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:
Not all photographers are alike. Your computer should be matched to your workflow. There is a difference in need between churning out photos of 200 products in a day, and getting 5 or six good portraits.

In terms of Windows vs. Mac, you will find a lot of strong opinions on both sides. Keep in mind that Macs give you the choice of running either Max OS-X or Windows. If you like the Mac hardware, but prefer Windows, that isn't a problem.

There are a lot of options with today's laptops. On the low end, there are some slow laptops. My primary machine is a quad core i7 with 16GB of RAM, 1TD SSD, GeForce GT 750M with 2GB VRAM. This is not a slow laptop.

When looking at a machine, you need to determine where the bottlenecks are for your workflow. If your workflow is I/O bound, then you should look at something with a large and fast SSD. If you are CPU bound, you should look at something with a fast processor. Depending on the nature of your needs, you may or may not benefit from multiple cores. If you like having lot's of windows open, you may want a large 4K display.

The Mac Pro may seem expensive, but compare it to similarly configured machines from other manufacturers, and the price starts to look good.

If you are looking for the most horsepower, I recommend a Mac Pro.

If you can get buy with just a fast machine, I recommend the iMac with SSD.

If you want portability and fast speed, then I recommend the 15" MacBook Pro with retina display. With a quad core i7 and 1TB SSD, this is a very capable machine. The built in screen is good when you are on the road, and it supports 4K monitors when you are in your studio.

I use Mac Mini's for file servers, but I prefer a machine with a higher end graphics card for Photoshop use.

My personal preference is for the Mac OS-X, but you can install Windows, and boot it up like a traditional PC, or run Windows in a virtual machine.
 
Michael,

In my opinion, photography does not put a huge load on a computer. You do not need an expensive "workstation" style setup to get your work completed. What you need is knowledge of what is most important for the task.

I use Lightroom 5 and Photoshop CS6 on a PC I built a few years ago. Photo programs mainly need a fast processor and very quick cache drives. You can easily put together a system for under $2,000 at a custom PC build site. Just build up a basic system with a fast processor, separate SSD for Windows, a lot of RAM, good video card and buy extra drives yourself and install. OR have them do it all if you do not want to go under the hood.

I have a recent SSD drive for my Windows 7 install, an SSD drive for my Lightroom cache, a separate Hard Drive for the source photos, a two disc RAID 0 for Adobe cache files and a drive for My Documents. 16GB of RAM and GTX 670 video card.

Now this could have been called a "gamer" machine when I put it together. It is all about spreading resources around so nothing is taxed or slowed down.

Asking about Mac/PC is a waste of time imho. Focus on what you are happy comfortable with and stick with it. I would first get a great monitor and a calibration tool like a Spyder (you probably already know this) and then figure out your budget. Put it together and run with it.
 
I have no idea how you do that. For example, I am processing one photo on my laptop just now and it takes like 2-3 minutes. I just couldnt imagine doing bulk photos with the laptop.
Must be something wrong with your laptop, exactly what is it? I have a 2013 Retina Macbook Pro with 512SSD, i7 processor and 16GB of RAM and it flies through all photo editing/processing tasks.

With SSD hard drives, large quantities of RAM, latest generation processors and graphics cards there's virtually no distinction between the speed of laptops vs desktop computers.
Where a faster Mac offers a practical benefit is in final processing - bulk exporting of processed JPEGs from the adjusted RAWS, or running batch actions in Photoshop. That said, my MBP is much faster at this than my heavily upgraded 8-core Mac Pro used to be. Exporting several hundred JPEGs now happens during dinner rather than overnight.

In terms of responsiveness, I find that Aperture responds to my actions largely in real time. Rendering 16MP RAW files as I click through for the first time takes a second or so, which is less time than it takes me to evaluate and rank an image. On rare occasions when I want to click through even faster, I just hit the P key to switch to Quick Preview mode (which displays the embedded JPEG) and then image display is instantaneous. When editing and retouching, I basically never have to wait.
 
Just in case anyone is thinking what if I lose it...it's backup up via Apple time machine at home. While both the RAID drive and laptop are backed up via automatic cloud storage off site backup updated every hour.
I also keep a cloned copy of my boot volume on a portable drive. It's much easier to restore the entire system from a clone than from Time Machine, and if my OS fails, I can boot from the clone to keep working and/or fix the main drive.
 
I have no idea how you do that. For example, I am processing one photo on my laptop just now and it takes like 2-3 minutes. I just couldnt imagine doing bulk photos with the laptop.
I upgraded last year from a maxed-out 2008 Mac Pro to my little pocket rocket after I took a couple dozen RAW files to an Apple Store, timed Aperture performance on a variety of Macbook Pros and found the new laptops were 30% to 100% faster than my old fire-breather. I can click through 16MP RAWs as fast as I can rank them. Adjustment & retouching tools respond in real time. And exporting a full-rez JPEG from an adjusted RAW takes about 2-3 seconds. Aperture is very quick and resource-efficient. It makes full use of the four virtual cores of my dual-core i7 processor, and it takes less than half of the available 16GB of RAM under heavy load. It does not require a high-end graphics card, either. Lightroom on a Mac is no slouch, either, but I prefer Aperture's UI and non-modality.

