What computer do you use? (professional photographers only)

Status
Not open for further replies.

MichaelVadon

Senior Member
Messages
1,225
Solutions
1
Reaction score
371
This question is for those who make their money solely through photography and do a good amount of volume per year. So please only answer this question if you fall into that category.

What computer you use? What computer do you suggest a professional who does a good amount of volume per year get?

I will tell you my experiences which are the following:

- Laptops are really only for emergency use or away on trips. Even the best custom built laptops, i.e. Alienware, are too slow for professional use.

- High performance and gaming consumer level desktops are a bit better doing things in half the time. They don't overheat like the laptop and can be left alone to do the work while you surf or do email on your laptop. However, consumer level desktops are still a tad bit slow for someone who does gigs each week and needs to process a lot of photos quickly through the usual programs like photoshop.

- Professional level computers with Xeon processors and dual pro-level graphics cards are the only serious tools for the professional who does a lot of volume.

I will admit that I am a PC fan and have never liked Apple, however, if a professional were to approach me asking what kind of computer they should get then I would say the current Mac Pro with the 12 core Xeon processor. Fully optioned out on the Mac website with 64gb of ram and dual video cards is nearly 10 grand. Its expensive, but if you regularly make six digits or more digits per year as a photographer then you would have no problem spending that much for one. Apple is known for catering to photographers and videographers so the Mac Pro is optimized for that type of work. The Xeon 12 core processor is currently the highest performing processor sold and better performing then the regular i7 consumer line.

Another workstation is the HP Z820 which you can option out with dual Xeon processors versus the Mac Pros single cpu. Dell precision. If you are looking into spending 10,000+ on a dual-Xeon system then you are probably a videographer, graphics artist or a really high volume in-demand professional photographer who has a lot of work. If you are at this level in the game, then you know exactly what kind of computing power you need and you don't need a thread like this on the DP-Review giving you advice.

So my recommendation for most professional photographers with a six figure income would be the 12 core Mac Pro with dual D700 cards. Fully optioned with everything on it runs about 10 grand. Its a lot, but if you really do that much work per year it will save money in the long run. The E5-2697 v2 12 core processor is the best performing processor on CPU Benchmark.

Also, I post this in this forum because I want to get a response from the "Professionals". I didn't want to post it in the computer forum because then I would get all kinds of responses from different people who may not be professionals. Lets hope I get responses from the professionals.
 
Last edited:
This question is for those who make their money solely through photography and do a good amount of volume per year. So please only answer this question if you fall into that category.

What computer you use? What computer do you suggest a professional who does a good amount of volume per year get?
I guess one should first decide on the software and then hardware, not the other way around. After all, you don't buy a computer to look at it or to hear the hardware buzzing :D.

Adobe is available on Windows and OSX, but some people use programs which limit the choice of platform.
I know a guy doing graphic design (combining photography and 3D modelling), who has a very complicated workflow with multiple tools and serious file processing. And he uses Linux, because this OS excels in such tasks.

And then there is the availability of high-end desktops. While there are made of mostly the same parts and many companies sell them, Apple is really serious about the segment (they try to be innovative, they advertise their products).

Dell and HP are more concerned about low-end home PCs and more expensive stuff (servers, numerical computing etc). It seems they don't really aim for people wanting to spend $5-10k workstation.

And obviously, if you don't want OS X, you can simply build a PC yourself (or with help from someone who can). It could be more efficient, quieter and also better looking (if your need it) than anything Apple offers.

Building a PC yourself (or ordering a custom one in a shop) is very popular in Eastern Europe (and most of Asia, so generally countries with lower salaries than in Western Europe, US etc).
Here, during 90s and 2000s almost every home desktop was a custom one. As far as I know, custom PCs in US are mostly popular among hardcore gamers :).
 
3.33 ghz Mac Pro 12 core westmere with 64gb ram, and more hard drives than I can count... 30" apple cinema display with the crucial matte finish screen. I love the system so much, I've been ignoring the new mac pro black trashcans.
 
My HP Laptop has a third generation I7 with the GEForce 650m. Its not an ancient laptop nor is it the most recent.

I am right now in a hotel in New Orleans. I want to post a few pictures here and there before I get home. I turn on DXO optics and Lightroom. The machine starts feeling hot, the fan starts spinning hard and it really looks/feels like the laptop is struggling to finish the race. If I decided to do all my work right here on the road then it would take me all day in the hotel. Whereas if I had a desktop then the action would be at least quicker and with less drama...fan spinning, burning hot laptop. I certainly couldnt imagine putting together a wedding book on this laptop. It could be done, but it wouldnt be so short and easy.
I work in IT and have done so for a good many years. I have never been impressed with laptops in comparison to a good desktop machine. The primary objectives of a laptop are that it must fit into a small package, it must get good battery life, it must be lightweight. None of those things are good for performance. I don't care if it has an i7 CPU and a bunch of memory, the whole system is designed to other priorities than performance. The brute strength of the CPU is the only thing that makes it feel peppy, if it does.

