>PC or MAC for digital imaging ?<

>PC or MAC for digital imaging ?<

Post by Mystuff » Sat, 17 May 1997 04:00:00



I need a new computer.I've been using the PC format since 1985 but will
now need to do digital imaging.
I saw a good deal at a computer store of the Aptiva C8E with 32 ram,3.1
gig drive,
33.6 modem,16x CD,3D graphics,speakers and monitor for only $1900.00.
I would up the ram to the max of 128 meg.

On the other hand I've been looking at a few Power PC Clones which only
seem to offer a 1.2 or 2.1 gig hard drive,16 ram,8x CD,28.8 modem and no
monitor for the same amount of money as IBM or more.

Since I am a PC user I'm not sure if or how the comparisons would
translate.

So I'm wondering--which is a better platform for digital imaging.I would
like to scan
and retouch photos on the Nikon Coolscan and do manipulations and out put
them to a service bureau for slides made for my stock photo agents and
clients.
I've been scanning photos for about three years for my own use and
previews for editors,etc, and web usage so that I have no problem with
that.
My photo labs will accept a digital file in RGB tiff format on a Zip disk
and are not platform dependent.

I'd be using Photoshop and was wodnering,differences in operations ?
ease of use ? Has anyone been on a PC for many years and switched ?
Was it hard to learn or confusing ?

Advice & Opinions welcome.I need to make a decision by Monday.

Thanks!

 
 
 

>PC or MAC for digital imaging ?<

Post by Michael M. Eile » Sun, 18 May 1997 04:00:00




> I've also noticed a lot of small bugs, and hear that PS on NT is not as
> stable as on a Mac.

it ain't! You should try in on Win95... GPF 3 times a day, like clockwork.

 My cursors will lose their settings (I have the

Quote:> brushes set to actual size, and they revert to standard till I reboot),
> and other bits of strangeness occur. And while PS launches very quickly on
> NT with a Pentium 166, it seems to run more slowly than on my 132 mHz
> Power Mac 7600.

I've also noticed that Gradients tend to look like crap. I

Quote:> don't know why, or if this is par for the course of just a weird system
> that I'm using (that's one of the problems with PCs--you *never* know
> whether it's just your system or not). Scans don't seem to look as good as
> on my Mac (again, is it the scanner, the OS, or the PC?).

actually the reason is this: PCs have no standard monitor gamma, and their
screens tend to be about 1.1 higher in gamma than Macs. This results in
"washed out" colors and unpredictable results when viewing raw scans. The
other problem is that the dithering algorithms are inneficient--so
gradients which require dithering look like hell. You might notice that
surfing in 256 colors is MUCH better looking on the Mac than on the PC.

michael
-------
Please remove SPAMFREE from e-mail address when replying by that method. Sorry.

Michael M. Eilers * Fearful Symmetry Designs

 
 
 

>PC or MAC for digital imaging ?<

Post by Curtiss Hammo » Sun, 18 May 1997 04:00:00




>I need a new computer.I've been using the PC format since 1985 but will
>now need to do digital imaging.
>I saw a good deal at a computer store of the Aptiva C8E with 32 ram,3.1
>gig drive,
>33.6 modem,16x CD,3D graphics,speakers and monitor for only $1900.00.
>I would up the ram to the max of 128 meg.

(snip)

Quote:>I'd be using Photoshop and was wodnering,differences in operations ?
>ease of use ? Has anyone been on a PC for many years and switched ?
>Was it hard to learn or confusing ?

I learned computer graphics on a Mac, so I am somewhat biased, but have
spent the last 5 weeks working with Photoshop on a PC with Windows NT.

It was very easy to use Photoshop on the PC, so I would guess it would be
the same going the other way. Of course, using a Mac has its differences
(its much easier, IMHO), but it shouldn't be too difficult if you managed
to figure out Windows.

The application is almost identical in how it works, except for different
key combinations. PCs use the Control Key (which is on the outside of the
keyboard) where Macs use the Command Key (which is right next to the space
bar). This is a minor difference, but I find it much easier to span
multiple keys from closer to the center (try doing a Control H with one
hand).

I've also noticed a lot of small bugs, and hear that PS on NT is not as
stable as on a Mac. My cursors will lose their settings (I have the
brushes set to actual size, and they revert to standard till I reboot),
and other bits of strangeness occur. And while PS launches very quickly on
NT with a Pentium 166, it seems to run more slowly than on my 132 mHz
Power Mac 7600. I've also noticed that Gradients tend to look like crap. I
don't know why, or if this is par for the course of just a weird system
that I'm using (that's one of the problems with PCs--you *never* know
whether it's just your system or not). Scans don't seem to look as good as
on my Mac (again, is it the scanner, the OS, or the PC?).

Overall, I think Macs are still best for digital imaging.

For a less biased opinion, look for the new New Media Magazine, which has
a pretty decent platform comparison.

I hope this helps some. If you have any specific questions about my own
cross platform experiences, feel free to e-mail me.

Curtiss

--
Curtiss R. Hammock II
MacBeth Design
Atlanta, GA, USA

 
 
 

>PC or MAC for digital imaging ?<

Post by Wayn » Wed, 21 May 1997 04:00:00


Quote:>I need a new computer.I've been using the PC format since 1985 but

will

Quote:>now need to do digital imaging.
>I saw a good deal at a computer store of the Aptiva C8E with 32

ram,3.1

Quote:>gig drive,
>33.6 modem,16x CD,3D graphics,speakers and monitor for only $1900.00.
>I would up the ram to the max of 128 meg.

>On the other hand I've been looking at a few Power PC Clones which

only

Quote:>seem to offer a 1.2 or 2.1 gig hard drive,16 ram,8x CD,28.8 modem and

no

Quote:>monitor for the same amount of money as IBM or

more.<SMALLER><X-FONTSIZE><PARAM>10</PARAM><FONTFAMILY><PARAM>Geneva</P=
ARAM>

There are two critical elements missing from the Windows machines that
you should consider before purchasing.  Forget all the arguments about
cost and speed, they are peripheral to the debate.  Focus on the core
mission:  Producing good graphics.

The advantages you get with a Mac are better color/gama control and
multimonitor support.  

This means that since the Mac has system level color balancing and
gama control, as opposed to Windows' lack of both, you can scan and
create images that will print accurately from any program you choose
to use them on.  Windows does have some programs that have color
balancing, but it wouldn't provide consistent output from all
programs/printers, and Windows has no gama control at all.  

Also, you can have multiple monitors, one for your control pallettes
and one for your image, something Windows doesn't support.  Without
this support, try using Painter or Photoshop.  You'll end up spending
half your time moving pallettes around to get to your image.  Until
Windows has these features, it will not be considered a serious
contender for graphic production, at least by most graphics people.

Yes, you COULD do without these nice features, but at 3 AM, 6 hours
before you are supposed to meet your client and deliver the goods for
his big meeting about his multimillion dollar account, do you really
WANT to do without?  Remember, if his company loses the account then
his kids go hungry, and so do yours after he tells everyone in town
that it's all your fault...

---------------------------------------------------

This message was created and sent using the *dog Mail System

---------------------------------------------------

</FONTFAMILY></X-FONTSIZE></SMALLER>