Wife wants to buy this PC for her photography business

[mofunk]

Time is what you need to minimize with any business. The less time it takes to edit or print photos, like everyone here, I would go with a Mac. I haven't played in awhile on a PC but I remember a few years ago trying to help someone set up a printer to their PC. I totally forgot how easy it is on a Mac. I never got their printer to work. I think they went and bought a new printer lol


Your wife has to look at the long term. If you do get those specs listed on a PC, you still will need software. You can mention that you get more software that you can use on Mac (besides Photo app). You have Preview App which you can use to resize or mock up photos, or change jpegs to PDF files. Image Capture you can use with your Camera like a preview/monitor (I'm drawing a blank for what's that is called).


Refurbish is another route. Same warrantee as a new iMac. I would go that route because it saves time and in the end a better value and less headache. New or used.

https://www.apple.com/us-hed/shop/refurbished/mac/imac


new

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/sear...efault&ci=6490&srtclk=sort&cp=9581+37094+6490

 

[Ledgem]

Time is what you need to minimize with any business. The less time it takes to edit or print photos, like everyone here, I would go with a Mac. I haven't played in awhile on a PC but I remember a few years ago trying to help someone set up a printer to their PC. I totally forgot how easy it is on a Mac. I never got their printer to work. I think they went and bought a new printer lol


Your wife has to look at the long term. If you do get those specs listed on a PC, you still will need software. You can mention that you get more software that you can use on Mac (besides Photo app). You have Preview App which you can use to resize or mock up photos, or change jpegs to PDF files. Image Capture you can use with your Camera like a preview/monitor (I'm drawing a blank for what's that is called).


Refurbish is another route. Same warrantee as a new iMac. I would go that route because it saves time and in the end a better value and less headache. New or used.

https://www.apple.com/us-hed/shop/refurbished/mac/imac


new

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?view=GRID&setNs=p_PRICE_2|0&Ns=p_PRICE_2|0&sortType=default&ci=6490&srtclk=sort&cp=9581+37094+6490

Refurbished - through the Apple refurbished store only, not through other refurbishers - is a great option. You can usually save a few hundred dollars, and the refurbished item still has the exact same warranty as if you bought it new, including the option to extend the warranty with AppleCare. The only downside to getting a refurbished system is that you have to wait for one with your desired specifications to show up. Even then, they tend to sell out very quickly unless you're going for something exotic or very expensive.

But I have to say... I would hope that a professional wouldn't be using Photos, Preview, or Image Capture. Those are time-inefficient compared with dedicated photography software. OP's wife is already using Lightroom, so she's set on the software front. I'm guessing she's using the subscription version rather than one of the legacy pay-once versions, which means she could switch over to a Mac and not have to buy it all over again. There also wouldn't be a learning curve. Unfortunately, Lightroom doesn't seem to be well-optimized on the Mac (not sure how it is on Windows)...

And it's also worth remembering that things that are easy for us are because we're used to the operating system. I was a Windows user for about a decade, maybe a little more, before switching to Mac. For the first week with my Mac I had to run Windows in a virtual machine 99% of the time to get anything productive done. Even installing a program was an alien process at first. It's nothing complicated, but when you're very used to a certain way that things are done, something different throws a wrench into things. His wife is busy doing her work, and to switch systems around represents another learning curve and unwelcome slowdowns and stress.

Is there a case to be made that a Mac would be a better purchase? Only if Windows is causing problems. I think there's a case to be made for choosing a desktop over a laptop (assuming his wife isn't doing on-site editing or editing while traveling), but otherwise I'm not really sure that there is. If she's working similar to the way that my wife works, then she needs her one work application and a web browser, and that's it. The rest is just husbands wanting an operating system to make maintenance and network interoperability easier. (My wife has a Mac, but when her work provided her with a Windows laptop, the Mac largely stopped receiving use... because it added a few additional steps to her workflow. Can't blame her.)

 

[Clix Pix]

I agree with those who are recommending that your wife consider a Mac and a separate external monitor rather than an all-in-one device, for precisely the reasons that have been mentioned. Using an external monitor provides larger screen and more space in which to work when editing images, which is important when people are paying one for those images, as small issues show up more quickly on the larger screen and can be corrected (dust bunnies, unwanted objects, etc.). Using an external monitor also provides flexibility in the event of something going wrong with either the computer or the monitor; only one has to be replaced, not the entire system. Using an external monitor with a MacBook Pro or MacBook Air provides flexibility in being able to quickly unplug the monitor and take the computer somewhere else when needed, and it still has a built-in display. A Mac mini takes up little space on a computer workstation and works well for photography as well as day-to-day activities.

