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?

Godfrey

Well-known member
I have a NEC PA241W side by side with a Thunderbolt 27" display here in the lab right now. I'm looking at my M9 raw files using LR 4.2 using two MacBook Pro 13" computers side by side, set up identically. I calibrated both displays to the same target settings, with the same calibration unit, and they're running on identical computers. The difference I can perceive in the display quality of my raw files is simply too small to be of any importance. I don't have any high-end printers here in the lab at the office, but I am pretty certain that the prints would look identical if printed from either system.

Perhaps it's the lack of a $50,000 technical camera. Perhaps the device driver and graphics adapter in the two MacBook Pros I'm using. Perhaps it's my eyesight. But I'm happy with what I see on the NEC, and can't see much difference between it and the same image on the Thunderbolt display.

That's my bottom line.

PS: My old favorite display, a 2006 generation Apple Cinema Display 23" like the one I worked on from 2006 to 2011, sitting on the shelf next to the workbench. So while I was writing this, I pulled it over and set it up on the MacBook Pro that was driving the Thunderbolt 27" display. Ran the calibration and then compared the same photos.

For sure, the NEC looks yards different from the old ACD23" ... I'll take the NEC in that comparison any time!

Which I think points out a significant issue: many people are upgrading from older displays like that to the latest generation. Few people have both a new Apple display AND a new NEC display on their desktop at the same time. ALL of the latest generation displays look crisper, more detailed, with better tonal qualities, dynamic range, etc., than any three to four year old display.

Makes you wonder how we did photography with film and darkroom for 150 years before digital cameras existed, eh? :)
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Most of the high-end design shops have gone to current hex-core Mac Pros -- they are significantly better performers with video, 2 and 3-D graphics as compared to our 'ancient' early 2008 models. My problem is that unit did not have native USB3 or TB and why I am limping along waiting. We are not alone, and this is a pretty big boat we're in I think. I do know a few who jumped ship early this year and went with uber hot-rodded PC's and seem to be totally happy, and maybe more so now with Win 8 which seems like a real upgrade. Hopefully it's significant enough to kick Apple in the butt and get them moving.

Sidebar point: I do believe all of this fits nicely into Apples usurious marketing schema of forcing their user base into marginal upgrades at their preference and not the markets. It's one of the reasons I'm considering reverting to PC; at least then my upgrades can be made at my preference in step with current technology...
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Woody its a tough call as Apple seams to be paying more attention to the mobile side of computing. You ask a great question and i answered it myself with a rocket laptop connected to a external monitor , a 4 terabyte Promise Pegasus running Raid 0, USB 3 backup drives and such. Now is it a MP no it is not but it is very workable and i do push big files around. My opinion only and unless your doing major video stuff and such probably not as you are pushing IQ 180 files around it does handle that pretty well. But here is the rub this setup is costly and a refurb of the latest MP might not be a bad idea and adding functionality to it like PCI USB 3 cards , PCI T bolt drives and a nice SSD drive to it and be 8 cores. Your still talking a boat load of money.

I like my setup its fast its nimble and I can go with it on location but again I do have to base everything else on externals. So you need a good game plan for that. Its a tough call and i know folks are waiting but I also think folks should start looking at options because my fear is Apple wont address it. Its become to small a market. Yea like MF land. LOL
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
...
My point on this thread isn't the display but to figure out whether I should replace my five-year old desktop now (actually in December) or continue to wait in forlorn hope that Apple finally updates the Mac Pro line.

BTW I believe that a good calibrated monitor is at least as important for B&W work as it is for color.

There are a substantial number of high end design professionals who must be in the same boat that I'm in. Any insights on what they are doing?
I agree with you: I need a well calibrated display AND a set of well matched printing profiles to make top notch B&W prints that have matching tints. Printing B&W on inkjet printers proves to be a fussy business still.

I can't speak for the design industry at large, but I work with graphics designers every day (I'm a staff technical writer in the publications department nowadays). They're all doing their work on iMac 27" systems. This department hasn't had a Mac Pro in the design lab for two years at least.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I have a NEC PA241W side by side with a Thunderbolt 27" display here in the lab right now. I'm looking at my M9 raw files using LR 4.2 using two MacBook Pro 13" computers side by side, set up identically. I calibrated both displays to the same target settings, with the same calibration unit, and they're running on identical computers. The difference I can perceive in the display quality of my raw files is simply too small to be of any importance. I don't have any high-end printers here in the lab at the office, but I am pretty certain that the prints would look identical if printed from either system.

Perhaps it's the lack of a $50,000 technical camera. Perhaps the device driver and graphics adapter in the two MacBook Pros I'm using. Perhaps it's my eyesight. But I'm happy with what I see on the NEC, and can't see much difference between it and the same image on the Thunderbolt display.

