PCBUILD Archives

Personal Computer Hardware discussion List

PCBUILD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Ethan Matthews <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
PCBUILD - Personal Computer Hardware discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 22 Jul 2001 06:00:16 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (57 lines)
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 13:59:43 -0700, Ahror Rahmedov
<[log in to unmask]> posted article
<[log in to unmask]>, which said:

> What kind of computer (hardware components, operating system, software)
> would be good for working with photographic images?  A friend is a
> photographer and has this huge collection of photos.  He wants to
> digitalize all of them and do all the editing process using a computer
> of his own.  He's going to purchase a digital camera too and use in the
> future together with his computer.  So he's interested in buying a new
> computer that fits his particular need.  Any suggestions?

If the images are going to be very large, a fast CPU and at least 256 megs
of RAM are a must.  More RAM is better for editing of large images so the
computer has someplace to store the undo steps.  I actually recommend more
than 256 megs.  RAM is cheap nowadays, so I'd go for 512 megabytes.  I use
an AMD Athlon 1200 system with 256 megs of RAM and I regularly edit images I
scan amounting to 20 to 30 megabytes.  Even with this much computing power,
I often wish for more speed even though it zips right along.  If I recall
correctly, sharpening a 3600x2300 image takes about two or three seconds on
this machine.  Much better than a Pentium 150, which took about 60 seconds.
But I doubt digital camera photos are going to be this large, unless he only
plans to store one or two images in the camera before loading them into the
PC.  Like, if he photographs flowers from a tripod and wants high color
quality and detail, then he'd probably only store two or three images on a
64 megabyte memory card.  If he's just going to be editing 640x480 images,
then even a 500 megabyte system with 128 megs of RAM would be sufficient.

As for the operating system, I've only used Windows 3.1, 95, 98 extensively.
I've dabbled in BeOS, but without all the bells and whistles of Windows, my
interest is passive at the most.  I've not heard much good about WinME.
Lots of people are uninstalling WinME and going back to Win98.

If your friend wants an inexpensive way to edit images, JASC has Paint Shop
Pro available at www.jasc.com.  I think it's $99.  Adobe has Adobe
Photoshop.  Chances are, fancy images you see every day were created with
Photoshop.  It's rather pricey.  Last time I checked, I think it was
something like $599.  There are free alternatives, too, but I'm not sure
what they are.

If you want to see a lot of "stuff" at once, you should get a fairly large
monitor.  Personally I don't like anything less than 19".  I run my desktop
at 1600x1200 resolution and 32-bit color, but that requires one of the more
powerful video cards, especially to ward off some pesky screen color errors
and distortions when pushing a video card for all its worth.  I'm running a
GeForce 2 Ultra card on mine and it easily handles 1600x1200 at 32-bit with
a 75Hz refresh.  It's capable of quite a bit more.  Prices on this card have
fallen recently, I gather, since I've read articles about GeForce 3 cards
selling for $375.  I paid $450 for a GeForce 2 Ultra.  :-(  ... But it's
smooooth on games. :-D

Ethan

        The NOSPIN Group provides a monthly newsletter with great
       tips, information and ideas: NOSPIN-L, The NOSPIN Magazine
           Visit our web site to signup: http://freepctech.com

ATOM RSS1 RSS2