IMHO at least i7 processor, 16 GB RAM and 1 TB storage plus an additional one or two external drives for storage and backup would be the starting point for this, and because it is a business, all expenses incurred around purchasing anything specifically used for the business would be tax deductible, so even though in the beginning it feels like one is spending a bunch of money, it will all work out in the end.

 

[||\||]

The photographer in question seems to be very concerned about cost. This leads to the iMac if it is an Apple product. It is unlikely they will find a comparable system that includes a Mini, MacBook Pro, or MacBook Air (?) for equal or less cost. An iMac is likely to last longer and perform better as well. A nicely spec’d iMac will be useable for the next 5, 8, maybe even 10 years at the current rate of plateau.

 

[JimmyG]

My wife wants to buy this PC for her photography business.. I’ve been trying to talk her into an iMac but a comparable 21.5 iMac is about double this price. Will this work for her?

https://www.bestbuy.com/site/hp-pav...drive-snowflake-white/6331729.p?skuId=6331729

FWIW, that HP machine is not even close to being in the same league as the current 27" i5 iMac...

HP Pavilion All-in-One - 24-xa0024 Product Specifications | HP® Customer Support:
https://support.hp.com/us-en/document/c06247329

...a 1080P monitor with 1.7GHz CPU & UHD Graphics 630 with no dedicated internal GPU vs a DCI-P3 5K monitor with 3.7GHz CPU + 8GB 580X GPU. Ha! Question: why would anyone running an imaging business of any sort consider a circa 2017 computer with a 1080P screen for post processing?

And while the internal 256GB NVMe M.2 drive sounds like the, um, "killer app" for that HP machine I'd persoanlly take the iMac's 2TB Fusion with its built-in 128GB SSD before even considering adding a desktop drive which anyone purchasing that HP would be doing in short order.

Rough cost difference between the two, 1K for the HP (plus editing monitor plus external storage = close to 2K, add an external GPU, if possible, = 2.5K) vs 2K staright-up for an Apple refurb on the above described setup...

Refurbished 27-inch iMac 3.7GHz 6-core Intel Core i5 with Retina 5K display - Apple:
https://www.apple.com/shop/product/...z-6-core-Intel-Core-i5-with-Retina-5K-display

...and on top of that one has all-of-the-above along with a vastly more powerful CPU right out of the box.

That's the math of it...no sense throwing good money away and paying-more-for-less with that HP.

Hope that helps!

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

If you are somewhat adventurous, you could always upgrade the m2 drive yourself in the HP. First thing I did 4 years ago when I got a Lenovo laptop for my wife was to crack it open and put an SSD inside. Depending on the PC, it shouldn’t void the warranty. The spec sheet says it has 2 m2 slots, so if it’s not too hard to get inside it (and the spec sheet is right), you could simply add another SSD blade and not even have to reinstall Windows.

 

[Ledgem]

The photographer in question seems to be very concerned about cost. This leads to the iMac if it is an Apple product. It is unlikely they will find a comparable system that includes a Mini, MacBook Pro, or MacBook Air (?) for equal or less cost. An iMac is likely to last longer and perform better as well. A nicely spec’d iMac will be useable for the next 5, 8, maybe even 10 years at the current rate of plateau.

An iMac has a lower up-front cost for what you're getting, but I don't agree that it's likely to last longer. I also question whether it's more cost-effective in the long run.

My experiences with my 2015 27" retina iMac led to the following thoughts. I maxed out the internals for maximum longevity and the system is still going strong. Or perhaps I should say, the system is going strong, but the monitor isn't. I've had a few tiny insects crawl into the monitor and die, first time I've ever had that problem with a computer display and evidently not particularly rare for iMacs. Additionally, my screen has developed "pink fringing" at its edges, which is a nuisance for color management in photography and which some people claim is a sign of display failure. This all happened conveniently after my extended AppleCare expired. Based on information I could find, Apple would charge somewhere between $600-700 to repair the display. To put things into perspective, that's just a bit less than I paid for a used 27" LG UltraFine display. And because Apple no longer allows iMacs to act in "target display mode," any money I sink into the display is only good for while I'm using this system. The display gets junked along with the computer when I upgrade, whether I like it or not.