I do have a laptop, it's a necessary evil when traveling, but mostly I use it to access other computers remotely.

My desktop machine is a Dell XPS730X H2C, an awesome gaming machine with water cooling and I am very pleased with it. I don't do any gaming but I figured that a gaming machine would definitely have a performance edge to it and this one does. I sold off my prior Dell XPS machine, an 8300 with an i7 processor, to pay for this one - and the 8300 couldn't dream of keeping up with it.
 
Last edited:
My HP Laptop has a third generation I7 with the GEForce 650m. Its not an ancient laptop nor is it the most recent.

I am right now in a hotel in New Orleans. I want to post a few pictures here and there before I get home. I turn on DXO optics and Lightroom. The machine starts feeling hot, the fan starts spinning hard and it really looks/feels like the laptop is struggling to finish the race. If I decided to do all my work right here on the road then it would take me all day in the hotel. Whereas if I had a desktop then the action would be at least quicker and with less drama...fan spinning, burning hot laptop. I certainly couldnt imagine putting together a wedding book on this laptop. It could be done, but it wouldnt be so short and easy.
I work in IT and have done so for a good many years. I have never been impressed with laptops in comparison to a good desktop machine. The primary objectives of a laptop are that it must fit into a small package, it must get good battery life, it must be lightweight. None of those things are good for performance. I don't care if it has an i7 CPU and a bunch of memory, the whole system is designed to other priorities than performance. The brute strength of the CPU is the only thing that makes it feel peppy, if it does.
I have a Dell desktop computer, a VAIO 18" laptop, a 13" Macbook Pro of my own and a 15" Macbook Pro for work (these are also in order of age, with newest last). They are also in order of peppiness with peppiest last.

My 13" MBP has a faster CPU than my 15" MBP. Both have the same amount of RAM. The 15" has Mavericks, the 13" does not. I don't know how much difference the OS version makes, but another difference is that the 15" MBP has a 500GB solid state drive. That makes a huge difference.

I do most of my image processing on my VAIO laptop mainly because it's the one with the software I'm used to. Does it get hot? Well, yes, but mostly when the room itself is warm.
I do have a laptop, it's a necessary evil when traveling, but mostly I use it to access other computers remotely.
Now you've added another bottleneck.
My desktop machine is a Dell XPS730X H2C, an awesome gaming machine with water cooling and I am very pleased with it. I don't do any gaming but I figured that a gaming machine would definitely have a performance edge to it and this one does. I sold off my prior Dell XPS machine, an 8300 with an i7 processor, to pay for this one - and the 8300 couldn't dream of keeping up with it.
My daughter has a gaming machine. It has a huge fan with blinking lights and whatnot. She was always complaining how hot it was in her room. Now she's moved out and taken the computer with her, the room doesn't get so hot anymore.
 
My daughter has a gaming machine. It has a huge fan with blinking lights and whatnot. She was always complaining how hot it was in her room. Now she's moved out and taken the computer with her, the room doesn't get so hot anymore.
Desktops are usually built for performance and not efficiency. Laptop designers look for a compromise.

Of course no one stops you from getting an efficient desktop. You'll have to pay slightly more, but it will still be cheaper than a comparable laptop. And because of the size and choice of parts, it's possible to make desktops better than laptops in every aspect (besides mobility, obviously :)).

That said, if a "gaming PC" manufacturer can spend money on more efficient parts and better cooling OR a more powerful (so hotter) GPU, he will get the GPU. It is much easier to sell.
 
I haven't read the entire thread, but I use a 15in MBP Retina with 16gb of ram for all my editing. Granted I'm not using photoshop, but I edit on a deadline for sports, entertainment and news for Getty.
 
I have a day job in the architectural industry, and am a weekend warrior doing architectural photography for my 2nd job. At least for editing stills photography, I can tell you a $1200 PC is not far off from a super high end workstation, because I use both.

My PC at home is running i7 3770, 16GB RAM, 240GB SSD, 2TB storage drive. For editing photos it comes awfully close to my workstation at the day job, which is high end station made by BOXX: overclocked 6 core i7, 32GB RAM, Quadro 4000 graphics, 240GB SSD.

The BOXX is a bit faster for working in Adobe ACR, but it should be. I've never done timed test, it's strictly a "seat of the pants" test. But honestly, there is not enough difference where working pro would be saving much time or making more money by spending the huge difference. Frankly I'm impressed how close my modest build comes to it for photo work. Video would be another story...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top