McGrauniad
TPF Noob!
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11
- Reaction score
- 0
- Location
- Texas
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos NOT OK to edit
Me again, last time I asked some questions here I got some very useful responses, so I'm hoping for more?
I am building a PC for my sister that is a keen amateur photographer. Currently she process her photos on an old laptop I bought her some 7 or more years ago. I was lucky with the laptop, it had a very good screen for the time with nice resolution of 1280x800. She is still running her old Adobe CS2 that I bought and installed as well, so I felt she was due a new PC. I'm rather disenchanted with most laptops nowadays, especially for photo work, except maybe the Apple range, but I can't stretch to the $$$ for those. Hence my decision to build her a small form desktop.
So I did some research on components and it took about 2 months just researching things. What I learned was that the important parts are the components that make up the workflow path for the images. If any one component on that path is unable to maintain the photo color information (6-bit, 8-bit, 10-bit or eve 12-bit for top-of-the line equipment) then she will be SOL.
I also know that Adobe publishes a list of qualified video cards that works well with Photoshop CS 6 (which I will be buying as well). Now I'm clearly under a budget of "as little as I can get away with", but I also want to get her something good.
The things I had little trouble deciding on was the processor (Intel i5-3750K), 3TB hard drive, 16GB memory and an external backup disk. The graphics components is where my questions arise.
1. Graphics card. I read in the Adobe FAQ that the Intel HD Graphics built into the above processor is supported. The 3750K processor is one of the few with the most recent Intel HD 4000 graphics included. Alternatively, I thought I might get her the NVidia Quadro K600 (a low-end, low-profile graphics card). My first question for the readers of this forum is: Will the HD4000 graphics in the Intel i5-3750K be sufficient or should I spring for the extra $200 for the video card? I can find no benchmark information that tells me how the K600 compares to the Intel DH graphics processing for photography (or anything else for that matter). Also, does anyone know how I can find out what bit-depth is supported by either of those two products?
2. Monitor. My sister lives in space-constrained accommodation. I think that a 27-inch monitor will be too large for her and also I can not really afford the $600+ of those very nice monitors. But I've read that the 16:10 aspect ratio is more desirable for photography than the 16:9 of the more traditional 1920x1080 resolutions. I looked a lot and found the Asus ProArt PA248Q IPS panel on sale at Newegg for $280. Now I know going that the color depth in this is not optimal, since it only has 16.7 million colors (8-bit?) rather than the 1.07 Billion colors of a 10-bit monitor, but I'm kind of hoping this will be sufficient. This is my second question of the reader: Will this monitor be sufficient for a hobby photographer?
As an aside, In January there were a number of press articles that said that Asus has announced a replacement LED Monitor, the PA249Q, with 10-bit color support. But I can find no mention of it since the January press articles. The only other monitor that appears suitable is the $400+ Asus ProArt PA256Q, but that little guy is not even with LED backlighting so it is heavier, thicker, probably uses more power and will be more costly to ship to my sister once I have this system assembled.
I would also like to know if there is a critical factor that I may have overlooked in assembling the components that would make this computer inferior or not suitable for digital photo processing?
Thank you for your time in reading all of this.
I am building a PC for my sister that is a keen amateur photographer. Currently she process her photos on an old laptop I bought her some 7 or more years ago. I was lucky with the laptop, it had a very good screen for the time with nice resolution of 1280x800. She is still running her old Adobe CS2 that I bought and installed as well, so I felt she was due a new PC. I'm rather disenchanted with most laptops nowadays, especially for photo work, except maybe the Apple range, but I can't stretch to the $$$ for those. Hence my decision to build her a small form desktop.
So I did some research on components and it took about 2 months just researching things. What I learned was that the important parts are the components that make up the workflow path for the images. If any one component on that path is unable to maintain the photo color information (6-bit, 8-bit, 10-bit or eve 12-bit for top-of-the line equipment) then she will be SOL.
I also know that Adobe publishes a list of qualified video cards that works well with Photoshop CS 6 (which I will be buying as well). Now I'm clearly under a budget of "as little as I can get away with", but I also want to get her something good.
The things I had little trouble deciding on was the processor (Intel i5-3750K), 3TB hard drive, 16GB memory and an external backup disk. The graphics components is where my questions arise.
1. Graphics card. I read in the Adobe FAQ that the Intel HD Graphics built into the above processor is supported. The 3750K processor is one of the few with the most recent Intel HD 4000 graphics included. Alternatively, I thought I might get her the NVidia Quadro K600 (a low-end, low-profile graphics card). My first question for the readers of this forum is: Will the HD4000 graphics in the Intel i5-3750K be sufficient or should I spring for the extra $200 for the video card? I can find no benchmark information that tells me how the K600 compares to the Intel DH graphics processing for photography (or anything else for that matter). Also, does anyone know how I can find out what bit-depth is supported by either of those two products?
2. Monitor. My sister lives in space-constrained accommodation. I think that a 27-inch monitor will be too large for her and also I can not really afford the $600+ of those very nice monitors. But I've read that the 16:10 aspect ratio is more desirable for photography than the 16:9 of the more traditional 1920x1080 resolutions. I looked a lot and found the Asus ProArt PA248Q IPS panel on sale at Newegg for $280. Now I know going that the color depth in this is not optimal, since it only has 16.7 million colors (8-bit?) rather than the 1.07 Billion colors of a 10-bit monitor, but I'm kind of hoping this will be sufficient. This is my second question of the reader: Will this monitor be sufficient for a hobby photographer?
As an aside, In January there were a number of press articles that said that Asus has announced a replacement LED Monitor, the PA249Q, with 10-bit color support. But I can find no mention of it since the January press articles. The only other monitor that appears suitable is the $400+ Asus ProArt PA256Q, but that little guy is not even with LED backlighting so it is heavier, thicker, probably uses more power and will be more costly to ship to my sister once I have this system assembled.
I would also like to know if there is a critical factor that I may have overlooked in assembling the components that would make this computer inferior or not suitable for digital photo processing?
Thank you for your time in reading all of this.