Why do photographers choose Macs over PCs?

I hear this a lot, but just wanted to get your opinions or feedback?

I happened to get my first Macbook Pro before getting serious about photography so it kinda just worked out for me, but I hear friends and other people saying "If you're serious about Photography, get a MAC!"

I mean looking at specs and prices couldn't someone getting into Photography get a pretty darn good PC for the price of the Macbook Pros?

I was just seeing if there was something I'm missing?

 

there used to be difference,but now it is minimal,so you ll be able to do your job on both...but I use CS4 both on mac and PC and I can say that it works better on mac os...

 

Before Adobe Lightroom, photographers had to use Macs because of Apple's Aperture was Mac only. But with the release of Lightroom, which is a very strong rival to Aperture and is cross platform compatible, serious photographers can use Windows. Long time Aperture users still stick to Macs though.

For amateur photographers, iPhoto still kicks the **** out of Windows photo manager thing.

 

Right now, the performance difference is minimal. It really depends on your preference and how well you're used to the OS's interface.

I like Vista's interface better, but the progam used on the laptop is the same so there's not much of a difference.
Though, a couple features on some of the adobe application on MacOSX is missing or is not available for Mac.

 

No difference between Mac and PC. If you're "serious about photography" then you'll be using Photoshop anyway. I started off using a PC and switched to Mac almost 2 years ago. There is NO significant difference in performance as far as the OS is concerned. What will be more important to you is to calibrate your display and get lots of RAM. The OS will not make you a better photographer. It's like the meaningless Nikon vs Canon debate. Just use whatever you're most comfortable with

 

Photographers still use them because of the past - they know how to use the software (most specifically Aperture, and Mac Photoshop) better.
Apple used to most specifically cater to professionals - a ton of their lineup was just for video and photography pros. Now, as you can see, not so much. The Macbook Pros are more more prosumers, and the Mac Pros aren't as desirable as the PowerMacs of the old were.
Back in the day even things like Apple Cinema Displays and all were geared towards pros. That's why Macs are so deeply rooted into the creative industries.
Oh, and then there's Final Cut Studio. Epic software package.

It really doesn't matter, nowadays. You can get a PC laptop cheaper, and get Lightroom for it (for handling RAW and as a databse... or, you can use freeware - GIMP with the UFRaw plugin - no database, and worse, but...).
In the G3/G4 days, I'd point at a Mac straight away. Adobe used to prefer it... now they concentrate on PCs because of the market share.

Some people still associate Macs with creativity because of the astounding amount of templates and presents in iLife and iWork... no, using pretty templates (albeit made by some good designers) doesn't make you creative... quite the reverse.

And the default Gallery in Vista is weak. Get Live Photo Gallery if you want something much closer to iPhoto.

 

i know little about photography.
but macs display used to be miles ahead of pcs until rgb led screen came out this year. rgb led has 16.7m colors, i havent seen the lastest lcds on macs, probably they are close now graphic quality wise.

 

I am sorry,but big part of your post is totally wrong and is based on common so called "knowledge"-how many professional photo editors do you know personally?

 

True, however you have remember also that Adobe Lightroom was Mac only for more than a year so photography has always been geared towards Macs for these reasons.
All jokes and flames aside but graphics pros, photo editors and musicians want to get work done and not have to deal with Registry cleanings and such that bog down the system, they are just more productive on the Mac OS.

 

OS X's interface model might also be more compatible for content creation. Like the Windows model is application centric, where generally sub-windows/documents are contained within the overall window of it's parent application, while OS X is document centric with sub-windows/documents being unconstrained and document windows from different application able to overlap and be select individually.

Microsoft is actually running into difficulty with their application centric model since with Windows 7, they want to be able to generate screenshot previews of each document in an application, but applications like Excel have all the sheets embedded within the main application so I believe they have to develop new APIs to separate them out.

 

It should be more like, "If you're serious about getting into Photography, don't listen to idiots who are stuck in a time warp using a Mac" when the reasons for specifically using them went away a few years ago.

There used to be a very good reason that using a Mac was the way to go with Photographers, Writers, Graphic Designers, etc., but that reason has essentially gone away. Years ago, most of the businesses in Desktop Publishing, Graphic Design, Image / Photo Editing and Video Production used Mac's because they were inherently much more stable than anything using Windows.

