as needed, but essentially all the Apple machines have eliminated this capability. Drives me CRAZY!


---Michael
The OWC Thunderbay is very reliable and holds 4x6tb drives.

Rob
 

docmoore

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Michael,

Just to throw a bit of a wet blanket on the scenario...the iMacs do not have
monitors that can be adequately and consistently profiled...however there are new 5K Dell monitors that can be...

So I would suggest that a nMP or MBP with an external monitor that can be profiled might serve you better...if you print and need consistent color.

I just decided to cull the top pictures from some recent years ... 1400 out of 18000 in LR ... made a collection and was outputting it to a drive ... the OWC Accelsior PCI SSD card that the LR Library was on decided to destruct in the middle of the write ... under warranty but a weeks work gone and with it some 3000 files. And my LR is completely back to virgin startup state.

I too am thinking that it may be time to gift my 2010 MP with 32 GB memory before something bad happens...:ROTFL:

Bob
 

mjm6

Member
Well, crap... I think you are right, but I wonder how big of a problem profiling is on the newer machines. I know it was a problem on the earlier iMacs. I'm going to have to do some investigation on this issue.

Apple really doesn't want my business I suppose. I never thought I'd say that, but I believe that has come to be the case.

Maybe the erosion of Apple users in the graphics world was all but complete before the new Mac Pro came out, but I don't feel I can justify making do with their new offerings. The all seem to have too many penalties in one form or another, and the simple solution is the elephant in the corner; switch to PC and get exactly what you want in a machine for less money.

Dealing with virus software sucks, but it may be the best way to put together a proper machine anymore.
 

docmoore

Subscriber and Workshop Member
No...

I started with a CPM machine ... then DOS then Windows...converted to MAC returned to Windows when John Scully almost sank Apple ... sugar water indeed ... back to MAC to stay.

Interesting, we think nothing of spending a small fortune on the newest body or lens ... while the algorithms and processing power leapfrog past models of computers ...

Apple has been consumer product centric for a long time but their MBP and nMP lines have little to fault other than price ... as a short long term investment they may still have an advantage.

Wrestling with Windows is not my idea of a relaxing afternoon or late night session.

Bob
 

k-hawinkler

Well-known member
Harddrives don't belong in computers. They belong in their own enclosures.
SSDs have been in my Mac computers for years, prolonging significantly their useful life.
Right now I have an nMP with 6 cores and a Dell 4K display.
The harddrives get only switched on for backup purposes.
My active images are stored on an external 4TB SSD RAID.
I am still using eSATA enclosures from FirmTek that I bought years ago.
They are now connected via converters to the Thunderbolt ports on the nMP.
The system works like a charm for image processing and has been very stable.
I am using a combination of Capture One Pro 8, CS6, Nik, LR6 and Iridient.
The highest sustained data rate I have measured is around 2 GB/s.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I don't pump the data that you guys must to need such powerful systems.

My image processing machine is a Mac mini (mid-2012 generation) with 2.7Ghz i7 Quad core, 16G RAM, and Crucial 950G SSD internal drive. The display is a Thunderbolt 27", wired keyboard and BT trackpad. A TB 1G drive is attached for Time Machine backup. The photography archive is on a set of three 2T drives (FireWire 800 daisy chain, 1 working drive, two backups) and the LR6 app and catalog folder is on the internal SSD. It's connected via USB to an Epson P600 and via WiFi to an HP E710 multifunction printer. Film scanners are connected when needed via USB or FireWire, depending on the scanner. All but my E-1 now use SD cards, and the built in SD/SDHC/SDXC is as fast or faster than any I've tried on USB3 or FW800. Adobe PS CS5.1 continues to work well in the latest Yosemite; I just don't use it much any more. I calibrate the Thunderbolt display with an Xrite i1 Display Pro ... seems to work well enough for my needs.

The system has operated flawlessly since I bought it in 2013, and continues to run the latest OS X and software snappily. Most of my image files nowadays are 16Mpixel and 24MPixel raw files out of the Leica X and M-P. I scan 6x6 negatives with VueScan to DNG files ... seem to recall they're up in the 75-80 Mpixel range. it works on everything I throw at it pretty nicely.

