[Ben_Edict]

Oops - must have suffered a blonde moment.

Still it seems a great many graphic designers/design houses/photography studios tend to favor Apple Mac Desktops/Laptops.

And still I'm wondering why - as they cost a premium compared to the rest.

Regards

Dylan

More than 90% of all pro photographers here in Germany (and I guess that is true for all of Europe) use Macs. I have the numbers. Main reason is: the Mac was the first plattform, that got the software for pp and its ease of use and its reliability.

For professional use, 80% of the cost of any computing device is incurred during use for maintenace etc. The initial purchasing price accounts for only roughly 20% - so the Macs are very economic, not the least, because they will on average be used over a longer period of time, than Windows-PCs.

Ben

[Ben_Edict]

A good read.
Interestingly these two fellows use Lightroom and Aperture, and CS4 less often. The less expensive software seems to be able to do what they want quite well...

Their sample images are awesome too.

This reflects the recent discussions here in the forum about Lightroom. There are one or two interesting threads and those of us, who use LR agreed, that it took opver between 80% and 90% of all post-processing from Photoshop. So for the rest PS is indispensable (layers, smart filters, masks etc.) Most other software packages are not really useable, because for example they lack 4C support, which is a pre-requisite for printing.

Ben

[raz-0]

A good read.
Interestingly these two fellows use Lightroom and Aperture, and CS4 less often. The less expensive software seems to be able to do what they want quite well...

Their sample images are awesome too.

Less expensive?

The first guy is using lightroom, cs4, and likely boguht the whole nik plug-in suite.

Lightroom is like $180, and the nik suite is another $300. If he is using it with photoshop too, then it is $600. He also has cs4 ($560). That doesn't strike me as that cheap. It is probably a pretty quick workflow for most of what he does, which is worth every penny for a Pro, but it isn't cheap.

The second guy is using Aperture, PS CS4, illustrator CS4, moise ninja, portraiture, and silverfx.

That's $160, $660 (assuming non-extended), $560, $80, $200 (if he has it for aperture and cs4 then $300), and $200.

Even if you assume they spend 95% of their time with aperture/lightroom and plug-ins, they aren't exactly using cheap software. Their post processing workflow is still around $500-600. And they both still apparently need photoshop sometimes.

[mysticcowboy]

Excellent

Question;

Why do they all us Macs?

Dylan

The percentage of Mac users in Graphic Design and Photography is huge. I once read that 80% of design shops use Macs. For years Mac color management was way easier than Windows. Now, it's pretty close but the tradition is set.

I think it's also that pro photographers don't care to customize their computers. Those are just tools. And, Macs generally require less TLC than PCs.

michael mckee
My Port Townsend – A City in Photographs

[dylansalt]

Thanks for those answers

[Wombat]

A bit sad that none of them use any Pentax gear...

[DJEZRAJ]

Less expensive?

The first guy is using lightroom, cs4, and likely boguht the whole nik plug-in suite.

Lightroom is like $180, and the nik suite is another $300. If he is using it with photoshop too, then it is $600. He also has cs4 ($560). That doesn't strike me as that cheap. It is probably a pretty quick workflow for most of what he does, which is worth every penny for a Pro, but it isn't cheap.

The second guy is using Aperture, PS CS4, illustrator CS4, moise ninja, portraiture, and silverfx.

That's $160, $660 (assuming non-extended), $560, $80, $200 (if he has it for aperture and cs4 then $300), and $200.

Even if you assume they spend 95% of their time with aperture/lightroom and plug-ins, they aren't exactly using cheap software. Their post processing workflow is still around $500-600. And they both still apparently need photoshop sometimes.

i think the use of "Less expensive" was referring to the TCO total cost of ownership which included maintenance and upkeep. However we all realize there are individuals who may not be a Pro photographer so the Price at point of purchase with be the focus and at times obsessively so as the stuff does not grow on trees much to my chagrin! To me both Lightroom and Aperture are well worth their price and are reasonably priced IMO. However there are lots of inexpensive or fee options available. Some of these options may not be as refined or well integrates etc but free is free and great place to start. For the Pro's featured in the article All used Mac (a given considering the source) and most used Nikon. This simply may be because their work can pay for a reliable workhorse and they may also be able to claim their gear as a business expense and subsequent tax write off. Who knows I am not in their position. But my friends in the Audio and film industry do this and have a much broader view on budgeting and spending for their work.
So to qualify this may indeed be expensive for some. But not all
Cheers
Roger

[FullertonImages]

I thoughtit was interesting that more than one of then uses both canon and nikon.

[Ben_Edict]

A bit sad that none of them use any Pentax gear...

If pros use Pentax, they mainly (though we have quite a few pros proving the contrary here in the forum...) use the 67. I knew exactly 1 fashion photographer who used the 645 regularily for almost all his shoots.

Ben

[Fixcinater]

Nice link, very cool info!

[raz-0]

The percentage of Mac users in Graphic Design and Photography is huge. I once read that 80% of design shops use Macs. For years Mac color management was way easier than Windows. Now, it's pretty close but the tradition is set.