As little as 15 years ago, the Desktop Publishing, Photography, Video/Film Production & Graphic Design Communities primarily used Mac's because then, programs like Photoshop didn't have the History & multiple Undo ability that it and all of Adobe's programs do now, including all of the ones from the Macromedia merger - Dreamweaver (originally called Backstage Internet Studio), Flash, Fireworks, Director, etc. If you remember the old Windows 3.1 systems back then, they were notoriously famous for regular glitches, BSOD's, etc. At the very least the OS was unstable to the point where you couldn't trust it to not to fail or hiccup right in the middle of a major workflow, so that you had to start over if you couldn't undo a few steps to correct & start over.

The Mac OS was a lot more stable, and when you're dealing with media that takes a lot of time, the last thing you want is having your system glitch or crash right in the middle of your workflow. I still remember even Photoshop 4 on Windows 98 - if you didn't constantly save your work every few minutes, the chances of losing your work were pretty high.

Since most of the industry favorite design and editing programs were also originally used on Mac's, industry suppliers (writers, photographers, Video Editors, etc.) needed to send in their work on Mac format disks and files. I still remember my parents sending their book manuscripts to the publisher in old Mac format files, as well as their pictures (they're both professional writers and photographers).

Photoshop and Quark also weren't available for Windows 3.1 machines either, nor 95 if I remember right, which is another reason they were used by Mac users.

However, over the past 10 years, Adobe has taken steps to make its programs the undisputed world leader in the DTP, Graphics Design, and Photo Industries, as well as Web Services Media, Film & Video Production. About the only thing Adobe isn't a leader in is 3D animation & Sound.

When they released InDesign several years ago, it was in direct competition to Quark Express, at the time the #1 DTP program used by writers and publishers. Realizing that "if you can't beat 'em, buy 'em or merge with 'em", Adobe also merged with Macromedia, realizing that GoLive and their competition to Flash (can't even remember its name now) were never going to make a dent in the Web Publishing community. I've used Dreamweaver since before they called it Dreamweaver, and I had GoLive's different versions as well. GL just never clicked - Adobe tried to make it too much like print publishing workflow, and it just never clicked. Macromedia was also extremely huge with its Developer's network. Flash got an early start back when Netscape was still in version 4, and you had to ask your web server host to add Flash's MIME type to the server so that Flash content would play on your browser.

Anyway Quark is now second fiddle to InDesign, in as little as 5 years.

About 18 months ago, Adobe introduced Lightroom as its entry for a tool that's different than Photoshop, specifically designed for Photographers and not Graphic Designers, PS's primary users. Lightroom follows a standard photograph developing workflow, but also has great file cataloging abilities. While the newer version of PS also has exposure tools like LR, Lightroom allows you to change the exposure, and several of the features from PS that are germane to Photography workflow. However, it's actual editing tools aren't as detailed as Photoshop's, because they don't need to be - Lightroom is designed to prep a picture either for submission to a publisher or online processing company, or for display online after minimal processing, e.g., proof copies of a wedding shoot.

Since Windows has gotten more stable over the years, and Adobe made changes to Photoshop and their other key programs so that you didn't have to worry about your work every 5 minutes, many people have switched over to Windows systems, since Adobe has come full circle -with the advent of 64 bit technology becoming more widespread and mainstream the past year, Adobe's latest release of its CS4 programs are all Vista 64 certified (Vista 64 only, NOT XP 64, though it will run on XP 32), but not everything is releasable yet for Mac's.

If you subscribe to any online photo, DTP, web publishing, Video Editing, etc. training programs, you'll find that the instructors will use a Mac for demo's. While in the past they used to blow their horns how much stable the Mac OS was, since Mac's started being able to use Windows they've found out that Mac's aren't as great as they thought.

Mac users are pretty stubborn about changing, but realistically it's also a huge monetary consideration as well if they switch and have to reinvest in all of the programs. This stuff isn't cheap.

Your observation about the price of a Mac is also right on, and the main reason when I started my Web Hosting/Design business 13 years ago I opted for a PC instead of a Mac. The price difference hasn't changed, but as I said, Adobe no longer caters to Mac users first - a much bigger percentage of their world is made up of Windows PC users.

A tip if you're thinking about getting any of the Adobe programs - it's always cheaper to upgrade a lower version than it is to by a full version of a program or suite outright. I originally got my first copy of Photoshop 4 bundled with my first scanner for around $600 (essentially the scanner was free). Over the years I've used that single copy, along with all of my Macromedia programs/suites I've bought over the years to get Adobe's Master Collections. I had the CS3 Master when it came out - got the CS4 update when it hit the street as well, along with Lightroom 2 at a major discount. If you look on the Adobe site, all of their products have upgrade pricing, and if you look at it for the product you're considering, you'll see what light version program to get in order to upgrade to a full version without paying the full price.

 

@CyberVisions: that is a good post with good thought and great example.
rep ya.

