iMAC anyone?

[DavidGregg]

I am looking to move my photo-related activities from my old XP to a new environment. I am considering an iMAC. Question: Does anybody here use the 24" iMAC for Photoshop? Is the video display satisfactory? Thanks.

[Jacco]

Originally Posted by DavidGregg

I am looking to move my photo-related activities from my old XP to a new environment. I am considering an iMAC. Question: Does anybody here use the 24" iMAC for Photoshop? Is the video display satisfactory? Thanks.

Hi David,

Yes, I use a 24" and a 20" iMac for Photoshop (and a 17" MacBook Pro). They are great for Photoshop. Only Apple's 30" cinema display is better still, imo. You won't regret switching. In fact, you will chide yourself for not doing it years ago!
And don't forget you can run XP, or Vista too on a Mac! And all the associated software.

Have fun!

[DavidGregg]

The monitor looked decent. My concern was more around the capabilities of the buit-in video card. The system as a whole looks good. My plan is to move all activities to the MAC side and run Windows only for my Windows Development work. The final sell for me was that like my windows machine, I can still run virtuals machines of Redhat, FreeSBD, etc..

[matthewlrigdon]

If all you're doing is Photoshop work, then the video card is of little consequence. If there's enough memory for the resolution you work at, you'll be fine. Since all LCDs have a set natural resolution and Apple packs enough video memory into each system to run at that setting, you're set.

Going forward, Adobe might start rolling more and more GPU functions into Photoshop, but as it stands, the only app they've really beefed up to use GPU commands is After Effects and After Effects can take advantage of the GPUs in various Macs according to the capabilities those cards expose to the software.

If you have some desire to run high-end 3D software or to run XP/Vista with games, I would recommend the iMac 24" with the Nvidia video card upgrade. Or if you're really concerned about video support, pick up the Mac Pro and you can upgrade the video card at any time you need to.

If this is a question about the LCD panel itself, Apple's panels (even in the Cinema Display models) are at the upper level of consumer quality, but if you absolutely want the best color fidelity and performance you'll want a custom LCD panel like the Samsung and NEC LED panels. Of course, those panels runs upwards of $2000 for a 20" model. If you're looking at an iMac, I'm guessing you're not in the "money no object" workstation market

[DavidGregg]

Originally Posted by matthewlrigdon

If you're looking at an iMac, I'm guessing you're not in the "money no object" workstation market

Nope. Been there, done that. I am an application and integration architect by day, I can honestly say the bells and whistles of power workstations don't impress me. I am simply looking for a new computer for my home office to do my Photo work on. I am looking at the upgraded iMAC (memory and video and 24" display) for the small foot print. The hi-performance workstations just clashes too much with the tropical decor in my den

[DavidGregg]

Originally Posted by matthewlrigdon

If all you're doing is Photoshop work, then the video card is of little consequence. If there's enough memory for the resolution you work at, you'll be fine. Since all LCDs have a set natural resolution and Apple packs enough video memory into each system to run at that setting, you're set.

Going forward, Adobe might start rolling more and more GPU functions into Photoshop, but as it stands, the only app they've really beefed up to use GPU commands is After Effects and After Effects can take advantage of the GPUs in various Macs according to the capabilities those cards expose to the software.

If you have some desire to run high-end 3D software or to run XP/Vista with games, I would recommend the iMac 24" with the Nvidia video card upgrade. Or if you're really concerned about video support, pick up the Mac Pro and you can upgrade the video card at any time you need to.

If this is a question about the LCD panel itself, Apple's panels (even in the Cinema Display models) are at the upper level of consumer quality, but if you absolutely want the best color fidelity and performance you'll want a custom LCD panel like the Samsung and NEC LED panels. Of course, those panels runs upwards of $2000 for a 20" model. If you're looking at an iMac, I'm guessing you're not in the "money no object" workstation market

Thanks for the reply. I am looking only to use photoshop on this system as well as the office suite. Nothing more. Looks like a fit.