To squeeze out the last bit of performance, I download each job into a fresh new library on my SSD. When the job is done and delivered, I move the job library into a job folder on my RAID archive, migrate the RAW masters out of the library and into a subfolder, then add a copy of the (now much smaller) job library to the master library of all my work, which resides on the SSD. Since RAWs are now referenced (outside the libraries), my master library of about 70k images weighs only 70GB and loads up in about 3 seconds.

--
jacquescornell.photography
 
Last edited:
Two to three minutes to process a file? More like 10 seconds on any recent MacBook. Unless you are using some huge, 60 megapixel Medium Format rig for your event photos...

And, as many have added here, in Lightroom or Aperture most adjustments present in real time on files up to 24 megpixel raws.
 
Two to three minutes to process a file? More like 10 seconds on any recent MacBook. Unless you are using some huge, 60 megapixel Medium Format rig for your event photos...
The slowest program I know of is DxO 9

I see the software has been roundly ignored here. Choosing software with a little optimisation of the code can make an enormous difference. Much more than fretting over whether a Xeon or an i7 is appropriate. Some of the plugins have seen tremendous performance gains by using newer instruction sets such as OpenCL- hundreds of percent.
 
Many times nowadays I am utilizing DXO Optics Prime for noise reduction. That program is a real beast when it comes to times, but it does a great job in my opinion. There are a few other programs I utilize and all of the take a little time or a LOT of time.

I guess it all depends on what software you use and how many images. I think Penguin Photo is closest to what Im thinking about...i.e. manually processing a few hundred RAW wedding photos in one sitting using various complex programs. If there is so much as a little lag then you find yourself at the computer for hours hacking away.

We all know our own personal situations. If you find yourself hacking away for a few hours at hundreds of photos then you probably need a bit more computer for the task. On the other hand if your style is less photos and less editing then you can probably get away with the laptop.

I find myself looking through each individual photo, doing edits and sometimes using the PRIME noise reduction. Its very time consuming. I will admit I could be a bit more organized and I probably could batch some of it out. A change in style and ways of doing things could probably save me more time. There are some things Im looking to in that regard.
 
Many times nowadays I am utilizing DXO Optics Prime for noise reduction. That program is a real beast when it comes to times, but it does a great job in my opinion. There are a few other programs I utilize and all of the take a little time or a LOT of time.

I guess it all depends on what software you use and how many images. I think Penguin Photo is closest to what Im thinking about...i.e. manually processing a few hundred RAW wedding photos in one sitting using various complex programs. If there is so much as a little lag then you find yourself at the computer for hours hacking away.

We all know our own personal situations. If you find yourself hacking away for a few hours at hundreds of photos then you probably need a bit more computer for the task. On the other hand if your style is less photos and less editing then you can probably get away with the laptop.

I find myself looking through each individual photo, doing edits and sometimes using the PRIME noise reduction. Its very time consuming. I will admit I could be a bit more organized and I probably could batch some of it out. A change in style and ways of doing things could probably save me more time. There are some things Im looking to in that regard.
You are correct in that the horsepower needed varies according to your workflow.

For many people, processing lots of RAW files is IO limited, not CPU limited. A big SSD on a fast bus can go a long way to eliminating wait times.

I would not be so quick to dismiss laptops. Today's high end laptops are faster than the high end desktops of a few years ago. For many people a high end laptop is more than enough horsepower.

Even Apple's high end iMacs pack a tremendous amount of horsepower.

The Mac Pro has a tremendous amount of horsepower. More than most people need. Obviously some people do need that much horsepower.
 
Income is about half & half with me, so I don’t know if qualify as a Pro?

I strictly use Digital Storm computers.

Their customer service is top notch. I go with the best possible deal on a unit equipped with the fastest, NON-over-clocked / NON-water-cooled CPU. Adding RAM and changing hard drives is easy, they’re both just plug-in upgrades.

As far as operating systems go, I use Win 7 and Vista. Vista really needs to be tweaked, but sometimes it is better than Win 7 with freeware. I’ve been experimenting with LinuxLive USB Creator, Version 2.8.29 Final - Portable Edition, to see if I want to go through the trouble of trying Linux as a duel boot / main operating system.

Be aware, the LinuxLive USB Creator is showing alerts on two online virus scanners (1 & 2), but I’m using it without any issues whatsoever.

--
http://www.spcai.org
Leave nothing but footprints,
http://www.wspa.ca
Take nothing but pictures,
http://www.ifaw.org
Kill nothing but time.
http://www.hsi.org
--
http://www.google.com/search?q=Cultures+and+Countries+That+Eat+Dogs
 
Last edited:
Sorry they cannot be the best, unless you quantify who they are best for...

"The absolute best there is." You see that's not strictly true is it?