Looking at it that way, the iMac has put more eggs into one basket. Now the display is just one more component that can cause problems or fail, and replacing or repairing it isn't such a simple decision anymore. If I were using a stand-alone display with a Mac mini the decision would be much easier, knowing that the display could last me much longer... or that I could junk and replace it without affecting the rest of my computer. Modularity reigns supreme for cost flexibility. As it stands, I'm not only thinking about when my computer will become obsolete, but about what might happen if I were to spend money on the display repairs only to have some part of the computer system fail, necessitating more money for repairs... and at that point the costs likely would be adding up to or very close to a new computer.

Suffice it to say, I'm not putting any money into repairing the display on my iMac. I don't really know how much longer the hardware could last me; it's still a strong performer and assuming no component failures I'd imagine I could go another 3-5 years with it, maybe longer. But at this rate it seems the display may be the weak point, and will be the reason that this computer is replaced sooner.

Nothing lasts forever, but when I think about how often I've replaced computers compared with how often I've replaced monitors, there's no question that computers are replaced more frequently. The iMac represents fantastic value for a one-time purchase of a good system and a wonderful monitor, but if you look long-term and compare it with buying a monitor once and upgrading multiple computers during that monitor's life then the costs are a bit different. Additionally, there's no need to splash out for a 27" UltraFine or some other thousand-dollar monitor (or multi-thousand dollar monitor). OP's wife is using a laptop as her primary system; a 24" 4K display costing somewhere around the $300 mark would probably be heaven, and would represent the more economical option that would still work very well.

 

[||\||]

My experiences with my 2015 27" retina iMac led to the following thoughts. I maxed out the internals for maximum longevity and the system is still going strong. Or perhaps I should say, the system is going strong, but the monitor isn't. I've had a few tiny insects crawl into the monitor and die, first time I've ever had that problem with a computer display and evidently not particularly rare for iMacs. Additionally, my screen has developed "pink fringing" at its edges, which is a nuisance for color management in photography and which some people claim is a sign of display failure. This all happened conveniently after my extended AppleCare expired. Based on information I could find, Apple would charge somewhere between $600-700 to repair the display. To put things into perspective, that's just a bit less than I paid for a used 27" LG UltraFine display. And because Apple no longer allows iMacs to act in "target display mode," any money I sink into the display.

This is one anecdotal experience that does not represent most user’s. You got unlucky with a defective unit, nothing more. It is frustrating I am sure.

My daily driver is a 21.5” model bought in October of that same year. It has worked flawlessly this entire time. I recently cracked it open to exchange the internal HDD for and SSD. There was barely any dust inside. The iMac glass and screen are fused. There should be no way for a bug to get inside. You unit is obviously defective. The pink fringing confirms this. Again, this can’t be used to represent the average user’s experience.

I work in an industry that is very Mac-heavy. Between work and home, I have used quite a few iMacs and Apple all-in-ones over the decades. My experience has shown them to regularly out live their usefulness - that is to say, the units tend to just keep working, even past the point where they are useful for us.

 

[Ledgem]

This is one anecdotal experience that does not represent most user’s. You got unlucky with a defective unit, nothing more. It is frustrating I am sure.

Thanks. Yes, it is frustrating. The pink fringing thread, started in April of this year, currently is on page 3 with replies, many from unique posters. There's no one great "insects in my screen" thread, but there are quite a few if you do a search. A Google search with a light limiter to Macrumors reveals a number of unique threads that goes to the top of Google's page 2 results; after that, it begins to match threads that don't specifically talk about that issue, but likely received mentions.

So while I'd agree that my experience doesn't represent that of "most users," it's not really the point. I'm not trying to say that these systems are inherently faulty. I'm saying that you can be stuck in these weird predicaments because of the problems that can occur. Pink fringing and insects represent two unique problems that can occur, and even one on their own would require that $600-700 fee to resolve. If I were the only person in the world to experience them then I'd say it was a fluke, but even if the issues are only "rare," it's still a consideration.

Furthermore, when you think about using a computer and monitor over a long period of time, the cost difference comes out in favor of a system that is not an all-in-one. Apple currently offers the Mac mini in two base configurations, at $800 and $1,100. Monitor cost can be pretty variable, depending on what size and type you want; 4K 24" monitors are in the $200-300 range, last I had checked, or if you want the same panel used in the 27" iMacs you can get an LG UltraFine for $1,300 (although on the used market you can get them for $700-900). The iMacs come in two sizes at present, 21.5" and 27". I'm going to ignore the 21.5" because that screen size doesn't cut it for me, which means I'm looking at 27", the minimum configuration of which is $1,800. Long story short, you can see that the iMac is amazing, phenomenal value for a one-time purchase, but if you start looking at upgrading over 2-4 generations you can save a lot more money by splitting up the monitor and the computer.