I did look into the powermac but they have one major flaw.... There is no docking station for them. Sure, there are aftermarket ones but they are all cludgy and awkward.

[Loa]

Originally Posted by DavidGregg

I did look into the powermac but they have one major flaw.... There is no docking station for them.

Not sure I follow. The Mac Pro is a desktop machine.

Loa

[DavidGregg]

Originally Posted by Loa

Not sure I follow. The Mac Pro is a desktop machine.

Loa

I agree the Mac Pro is a workstation... But the PowerMac (or PowerBook, whichever it is called) is a notebook...

[Loa]

Mac Book - entry level notebook
Mac Book Pro - top end notebook

Mini - basement level desktop
iMac - entry to midrange desktop
Mac Pro - top end desktop.

I have the 2007 aluminum 24inch iMac and I love it. If you're fanatic about monitor quality though, get a Mac Pro and a pro monitor. I consider myself lucky to have only a slight light-bleeding issue at the top of my screen, and very faint darker bands (barely detectable) in the middle of the screen.

Aluminum iMacs have been plagued with bad screens. Of course they're not all bad, but a very large (many say unacceptable portion) of them have bad screens.

See here for a lengthy discussion:

-http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1093045&tstart=0
-http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1502535&tstart=0
-http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=406302
-http://www.tuaw.com/2007/09/12/20-imac-lcd-color-problems/

Now before people come here defending the iMac, it's not a generalized problem, but if you're picky about your monitor, I'd stay away from iMacs you haven't personnaly tested.

Loa

[Take12]

Currently I have 3x 2007/2008 Macs operational: a 24" iMac, a 20" iMac, and a 17" MacBook Pro (and a 2002 17" 'legacy' iMac – "the lamp", on OSX.3.9). All of them have gorgeous, immaculate screens.
Was I just lucky, Loa...?

[Loa]

Originally Posted by Take12

Was I just lucky, Loa...?

Originally Posted by Loa

Of course they're not all bad, but a very large (many say unacceptable portion) of them have bad screens.

[...]

Now before people come here defending the iMac, it's not a generalized problem, but if you're picky about your monitor, I'd stay away from iMacs you haven't personnaly tested.

Try to prevent something...

Anyway... I'm not bashing Macs or Apple: heck I own two right now, and I've been an exclusive Mac user since system 5. Yep, 5, not Mac OS X 10.5. Simply 5.

Also, perhaps you're better than me at judging the quality of a monitor, but perhaps not. Do you know how to check for horizontal blue to amber cast? Do you know how to check for light-bleeding? Do you know how to check for those very faint horizontal black bands in the middle of your monitor? Do you know how to check for less-than-stated pixel reaction time? And those are just the not-obvious problems like dead vertical bands.

I'm really happy you got 3 perfect iMacs. On the other hand, someone shouldn't "expect" a flawless iMac monitor these days. That's just plain fact. I got 2 problems with mine, and I got 2 friends with various versions of the Al iMacs with similar problems. And the web is full of such stories. Warning someone about the quality of Al iMac screens is just basic courtesy. It's sad that Mac lovers are "forced" to do so, but that's the way it is right now.

Loa

[Take12]

OK, thanks Loa. It's always good to be careful of course. Although I see constant reminders in the news every day – Iraq – what havoc completely misdirected FUD (the vaporware "WMDs"...) can cause. So I'm naturally weary of doomsayers. Sorry.

I've been a Mac Head since the Mac Plus in '85, but I'm not a screen calibration expert like you. Anyhow I never yet – knock on wood – had complaints about Mac screens in all that time. And 23 years is a pretty impressive real life track record I'm not going to ignore on anybody's say-so.

The near future could be different, though. Word on the street is that Apple is going to strategically drop it's price level dramatically. Across the board. To the tune of 20 or even 30%. To buy market share.
Whatever else that does, nobody is going to convince me that strategy will improve product quality! Quite the contrary, TBH. Those price cuts must be financed. Cheaper suppliers, cheaper materials and cheaper assembly processes (labor, automation), a.o., would be my guess...