That's my bottom line.

PS: My old favorite display, a 2006 generation Apple Cinema Display 23" like the one I worked on from 2006 to 2011, sitting on the shelf next to the workbench. So while I was writing this, I pulled it over and set it up on the MacBook Pro that was driving the Thunderbolt 27" display. Ran the calibration and then compared the same photos.

For sure, the NEC looks yards different from the old ACD23" ... I'll take the NEC in that comparison any time!

Which I think points out a significant issue: many people are upgrading from older displays like that to the latest generation. Few people have both a new Apple display AND a new NEC display on their desktop at the same time. ALL of the latest generation displays look crisper, more detailed, with better tonal qualities, dynamic range, etc., than any three to four year old display.

Makes you wonder how we did photography with film and darkroom for 150 years before digital cameras existed, eh? :)
You still cant seem to grasp the facts in which i was trying to explain but at this point its all about what you do, frankly its is not about what you do when we are speaking specs. Those are not facts those are preferences that you will work with. A wide gamut monitor sees about 95 percent of the Prophoto color space a SRGB file is 50 percent the color space of a Prophoto color space.

Here is a quote

SRGB is the smallest of the photographers color spaces. It is about 20 percent smaller than Adobe RGB and half the size of ProPhoto RGB.

Take that data now insert it into a SRGB monitor and you are seeing only 50 percent of your Prophoto color space. A wide gamut monitor will see 95 percent of that same Prophoto color space. want to discuss this more i suggest a new thread but here is some reading data in a quick google search.

diglloyd - Wide-Gamut Displays for Photographers - Wide-gamut color display

Petr Vodnak Photography - Color Space

I am gracefully walking away from this thread as a admin. it is the best option.
 

Shashin

Well-known 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.
The ProPhoto color space is out of every monitor's gamut as well as every printer's gamut. It is even out of the human gamut. But I do not profile my monitor to sRGB, but to a target. And then when you throw in rendering intents, things completely change.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
You need to understand what a wide gamut monitor is. Your apple cinema can only see the SRBG color space ( its limits) it cant see past that regardless of your target. A wide gamut monitor can see past the SRGB space into a much bigger color space.

Buying Guide to Eizo Monitors
 

Shashin

Well-known member
I know what I wide gamut display is. You should understand that sRGB is not only a file gamut (it is not an input nor output gamut), but a rather old specification designed by Microsoft for the web. While designed for the internet, it is not a monitor nor output device profile. The monitor profile does not limit the file gamut, which is why there is different rendering intents--basically the only device that will show the colors in your print is the printer (expensive monitors will still not be able to do that). And the specific printer to boot. To try to say that color management is or even needs to be perfect is really not true. It is the old accuracy vs. precision debate.

You don't recommend Apple displays, that is fine. I use them professionally for large format printing and for output on commercial presses. I do not come to the same conclusion.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Guy,

I am well aware of all the facts you mention. I disagree with the need and cost for my work, and for MOST still photographers' work. That's all.

I've read every expert's opinions, read most of the books on the subject, and done my own experiments with the equipment. (In a former life, I was a researcher creating image processing software and rendering images from remote sensor data for NASA/JPL. I do have some skills in this domain still.)

My experiment this morning reinforced once more what I have been saying.

I am perfectly happy with my position on these things with regard to my photographic needs in image processing equipment. Others with other needs may disagree with me, but the buyers of my prints and other photographic products seem to be as happy with them as I am, at least.

I'll unsubscribe from this thread as I have no wish to debate the subject any further.

best,
Godfrey
 

robertwright

New member
Sandy's raging outside and I'm bored as He}} so I'll wade in for fun

If you can't see it you can't even think about mapping it to something you can see.

profoto and widegamut is certainly beyond most of the destination outputs we have currently. It will always be beyond printing reproduction. But rendering intents matter and having choices is what making art is about.

Also the tech is evolving and maybe displays will be the majority output in the future, and maybe they will be very capable of rendering large colour spaces.

So if we all survive this storm we have something to look forward to:D
 

docmoore

Subscriber and Workshop Member
My point on this thread isn't the display but to figure out whether I should replace my five-year old desktop now (actually in December) or continue to wait in forlorn hope that Apple finally updates the Mac Pro line.


There are a substantial number of high end design professionals who must be in the same boat that I'm in. Any insights on what they are doing?
I have been asking that question for weeks....and here is what I have done.

No one knows other than a few holdouts at Mac Rumors suggest a new MP will be available or announced sometime in 2013. Whether rumor or not Mac World is in January and could be worth the wait...till then.

RAID via SATA on the Mac Pro is very fast...I just added a G-Tech 6 TB external RAID 0 that is writing a sustained 200 MB/sec for large files via a $60 NewerTech MAXPower eSATA 6G...Drive Genius 3 benchmarked.