I think it's also that pro photographers don't care to customize their computers. Those are just tools. And, Macs generally require less TLC than PCs.

michael mckee
My Port Townsend – A City in Photographs

Nah, that is not why. Well the last part isn't, the first part is a big part.

Post processing tools have been available on PC and MAC. Or more precisely the first "cheap" photo editng and illustration and layout software was on both. However, Macs had wildly better color management in the early days, which pretty much got them the entire print design and publishing market. That wouldn't matter much, but Macs also pretty much used the most ass backwards way of dealing with multiple types of files, and thus were total crap at reading anything not generated on a mac in the early days. Professional photographers either just make prints, or they want to submit to publishers. In the former, they didn't need a computer, and in the latter, they probably needed a mac to keep the idiot you send files to from complaining and picking the next guy in line to pay.

Now, the mac dominance in design is mainly due to idiocy, "well someont told me that PCs/MACs cant read MAC/PC files", or simple faith without any basis. During the reign of os9, macs were about as unstable as a product can get without someone getting sued. I know a number of designers who switched at that point because they simply couldn't afford the down time when getting paid (or not paid) by the hour (the sluggishness of the G5 processor didn't help either).

[raz-0]

i think the use of "Less expensive" was referring to the TCO total cost of ownership which included maintenance and upkeep. However we all realize there are individuals who may not be a Pro photographer so the Price at point of purchase with be the focus and at times obsessively so as the stuff does not grow on trees much to my chagrin! To me both Lightroom and Aperture are well worth their price and are reasonably priced IMO. However there are lots of inexpensive or fee options available. Some of these options may not be as refined or well integrates etc but free is free and great place to start. For the Pro's featured in the article All used Mac (a given considering the source) and most used Nikon. This simply may be because their work can pay for a reliable workhorse and they may also be able to claim their gear as a business expense and subsequent tax write off. Who knows I am not in their position. But my friends in the Audio and film industry do this and have a much broader view on budgeting and spending for their work.
So to qualify this may indeed be expensive for some. But not all
Cheers
Roger

See to me, if you are just using lightroom vs using photoshop, I'd take that as definitely using the cheaper option. It is definitely cheaper, while not necessarily being cheap. They aren't, they are using both. Meaning they use a workflow that is more expensive than either the lightroom or photoshop users. They are also using plug-ins that cost as much as photoshop, and while they are very often best-of-breed, they are neither particularly unique plug-ins nor are they the best bang for the buck in their area.


I understand completely the notion of paying for a fast workflow that doesn't eat up time you could be out taking pictures or getting paying gigs.

What I don't understand is how anyone arrives at the conclusion that because they are using lightroom or aperture in their workflow that it is cheap. They both have post processing pipelines that are well over $1000, and closer to $2000. They also both have software in them that has had the upgrade window shrink from 4 versions to 2 or less. So you are looking at expensive workflows with high maintenance costs.

Is it inappropriate to their work? Definitely not, feature for feature, the price difference between what they chose and anything else that would work as well is probably a few hundred bucks total. Is it cheap though? Defintiely not.

[Ben_Edict]

What I don't understand is how anyone arrives at the conclusion that because they are using lightroom or aperture in their workflow that it is cheap. They both have post processing pipelines that are well over $1000, and closer to $2000. They also both have software in them that has had the upgrade window shrink from 4 versions to 2 or less. So you are looking at expensive workflows with high maintenance costs.

Is it inappropriate to their work? Definitely not, feature for feature, the price difference between what they chose and anything else that would work as well is probably a few hundred bucks total. Is it cheap though? Defintiely not.

You are seeing this, I assume, from a amateur perspective. What the heck is the problem with a 2 kUSD investment in your business? Any plumber needs tools, which cost probaly much more, because he can't use tools from the discount warehouse, if he wants to sustain his business.
Any company car will cost you ten or twenty times as much and its maintenance cost p.a. will be higher than the software investment.

I use LR and the whole Adobe Design Suite, incl. PS etc. It is expensive - but not seen as a professional tool. A good lens will cost as much as the whole software package, my car is more expensive etc. - and the whole investment is tax deducable anyway. I have tried amany, many cheaper options, to reduce my running costs. In some areas free alternatives are viable (OpenOffice for instance, instead of MS Office), in other areas, the free alternatives lack the last pro-feature, I need, may it be 4C support, or lack of colour management or whatever. And usually they are just a waste of time.

Yes, pure amateur photgs may not need 4C. That's fine, don't buy it, but if used as a necessary tool, there is simply no alternative on the market, ans especially not a cheaper one.

By the way: Aldus Digital Darkroom, the predecessor of Photoshop, was available for Mac, long before anybody even thought about using Windows for image processing. This history is part of the strength Macs have in the pro market.

Ben

[bluebronco]

A good read and now I need to investigate Nik Silver Efex Pro......

I have the Nik suite for Photoshop CS3. It is awesome.

[waqas]

It wouldn't be "closely guarded" if they shared it so easily
LOL @ "embiggen"