If I were updating hardware today, I'd just switch out the Mac mini for a new top-of-the-line Mac mini, outfit a top-o-the-line MacBook Pro if I wanted the additional portability, or upgrade to the Mac Pro if I felt it was needed. The Pro isn't needed for my photography, I'm pretty sure of that. :)

G
 

4season

Well-known member
Here in mid-2015, I wonder if we've already seen Apple's vision of the near-future of computing:

I/O ports: USB 3.x and the Type C connector as The One Connector to Rule Them All.

Storage: Minimal amount of onboard storage for operating system, applications and some documents. But bulk of user data mostly located on networked volumes whether they be in a server farm, or a home NAS shared via SMB.

Upgradeability: Yes, replace entire unit. They've honed these modern computers down to the barest slivers of glass and aluminum, and the entire computers often cost less than some of yesteryear's upgrades. Because most important data is stored on a networked volume, swapping out one's old computer for a new one is quick and relatively painless, with most of the time being spent simply waiting for a fresh copy of OS X to be installed on the old one prior to resale, then migrating apps and settings to the new one via Time Machine.

Yup, I think the new MacBook hints at a tantalizing future, though not all of the pieces are in place just yet, and until they are, it'll be a bit inconvenient to use.
 

4season

Well-known member
Windows: I've toyed with the idea of doing photo editing on the likes of a Thinkpad W541, which can be had with a high-resolution display, built-in color calibrator and which has a whopping 4 RAM slots, holding up to 32 GB of RAM. Not bad for a system which can be had for a bit over $1500 very nicely optioned-out. But (shrug) at the moment it's but one of many ideas.
 

mjm6

Member
Thanks for the comments all...

k-h, I don't even want to think about how much you have sunk in the computer hardware. I can't justify that level of expense for what is now personal and possibly some gallery work.

That is my big complaint with Apple. IF you look at the performance benchmarks of the various Mac Pros and iMacs, etc., it's pretty clear that the Mac Pros are not really better than the iMacs for Photoshop and other 2D processes, until you buy way up the scale. Those machines were designed for video production, and you pay a massive premium on a machine like the higher-core Mac Pros, you get a real solid video production engine, but that isn't what I or many of the photographers out there are doing, and it feels like a poor investment to me.

It appears that Apple is letting the Mac mini machines wither on the vine, which is a shame. Look here for a fairly thorough writeup on where that product line is:

http://www.macrumors.com/roundup/mac-mini/

I had been leaning towards a Mac mini in the fall, and it seems that the story for those has gotten worse as time has progressed. Soldered RAM, impossible to upgrade HD, dropping the quad-core configuration. Too bad, really. I wanted to go that route and then get a high quality monitor to go along with it.

I think the iMac is where I need to be, and hopefully, if I go that route, it'll last me at least as long and the old Mac Pro that I have, that is facing the end of the line even though the hardware is still functioning perfectly.

---Michael
 

k-hawinkler

Well-known member
Michael,

I think your iMac idea will work out just fine.
When I was awaiting my nMP I used a 15" late 2013 MacBook Pro for a couple of months.
Speed-wise that machine was up to the task.
The reason for me to get the nMP is the 6 Thunderbolt ports.
I have all of them in use as well as the 4 USB3 ports.
 

mathomas

Active member
The iMac 5k is in the running for my next high-end Mac. I'm thinking get the iMac, sell my MacBook Pro (I think it's my fourth one?), sell my aging MacBook Air, and get either the new Macbook or another Air to be my laptop. I very seldom work on photos (or anything else serious) when not connected to a large monitor.
 

bradhusick

Active member
I like to choose my own monitor when buying a high end computer. My photo editing monitor is the NEC for its color controls. People who like to spend more often choose Eizo.
 

mjm6

Member
OK, thanks for all the feedback folks! I have a new iMac on the way, and now need to figure out the only other burning question (beyond the issue of the second monitor, because I will keep my current NEC for the time being).

External HD enclosures! Above, RVB mentioned the Thunderbay, and I have looked at that (I have other OWC products, so I often go there first).

Here is the scenario, and I wanted to get opinions on how to configure, or what to get to solve thins "best" (hahaha, whatever best means).

I have a couple of 3TB harddrives in my current Mac Pro that I installed this past fall. I intend to carry them over to an enclosure. These are individual volumes, so no problems.