So I have added a SSD as boot drive to my 2010 MP. I have two 3TB Hitachi enterprise drives coming (tomorrow) for data and have two 2TB Hitachi drives which will be RAID 1 mirrored as my Time Machine backup....archiving the best files and downloads/applications/financials to multiple BlueRay discs.

If one needs more speed then an ARECA RAID via SAS to external RAID 0 will tromp most anything out there.

The ability to expand video memory and drive space with the Mac Pro is an advantage over the iMAC...no doubt Apple knows this but they may not care...as the well-heeled commodity purchasing crowd is far and above their major market, as you know. In the past the cache afforded the company by selling a top-tier technical solution was important for image...at this point they may not care.

If a replacement is delivered...all of this transfers in an afternoon...if not then perhaps a dedicated box for photo/video and a Mac mini for all else.

Tough call at the present time.

Bob
 

Bryan Stephens

Workshop Member
I currently have the newest generation of MacBook Pro with 16GB of RAM and I am going to be purchasing a new MacPro in the near future if they come out with their next generation as it is much easier to work on a unit that will have two 1GB graphics cards and a minimum of 32 GB of RAM. I will be going with either the Eizo or NEC 30 inch monitor as well.
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
A discussion worthy of Talmudic scholars ensued: is it "later next year" or "later, next year"? No one knows, but we hope the latter.

--Matt
 
Last edited:

Bryan Stephens

Workshop Member
A discussion worthy of Talmudic scholars ensued: is it "later next year" or "later, next year"? No one knows, but we hope the former.

--Matt
It's Apple Talk, sort of like when you are in the Caribbean and you ask your waiter how long until the food comes and he says "Soon come".......
 

pophoto

New member
The specs for the 27" iMac are pretty impressive. Serious storage expansion is available via the Thunderbolt ports.

My fully loaded Mac Pro is getting old. Really old by digital standards. I'm concerned about reliability. Apple doesn't seem to have much interest in it. Apple really does prefer closed boxes like the iMac. Should I give up on the wait for an new Mac Pro and order the 27" iMac when it becomes available?

The setup for the new system will be a lot of work - will require all new mass storage . . . .
It sounds like a RAID setup external storage solution will be more important. These days they easily store up 12GB. My current setup can write files at 90+ MB/s, which is a few years old now. It headache free if drives fail, or when upgrading machines.

Personally the new iMacs are super sexy, get as much ram as you need and some SSDs. This will keep temperatures down, and speeds like nothing else. Also the new screen offers 75% less reflection, and if true, all the better to spend your time in front of the screen!
 

John Black

Active member
After the Mac Pro update earlier this year, Apple said a true upgrade would be coming in 2013. I have 12-Core 2.66 (2010) with 32 GB RAM, and the previous gen iMac 3.1 GHz quad core I7 w/ 16 GB of RAM. The Mac Pro runs circles around the iMac. As I'm typing this, the following apps are open (on the Mac Pro): Safari, Mail, CS6, C1 v7, Coda, iTunes (playing), Excel 2010 and a couple other little apps. If I try to do that on the iMac, it grinds to a halt. The iMac is okay with smaller files, but put something like a P65+ file through it, and it passes out trying to pass that TIFF from C1 1to CS6. Add some layers in C1 and it gets really slow.

The Mac Pro is connected to a 30" Apple Cinema display; the iMac's 27" display seems very deceptive to me. Blacks are much darker and the glossy screen looks more saturated. The iMac is nice for web-surfing and general work, but as a main editing machine, I couldn't do it. That said, the Apple marketing hype about the new iMac display sounds interesting. I'd love to see that tech in a new 30" display. I also have the Mac Pro loaded with HD's, so if I went with the iMac, there would be a little village of HD's scattered across the desk.

Overall, I vote for a Mac Pro, but had Apple released 6-Core iMac or dual quad core, I'd probably go iMac. I was surprised there was not a 6-core iMac this go-around, so given that there wasn't, I think it's very likely we'll see new Mac Pro's. I'm sure the Mac Pro price tags will suck...
 

Amin

Active member
It's been a long, long time coming, and I agree with Jack that "later, next year" is too long from now.

I like iMacs, but I wouldn't buy one as my main workstation. I don't like to be married to any display, and I like to be able to get in there and make changes easily.
 
Dunno if anyone here already knows about this.. but if you want to get rid of the iMac's gloss right now, just get your nails under the top left/right corners of the glass panel and just pull it right off, it's held down only by magnets. It's still reflective, but not obscenely so.

If you can't be bothered to tape over the exposed parts around the sides, you can Google for a replacement frame without the glass, costs like $50-70 or something. Macframe - Reduce Glare & Reflections | Macframe
 
Top