 

[||\||]

Thanks. Yes, it is frustrating. The pink fringing thread, started in April of this year, currently is on page 3 with replies, many from unique posters. There's no one great "insects in my screen" thread, but there are quite a few if you do a search. A Google search with a light limiter to Macrumors reveals a number of unique threads that goes to the top of Google's page 2 results; after that, it begins to match threads that don't specifically talk about that issue, but likely received mentions.

So while I'd agree that my experience doesn't represent that of "most users," it's not really the point. I'm not trying to say that these systems are inherently faulty. I'm saying that you can be stuck in these weird predicaments because of the problems that can occur. Pink fringing and insects represent two unique problems that can occur, and even one on their own would require that $600-700 fee to resolve. If I were the only person in the world to experience them then I'd say it was a fluke, but even if the issues are only "rare," it's still a consideration.

Furthermore, when you think about using a computer and monitor over a long period of time, the cost difference comes out in favor of a system that is not an all-in-one. Apple currently offers the Mac mini in two base configurations, at $800 and $1,100. Monitor cost can be pretty variable, depending on what size and type you want; 4K 24" monitors are in the $200-300 range, last I had checked, or if you want the same panel used in the 27" iMacs you can get an LG UltraFine for $1,300 (although on the used market you can get them for $700-900). The iMacs come in two sizes at present, 21.5" and 27". I'm going to ignore the 21.5" because that screen size doesn't cut it for me, which means I'm looking at 27", the minimum configuration of which is $1,800. Long story short, you can see that the iMac is amazing, phenomenal value for a one-time purchase, but if you start looking at upgrading over 2-4 generations you can save a lot more money by splitting up the monitor and the computer.

The monitor is a primary concern to photographers. A model in the $200 - $300 range is probably not going to cut it for a professional. The current 4K iMac will likely last as long as they need to for.

 

[Strider64]

Not meaning to throw a wrench into the system, but a lot of photographers end up doing video especially if they have a lot of clients.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1457455-REG/lg_27ul500_w_27_ultra_hd_color.html
This is the model I use. HDR10, 10bit, 99% sRGB, and calibrated at the factory. Been very happy with it and the value is really good. Comes with beefy HDMI and DP cables too. I got this for under $300 on a sale. Seems to be very popular, as it is often out of stock.

 

[Clix Pix]

I have been very pleased so far with the LG Ultrafine 24" Thunderbolt Display that I got a few days ago at the Apple store; it is the right size for me -- I couldn't physically wrestle around a 27" one -- and I like that it gives me the extra screen real estate that I need without being huge and overwhelming the way most 27" monitors seem to be. I don't need to swivel my head from side to side to read anything on the screen and that makes it pleasant to use! I agree that a 21.5" iMac does not have a large enough screen for doing serious photography work -- had one years ago and was a bit frustrated with it, especially since I'd also had its predecessor, a 24" iMac.

 

[Ledgem]

The monitor is a primary concern to photographers. A model in the $200 - $300 range is probably not going to cut it for a professional. The current 4K iMac will likely last as long as they need to for.

OP's wife is a professional and has been using a $500 laptop for her work, according to his earlier posts. He didn't mention whether she uses an external monitor or not, but it doesn't sound like it. So I stand by what I said: for a budget-conscious photographer, professional or not, even a low- to mid-range external monitor will enhance a workflow over a built-in laptop screen. Nicer monitors are nicer, of course, but if you have the hardware to calibrate your monitor then you're already doing pretty well (and I'm sure many don't even do that). As for the iMac thing... I already gave my views on the risks you take and the long-term costs associated with not being able to reuse the system for its monitor. It's up the others if they want to keep spending the money to upgrade both system and monitor at the same time, and whether to risk adding another point of failure to their systems.

 

[mofunk]

Refurbished - through the Apple refurbished store only, not through other refurbishers - is a great option. You can usually save a few hundred dollars, and the refurbished item still has the exact same warranty as if you bought it new, including the option to extend the warranty with AppleCare. The only downside to getting a refurbished system is that you have to wait for one with your desired specifications to show up. Even then, they tend to sell out very quickly unless you're going for something exotic or very expensive.

