[the swede]

So, just a few days ago the new updated iMac's were announced!

I've been using an 4yo laptop (consumer grade) wich is now dying slowly on me.
Blue screens, mysterious shutdowns, charger behaving strangly, mouse pad going living its own life and the common overheating fan noise wich and cheap graphic card casuing all sorts of problems. Its not even helped a tiny bit from the 4gb memory i installed. Running Elements on it wich is exactly the tip of what it can stand

So, i decided to go Mac, and my only puzzle is what to get.
I want an iMac for sure.

If i had the money i would ofcourse get the 27" with the SSD drive

But i dont!

So i have the two 21"'ers to chose from. The base modell has i3 and the second model has a faster i3 and i5 as an extra option, and a slightly better graphics card.

As i can upgrade the memory my self on a later time if needed, the concern is to wich modell of the 21"ers i should get.

Will the base modell meet my needs?

They are: Everyday surfing the net, managing and editing RAW files with Aperture 3 or Elements. Nothing else! No games and nothing heavier than Aperture at most.

Would love to hear peoples comments on the Intel i series. Is it a big difference between the two i3's, or i3 and i5?

Thanks alot for reading!

[Ahab]

I'm sure for your use, you would be happy with the base model.

[boriscleto]

Lab tested: 21.5-inch Core i3 iMac/3.06GHz - Computerworld

The big step up in performance is the inclusion of dedicated graphics in the low end models instead of the 9400M. For Aperture 3 you want as much RAM as you can get. I would get the 3.06 GHz version with 8 GB of RAM.

I don't know anything about iMac, but are there ways to calibrate that monitor??

[boriscleto]

I don't know anything about iMac, but are there ways to calibrate that monitor??

Yes, Apple does color management.

ColorSync Utility


Color management system.
ColorSync is the built-in color management system in Mac OS X. It ensures accurate color in your images — from the time you capture them on your scanner or digital camera until you print or display them — by automatically matching color from one device to another. With ColorSync Utility, you can check and repair color profiles, compare two profiles using a three-dimensional graph, calculate color values, and view ColorSync information for all devices connected to your Mac.

Apple - Pro - Techniques - Image Editing in ColorSync

Apple - Pro - Tips - ColorSync Utilities

Apple - Pro - Insights and Ideas

[séamuis]

i was hesitant about the base model macbook pro, but havent been anything other than thrilled with it. I don’t think you will be disappointed in the least.

[the swede]

Lab tested: 21.5-inch Core i3 iMac/3.06GHz - Computerworld

The big step up in performance is the inclusion of dedicated graphics in the low end models instead of the 9400M. For Aperture 3 you want as much RAM as you can get. I would get the 3.06 GHz version with 8 GB of RAM.

Thanks for the input. So, the difference between i3 and i5 isnt worth the money for my needs?
Very good that you pointed that out as i was thinking the opposite!

Apple - Pro - Techniques - Image Editing in ColorSync

Apple - Pro - Tips - ColorSync Utilities

Apple - Pro - Insights and Ideas

Thanks again! nice links.

[boriscleto]

AppleInsider | Review: Apple's Core i3, i5 & i7 iMacs (mid-2010)

[Deiberson]

diddo on the above comments regarding RAM. grab as much as you can. aperture uses everything you've got and changes to pictures take a second or two. i'm using just a plain old base model macbook. while not as fast i'd like it to be, it gets the job done. but...i should have at least gone with the macbook pro. but for everything else, its a bombproof unit.

[Ash]

I went from the 2006 20in PPC to the 27in i5 and the high-end performance is very clearly noticeable.
PS work is much faster, and general operations are very swift indeed. It's only the optical CD drive that fails to make any breakthrough in speed/performance.

The screen is crisp and brilliant - lots of contrast. A breeze to work on for graphics.

[mysticcowboy]

My guess is that if you do your work in Elements, you won't notice much, if any, difference. If you move to Lightroom, the same applies. You need to be working with large or many files to realize the benefits of the more expensive model.

The better graphics card in the i5 model will speed your processing with large files, especially if you do any sort of bulk or automated work. You will also notice the difference if you typically use a lot of layers on 16 bit tiff files. Aperture should also be quicker with the upgraded iMac. Though, Aperture and quick don't really belong in the same sentence.

Some other instances where you would benefit from the upgrade would be with multiple exposure work, like panoramas, HDR, or focus stacking. Consider how you post process. If you are working the way most people do, you won't push any iMac.

Starting with 4 GB or RAM is perfectly reasonable, though doubling that will make a difference. Again, it depends on how hard you push the Mac. Forget the SSD. For everyday work it's just too expensive for a modest gain in speed.

[the swede]

My guess is that if you do your work in Elements, you won't notice much, if any, difference. If you move to Lightroom, the same applies. You need to be working with large or many files to realize the benefits of the more expensive model.

The better graphics card in the i5 model will speed your processing with large files, especially if you do any sort of bulk or automated work. You will also notice the difference if you typically use a lot of layers on 16 bit tiff files. Aperture should also be quicker with the upgraded iMac. Though, Aperture and quick don't really belong in the same sentence.

Some other instances where you would benefit from the upgrade would be with multiple exposure work, like panoramas, HDR, or focus stacking. Consider how you post process. If you are working the way most people do, you won't push any iMac.

Starting with 4 GB or RAM is perfectly reasonable, though doubling that will make a difference. Again, it depends on how hard you push the Mac. Forget the SSD. For everyday work it's just too expensive for a modest gain in speed.

Thanks for all the input. I ordered the base 21" modell.

About PP i have giving up on learning the advanced work with layers that even Elements is capable of, because i find it to time consuming for the pictures i take. Mostly family snaps.

Regarding my own artistic pictures, i spend more time with them. But i feel that the basic layers work that Elements can do i can achieve with Aperture 3 to some extent. I hope it will...... If Aperture doesnt please me, i'll just go back to Elements and learn from the books i have about all the layers and stuff.

I just find that working with layers is so boring and time consuming

[Ash]

Ah, well that too is fine.
I personally couldn't imagine PP without the ability to create layers and masks, but then again I enjoy that side of graphics - like icing on the cake to me.

Enjoy your purchase swede.

[mysticcowboy]

You should do fine with Aperture 3. It's a nice program. Congratulations on the new iMac. I try to tell myself I need a newer model but I know I'm just engaged in wishful thinking.

[the swede]

Got my Imac yesturday so im really happy. Have spend some time getting to know the Mac system and it all seems very easy.

Have TON of job to do, transfering all my pictures and music

Anyways, as i was poking around in System Options i saw that i can chose Different screen profiles. The standard is set to iMac, but there is more options.

Adobe RGB (1998)
Generical RGB Profile
sRGB IEC61966-2.1

So wich should i use?

Should i use the built in calibration program?

I also saw some remarks on the net, that iMac screens is to bright, and one shoul "dim" down a bit when editing photos. It sounds silly, but i just want to do the right thing, before i start of any PP work.....