I also have a pair of SS drives in there, and I was thinking that I should move them into a box and dedicate them to cache duties, maybe as a striped RAID for the best speed.

As I see it, I may have a few options for how to configure the system...

OPTION 1

---Purchase a HD box for the two data drives, maybe the Thunderbay. Whatever it is, it should have Thunderbolt 2 interface.
---Purchase a SEPERATE HD box for the SSDs, and connect them to the machine. 1 of 3 ways; directly, using the second Thunderbolt 2 jack or using USB3, or tagged onto the other box (or maybe make this the first box, and have the data drive connect to it).

OPTION 2
---Purchase a single HD array box that can accommodate the 4 drives, and set up the two SSDs in a software array, and leave the others by themselves.

OPTION 1 may (?) have the benefit that the cable is not being asked to pass info from the cache drive and the data drive at the same time, so no slowdown. However, the Thunderbolt driver in the computer may be the limiting factory (are there two in there?). If I use TB for one, and USB3 for the other, then this slowdown may be averted, unless the USB is running off the same driver as well.

OPTION 2 is cheaper, and maybe it is essentially sufficient for my needs, but want to know if that is viably done. Anyone using an approach like that?

Thanks everyone. I'll be sure to pose what my final solution is once I have it running.
 

mathomas

Active member
I have this enclosure on my Amazon wishlist:

http://tinyurl.com/o5lqzn9

It's cheaper than the OWC and has great reviews. Seems to be the same platform. Trade-off is it's just an enclosure. You'd have to use the OS X Disk Utility (or other software) to build whatever sort of RAID, or combination, you like out of the inserted drives.
 

mjm6

Member
I have this enclosure on my Amazon wishlist:

http://tinyurl.com/o5lqzn9

It's cheaper than the OWC and has great reviews. Seems to be the same platform. Trade-off is it's just an enclosure. You'd have to use the OS X Disk Utility (or other software) to build whatever sort of RAID, or combination, you like out of the inserted drives.
Matt, Thanks for the link...

By my reading, there is no benefit to using a program like SoftRAID on this since the only thing that will be RAIDed will be the two SSDs in the cache pair. The other two are individual volumes.

I'll look into the product you linked as an alternate.


---Michael
 

4season

Well-known member
Seems kind of expensive for a JBOD setup and I wonder if you'd see any benefit of Thunderbolt running anything less than striped SSDs? And speaking of which, how does one utilize those as a cache device? Some of the hardware RAIDs I've checked out did offer such an option, but their onboard operating system surely must be written with that in mind?
 

mjm6

Member
4season,

The iMac forces you to use external HDs to add storage.

In my current (old) Mac Pro, I have 4 HDs present; 1 SSD for the OS (dual boot arrangement), 1 SSD for Photoshop memory cache, and 2 regular HDs for data storage (3 TB each).

That's not possible in the iMac, so I have to load up a HD box and connect it to the iMac with the Thunderbolt 2 connector to achieve a similar arrangement.

In my new machine, 1 SSD in the iMac for the OS, 2 SSD in the box in a striped array for Photoshop cache, and two data drives in the box for data.

I have a backup arrangement through a file server and also an NAS remote to the computer location, so that is not the function of this external box.

I probably don't need to do the striped array for the PS cache, but at the moment I don't have a need for another data drive, and I have the spare SSD, so I will employ it in the arrangement. Running two SSDs in the RAID 0 arrangement will make large Photoshop files cache to the HD very fast, so managing large files with multiple layers won't cause a big slowdown.

I will use the Apple Disk Manager to set up the RAID on the two SSDs. Nothing too complicated there, and this will not be used for data storage, so no need to be concerned about drive health such that I would need sophisticated monitoring capabilities.

---Michael
 

4season

Well-known member
Oh Photoshop usage, that makes sense.

I agonized over what to do about Apple onboard storage for way too long until I finally decided to throw most of my data onto a networked drive, and this has worked out great: Not as fast as TB2, but because I've got it set up as an SMB share, it makes jumping between Windows, Mac and Linux a breeze. It also makes upgrading the computers easy because they mostly contain OS, applications and key files like the Lightroom database.

Have you also considered eSATA drives connected via a Thunderbolt <-> eSATA bridge? eSATA is cheap and common.
 
Top