 

I agree with your post CyberVisions.

I've suspected this for a while. They seem to be bringing out better product updates, and more frequently, for Windows versions than Macs'. Even down to PSE, version 7 (windows only for now) blows version 6 away IMO. As a Mac user it's a little disappointing to see Adobe go down this road but I'll continue to use their products for photo work; they're the best at it right now (from someone who's used both Aperture 2 and iPhoto 09) - of course this is only my opinion and it is very subjective.

 

adobe actually introduce their product on windows before mac in the recent time and their softwares are at least on par to apple's variant...

i can only say between lightroom2 and aperture(2?), lightroom handles the file system as a whole more efficient than aperture(2?) as they don't put everything into a file. aside from that the differences are largely coming from preferences.

in terms of screen, 20" imac, macbook/pro all uses TN panels, even the "better" 17" macbook pro only has 64% of the color gamut. so mobility wise, thinkpad w700, sony aw, dell precision are all superior in display100+%.

if horse power is your concern then that's pretty much out of question either as windows have up to 3GPU if needed, quad cpu, for notebooks.

the advantage of apple is diminishing; especially when apple turned its back against adobe.(that's the story i have heard, YMMV)

 

cheek couple of "studding CS4 books"-all screenshots are from macs...

 

Well, Xirurg... CS4 for Mac isn't that great. adobegripes.tumblr.com Some funny examples... explicit language warning.

 

I base my onion on my use of CS4 on both macos and windows...

 

Im a photographer and I use PC, I think this is a myth that serious photographers use Mac.

I do have a little Mac though, but also now photoshop CS4 has 64bit on Windows only thats an incentive for me to use my Windows computers.

 

As has been said above apart from a few OS differences most of your software will work on both platforms equally well.

I would guess the biggest issue for a photographer will be the accuracy and quality of your screen (unless you're going to be hooking it up to an external monitor when editing).

It seems to be a bit hit and miss when buying a laptop online as manufacturers seem pretty inconsistent with what screen you end up with, so if you can I'd advise testing the machine you're going to buy first, to guarantee a good screen.

The screen I had in my MBP was very clear and bright, but a bit over saturated with too much contrast. If I'd kept it them I would have calibrated it, maybe tweak the gamma settings a bit. On a plus point the Mac screen looked good from a wide range of viewing angles.

I exchanged the MBP for an HP DV5. It's a third of the price, and performance is good. The screen is as clear and bright as the MBP, but viewing angles aren't as good and there's a fair bit of backlight bleed, so it wouldn't be good for your work.

I don't think all the DV5 screens suffer from this though, but then again there seem to be a whole load of other issues. It's the same with most manufacturers, so if I was you I'd check the screen out in a store rather than take pot luck online.

 

It's down to style, laziness and peers than anything else I think, especially these days.

Laziness and peers? A little disingenuous maybe, but most photographers aren't knowledgeable about computers and will go for what their peers do. And for most, the Mac does the job fine as far as they know and it comes with the holier-than-thou image which isn't necessarily a bad thing for a photog.

Especially these days, you are more likely to find Windows mobile hardware better suited to photography in terms of function, reliability, image quality and utility (card readers, removable batteries on larger notebooks, etc), and as has been remarked elsewhere Windows professional software is now on a par with anything you can get on the Mac - and more interestingly, there's a bigger range of superior semi-pro software available for Windows as well, that is better than iPhoto in some crucial areas. ACDSee is but just one example.

In fact, spend a decent chunk on hardware of the same core specs but with superior detail features and superior reliability to Apple, and the chances are that you'll have several hundred dollars left with which to buy decent photography software.

But to someone who isn't familiar with computers in general, and isn't willing to put in the time to find out what is actually good as opposed to what is marketed the best, a Mac is a reasonably safe choice on all levels.

 

With a post like this and your sig your credibility dies pretty fast. If you're gonna call the 2 Macs you own a "Crapbook" and the Dell gets no negative buzzwords in your sig then don't waste your time on a Mac forum trying to prove your point, it's moot.

 

Where on his post did he mention his 2 Macs are "crapbook". All he's saying is that he can get a equally equiped, same reliablility laptop for a few hundred bucks less.

 

He was referring to his signature.

 

I realize that you already purchased your Mac, but this is what I have to say for future readers of this thread: It's probably smarter to not plunk down the software for a Mac just so you can be regarded as "serious" and achieve little to no benefit for simply having a different operating system. If you know what you're doing in LR or Photoshop, which you should, anything that can be done in Aperture can also be done in either of the other two programs.