There goes the neigborhood!

[DavidGregg]

Originally Posted by Take12

Those price cuts must be financed. Cheaper suppliers, cheaper materials and cheaper assembly processes (labor, automation), a.o., would be my guess...

Let's hope not. The build quality is what grabbed my attention...

[awm123]

I have had Mac since day one, 256 k machine, have used them all and have been happy, obviouslyu. I have some concern about the Imac monitor, fine for most things, not so sure about it for high quality photoshop work. I am looking at the Mini as a possible solution. I think nif I get it maxed for memory and procssing power, it will be fine. The extra $$ will go towards a high end pro monitor. I have seen that set-up in use, works great, good bang for the buck.
Al

[Loa]

I agree with you Take12: price drops of 20-30% would be disastrous. In my opinion, the build quality started to drop when Apple dropped PowerPC in favor of Intel. Where we used to have specific, high quality HD, RAM, vid cards, sound cards, motherboards, logic boards... We now have PC stuff with little or nothing left of the high quality we were used to have.

Of course it's nice not to have to pay 50%-100% more for a HD or monitor if we choose to, but then again all that's left of what used to be Apple's huge "quality-edge" is the OS. It's still a big edge, especially when compared to Vista, but the hardware isn't all that different nowadays.

David: some of Apple's hardware is still top notch, but you'll have to pay for it. Mac Book Pro instead of Mac Book, and Mac Pro instead of iMac. Apple's non-Pro line is way cheaper than what Macs used to cost, and its Pro line is just as expensive as PowerMacs of old. There has to be an reason for that somewhere...

The iMacs and Mac Books are nothing to scoff at, but don't expect a huge difference in build quality with equivalent machines from HP, Dell... (Sad but true...) If you want the "Mac advantage", choose Apple for the OS.

Loa

[Loa]

Originally Posted by awm123

I have had Mac since day one, 256 k machine, have used them all and have been happy, obviouslyu.

Same here (well not day one, but nearly: Mac Plus!). And I think that's why a lot of older Mac users are still fervent Apple defenders. But if we forget everything before the PowerPC to Intel decision, things are looking a lot different.

I'm even tempted to buy a used version of the last and most powerful PowerMac eight core, as a legacy item. Hear that monster roar!!!

Loa

[carylwithay]

I have 2 iMac 24" computers and I love them. They are much better than PCs. Photoshop works much better on them. I have had many PCs.
Caryl

[jbrooksga]

Are there any concerns with the iMac having the glossy-type screen? While it is very eye-pleasing, I would think that photo editing might be more difficult due to that in terms of true calibration.

Can anyone offer input there?

[matthewlrigdon]

Originally Posted by jbrooksga

Are there any concerns with the iMac having the glossy-type screen? While it is very eye-pleasing, I would think that photo editing might be more difficult due to that in terms of true calibration.

Can anyone offer input there?

You can calibrate any screen. The glossy screen is supposed to make blacks look more "black", but it doesn't really affect color considerably. No matter what screen you have, you still need to learn how to read a histogram and the info pallet in order to make sure results are correct. The human eye can be fooled too easily. Plus, the glossy screen will end up boosting contrast compared to the same image on a matte screen. You just have to compensate (or not, depending on what you're doing with the image).

The main issue I have with glossy screen is that glare is a much bigger problem. You have to work in a room with little or no light. With the iMac, not such a big deal. On a Macbook, if you have to work out in the field, the glare issues can be a killer.

[Loa]

Hello,

I'd agree: if glare isn't a problem, go with a glossy screen. I'm never going back to mat. The actual dynamic range is different on a glossy than on a mat LCD screen. It's lot better actually. Never mind the contrast ratio of the display: blacks are indeed blacker, and whites whiter.

Once calibrated, it will give you better results. (Of course, your mileage may vary, but I've never met anyone that wanted to go back to mat!)

Loa