Before we get into the obvious consideration of cost, they are better than a £200,000 super computer? Let's just think about what they are best for? Editing video? Playing games? Researching the internet? processing RAW files? handling a 250mb photoshop files? Stitching images?

Do they offer best Value? Best speed? Best portability? Best user friendliness?

Would they be best for me? No because I've invested in software for a different operating system :)

You see your definition of "best" is different than mine, is yours more "absolute" than mine?
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-Always give the client a vertical-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Blog/news/tips from a professional yachting photographer http://grahamsnook.com/news
 
Sorry they cannot be the best, unless you quantify who they are best for...

"The absolute best there is." You see that's not strictly true is it?

Before we get into the obvious consideration of cost, they are better than a £200,000 super computer?
Funny you should ask, Mac. With their optional HPC Processors, they are getting rather close.
Let's just think about what they are best for? Editing video? Playing games? Researching the internet? processing RAW files? handling a 250mb photoshop files? Stitching images?

Do they offer best Value? Best speed? Best portability? Best user friendliness?

Would they be best for me? No because I've invested in software for a different operating system :)

You see your definition of "best" is different than mine, is yours more "absolute" than mine?
Considering their variety, rating and the enormous configurability... yes. Bye Mac.

:-D

--
http://www.spcai.org
Leave nothing but footprints,
http://www.wspa.ca
Take nothing but pictures,
http://www.ifaw.org
Kill nothing but time.
http://www.hsi.org
--
http://www.google.com/search?q=Cultures+and+Countries+That+Eat+Dogs
 
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.
 
You must define supercomputer. I remember an article in Computer Shopper comparing 386 computers to a bunch of others, including supercomputers. A Cray supercomputer beat out the 386, but the 386 beat out everything else on their list. I didn't find the article, but here's a similar one:


Note the date on the article. The computers listed there would be slow by today's standards.
 
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.
It sounds like your laptop is not up to your needs.

What makes you think your laptop is typical of current model high end laptops? Is it possible that your software configuration is not optimal? Perhaps you merely need more RAM or a SSD drive?

It's also possible that your needs are atypical.

I think it's a mistake to extrapolate from "this solution doesn't work for me" to "this solution doesn't work in general"
 
I think the program "Aperture" works seamlessly with the Mac. The same people who programmed Aperture were working hand in hand with the Mac people therefore its faster. However, the people who programmed DXO Optics and Lightroom were not working with the people at Microsoft.

So when I use DXO Optics with my HP laptop the result is drama.
 
I think the program "Aperture" works seamlessly with the Mac. The same people who programmed Aperture were working hand in hand with the Mac people therefore its faster. However, the people who programmed DXO Optics and Lightroom were not working with the people at Microsoft.

So when I use DXO Optics with my HP laptop the result is drama.
Out of curiosity, could you tell us a bit more about the specs of your laptop?

You mention "i7". How many core, and what's the clock speed?

How much RAM.

What kind of mass storage? Traditional spinning HD (what speed), hybrid SSD/HD, pure SSD (what sort of connection)?

All of these can dramatically affect performance.

It's also possible that the demands of your chosen software require more than what a commercial laptop can deliver.

I can say with confidence that there are laptops which can easily met the needs of many (but not all) photographers.
 
I think the program "Aperture" works seamlessly with the Mac. The same people who programmed Aperture were working hand in hand with the Mac people therefore its faster. However, the people who programmed DXO Optics and Lightroom were not working with the people at Microsoft.

So when I use DXO Optics with my HP laptop the result is drama.
Out of curiosity, could you tell us a bit more about the specs of your laptop?

You mention "i7". How many core, and what's the clock speed?

How much RAM.

What kind of mass storage? Traditional spinning HD (what speed), hybrid SSD/HD, pure SSD (what sort of connection)?

All of these can dramatically affect performance.

It's also possible that the demands of your chosen software require more than what a commercial laptop can deliver.

I can say with confidence that there are laptops which can easily met the needs of many (but not all) photographers.
If i remember correctly Aperture draws heavily on the GPU not just RAM and CPU. So the amount of memory the GPU has, along with it's clock speed, number of pipelines, etc will influence performance of Aperture more than it would, for example. Lightroom.
 
You must define supercomputer. I remember an article in Computer Shopper comparing 386 computers to a bunch of others, including supercomputers. A Cray supercomputer beat out the 386, but the 386 beat out everything else on their list. I didn't find the article, but here's a similar one:

http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/classics-rock/the-80s-supercomputer-thats-sitting-in-your-lap/

Note the date on the article. The computers listed there would be slow by today's standards.

--
Victor Engel
It is this now.

Comparatively speaking, it actually makes a top of the line Cray, look like a Digi-Comp I. No joke, no exaggeration, in the least, it’s quite literally trillions upon trillions of times faster than any other “supercomputer”.

--
http://www.spcai.org
Leave nothing but footprints,
http://www.wspa.ca
Take nothing but pictures,
http://www.ifaw.org
Kill nothing but time.
http://www.hsi.org
--
http://www.google.com/search?q=Cultures+and+Countries+That+Eat+Dogs
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top