If you want to be "serious" that money would be better spent going towards L (if Canon) and 2.8 glass (for both Canon and Nikon) as well as classes.

Getting a Mac, like getting a new camera body, has little effect. If you're creative, you're creative. If you're not, you're not. But if you think somehow switching to the "cool computers" makes your photography better, sure, go for it.

 

Credibility among fanboys (having read your other posts) is not really an issue.

2 Macs? I don't have 2 Macs. It would be unfair to call them Crapbooks with such a low sampling.

 

I don't get it. Why are you saying all these in a mac forum? I think Mac forum is more for people to communicate with each other about their macs and related topics. There are too many weird posts against mac

 

because people that feel inferior feel better about themselves to go and talk trash to others they feel helped give them their inferiority complex.

 

It's strangely ironic hearing that coming from an elitist with a superiority complex.

 

As most have said, there really is no major difference anymore. Adobe software is available for both Windows and Mac OS X, and Adobe Lightroom is a good competitor to Aperture. I think one connection that can be made is that photographers and those in the arts industry obviously have a thing for graphics, arts and design, and Mac OS X's UI is arguably better than the Windows UI so that helps.

Plus, there's still the general "image" that you want to project; in the same way that people expect to carry around a Lenovo Thinkpad or Dell/HP business notebook if they work in business, most people that work in the arts use Macs, and there is a desire to follow that image.

But in reality, there is no real difference to being a Windows photographer or a Mac photographer. In fact, while I use my MacBook as well, I use my Windows XP desktop computer to edit photos, as the processor is faster and I have the larger display (22-inch) on my desktop!

P.S. While we're talking about cameras, I love my Canon EOS 20D .

 

Why don't actually read what I wrote instead of conveniently skimming through it then take a look at the posters signature that I was quoting, you might see the "Crapbook UB" and the "Crapbook Pro". I can't stand it when people become a fanboy of another forum member and begin to defend them without checking out the facts or where the information came from.

 

the image possess by thinkpad has its basis and still be able to hold its claim in terms of durability and sturdiness though. they loved to be tossed around; where i would not dare to do the same on a mac as i almost develop OCD with it; are they fine with being treated the same? i don't see this as a concern. apple's advantage* in photo/movie/graphics area had diminished close to nothing though

as a not-so-serious photographer(long story), my priority would be screen(since adobe shuts the gap in software) and apple isn't the best right now as far as portability goes. since i am still in a portable mode desktop is out of question. remember macbook pro was sued for false claim with 6+2dithered color depth?

 

if it did... sure, it would be

 

That's what you assume. Agreeing with someone doesn't mean one automatically becomes a fanboy.

I was asking you where did he mention his 2 Macs are "crapbook". In his Sig, he only mentioned one. Maybe I was unclear about it, but I've definetly read your post unlike you've assumed.

Also, you've said "don't waste your time on a Mac forum trying to prove your point, it's moot." and a whole bunch of useless things. That's why I don't pay attention to your posts since most of them are just criticism of small, insignificant things and contains no useful information.

 

Just buy a PC and use the money you save to buy more accessories. The best computer can't hide over the effects of sup par camera equipment.

 

his sig says....

thats actually 4 macs in his sig.. "Apple CrapbookUB CrapbookPro15/17UB/15old"

 

Or it could be 4
1. Apple crapbookUB
2. Crapbook pro 15
3. crapbook pro 17ub
4. crapbook 15old

Or it could be one Apple crapbookUB crapbook 15 or 17 or 15 old. It's very confusing since all of of other laptop listed after apple crabook crapbook15/17/15old are named by brand/model#..etc.

Anyways.. let's stop arguing about it and stay on topic.

 

With HLDan throwing around fighting words, ain't going to happen.

I second the "It doesn't matter which OS" views. Why? Cause it doesn't matter.

 

Ive got a Nikon D90 and needed something to store all the photos and work with them. So I chose to get a macbook.

Im not a professional in photography, but I do enjoy taking photos.

Plus I just wanted to test out the mac os x after not using it for a few years.

Its fast and I use it to do other things as well.

 

Oh my god, you're actually 100% right. This forum is not for PC lovers to come and start saying how their Dells or Acers are so much better than a Mac because it's got a serial port or whatever, it's for people to help others and give good advise about Mac computer systems.

I think what I'm going to do now is identify those who have been posting nothing except "don't get Mac, go PC" posts, and ban them from NBR if they post one more post or start up one more thread of that nature in the Mac forum.

If you're so old fashioned and conservative that you're unable to see the pros and cons of both sides of the argument, then I would recommed you to avoid the Mac forums from now on, since I'll have no choice but to smite you with the almighty banhammer.