But I have to say... I would hope that a professional wouldn't be using Photos, Preview, or Image Capture. Those are time-inefficient compared with dedicated photography software. OP's wife is already using Lightroom, so she's set on the software front. I'm guessing she's using the subscription version rather than one of the legacy pay-once versions, which means she could switch over to a Mac and not have to buy it all over again. There also wouldn't be a learning curve. Unfortunately, Lightroom doesn't seem to be well-optimized on the Mac (not sure how it is on Windows)...

And it's also worth remembering that things that are easy for us are because we're used to the operating system. I was a Windows user for about a decade, maybe a little more, before switching to Mac. For the first week with my Mac I had to run Windows in a virtual machine 99% of the time to get anything productive done. Even installing a program was an alien process at first. It's nothing complicated, but when you're very used to a certain way that things are done, something different throws a wrench into things. His wife is busy doing her work, and to switch systems around represents another learning curve and unwelcome slowdowns and stress.

Is there a case to be made that a Mac would be a better purchase? Only if Windows is causing problems. I think there's a case to be made for choosing a desktop over a laptop (assuming his wife isn't doing on-site editing or editing while traveling), but otherwise I'm not really sure that there is. If she's working similar to the way that my wife works, then she needs her one work application and a web browser, and that's it. The rest is just husbands wanting an operating system to make maintenance and network interoperability easier. (My wife has a Mac, but when her work provided her with a Windows laptop, the Mac largely stopped receiving use... because it added a few additional steps to her workflow. Can't blame her.)

Sorry I've used both and there isn't a problem with moving to a Mac for Photography. I'm not sure if you know or not but Apple has stores around the world where you can go in "for free" to learn how to use their systems. Seriously I don't why this would be a problem because both PC & Mac are very close as far as production. They both use the same Print, Copy, Paste function. I really don't get how they are hard to learn. I mentioned the other Apps like Preview. Image Capture, oh and the Print Modual because there will be times as a Professional you will need to use them. If you have a webpage and you need to resize an image (which is what I said) you can use Preview. I've gotten several requests from clients asking to help them resize an image. Just because the apps don't say "professional" doesn't mean that you can't use it. Creating PDFs. Using emails aliases for business. smh.

Time is money. My point was simply about time and money. You have everything out of the box with a Mac. It just that simple. The most she would have add is a printer and some 3rd party Photo editor.

 

[thekev]

Rough cost difference between the two, 1K for the HP (plus editing monitor plus external storage = close to 2K, add an external GPU, if possible, = 2.5K) vs 2K staright-up for an Apple refurb on the above described setup...

An external gpu would be a useless waste of money for her purposes.

 

[Ledgem]

Sorry I've used both and there isn't a problem with moving to a Mac for Photography. I'm not sure if you know or not but Apple has stores around the world where you can go in "for free" to learn how to use their systems. Seriously I don't why this would be a problem because both PC & Mac are very close as far as production. They both use the same Print, Copy, Paste function. I really don't get how they are hard to learn. I mentioned the other Apps like Preview. Image Capture, oh and the Print Modual because there will be times as a Professional you will need to use them. If you have a webpage and you need to resize an image (which is what I said) you can use Preview. I've gotten several requests from clients asking to help them resize an image. Just because the apps don't say "professional" doesn't mean that you can't use it. Creating PDFs. Using emails aliases for business. smh.

Time is money. My point was simply about time and money. You have everything out of the box with a Mac. It just that simple. The most she would have add is a printer and some 3rd party Photo editor.

I don't think I ever said that there was a problem with moving to a Mac for photography. Heck, I'm using one. But you've sort of argued against yourself with what you've said.

You say that you don't see why there's a big issue in moving from one system to another, but mention that you can go to the Apple Store to learn how to use their systems... so you do recognize that there's a difference. Then you say that time is money, seemingly not appreciating that going to an Apple Store and sitting in on one of their classes represents a time investment.

And for what? You mentioned that you felt Macs were easier than PCs, but also admitted that you haven't used PCs heavily "in awhile." I don't think Macs are inherently easier. I think you found your PC experience to be difficult because you're not used to them... which is the same problem someone going from a PC to a Mac would have. Are Macs inherently superior to PCs for photography workflows? I don't think so. But if you can prove it, then you have a case to make that someone should spend the time and higher up-front cost in making the switch.

One last remark: Preview and Image Capture are sub-optimal choices for photography workflows. Like those two programs, Photos is included with the operating system for free and offers the same functionality (and a lot more) that would be useful to a photographer, although paid applications like Capture One and Lightroom are still more useful and save more time.