Mac G4 or G5 for photo printing?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Yuko Horiuchi, Dec 19, 2003.

  1. Hi,
    I just bought Mac G4 so I can use my old version Photoshop.
    My brother, is wondering to purchase G4 or G5.
    With G5 you have to use new Adobe Photshop. He said some of very useful
    part is not in with newest Photoshop. Most professional photographer in
    Japan is snapping G4 due to usage of OSX and OS9. Need your advice.
    Thank you very much :)
     
    Yuko Horiuchi, Dec 19, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Yuko Horiuchi

    Argon3 Guest

    I was under the impression that the only difference (in terms of operating
    system) with the new version of photoshop is that it no longer supports
    OS9...only OSX is supported...so whether a G4 or G5 depends only on your "need
    for speed" AND the depths of your pockets ($$$$).

    argon
     
    Argon3, Dec 19, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In article <>,
    Yuko Horiuchi <> wrote:

    > Hi,
    > I just bought Mac G4 so I can use my old version Photoshop.
    > My brother, is wondering to purchase G4 or G5.
    > With G5 you have to use new Adobe Photshop. He said some of very useful
    > part is not in with newest Photoshop. Most professional photographer in
    > Japan is snapping G4 due to usage of OSX and OS9. Need your advice.
    > Thank you very much :)


    Does it run too slowly for you now? I have a rather old G4 and 6MP
    image manipulation is real-time in Elements 2.0. The only thing that
    takes some time is opening a couple hundred JPEGs.

    The G5 computers aren't all that spectacular at the moment. That's
    typical of new processors. A couple more hardware and OS revisions will
    be needed before there's a remarkable benefit compared to a G4.

    There's little difference between OS 9 and X for running just Photoshop.
    Photoshop does everything on its own so the OS is hardly involved. All
    I can think of is that USB Storage Class Driver in 9 stopped processes
    while reading or writting.
     
    Kevin McMurtrie, Dec 20, 2003
    #3
  4. Yuko Horiuchi

    JR Guest

    Depends on the size of images you are working with. I have a G4 and a
    G5, the G5 is WAAAAYYYYY faster. But then again I am using 210mb scans
    at 5400 dpi at 16 bit color depth. Then new Photoshop is a definite
    upgrade and improvement to the older version. And it can fully
    mainpulate the images at 16 bit and most plug ins run in 16bit. If it
    was me it would be a no brainer, just get the Dual G5.

    JR
     
    JR, Dec 20, 2003
    #4
  5. Yuko Horiuchi

    Flycaster Guest

    "Kevin McMurtrie" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <>,
    > Yuko Horiuchi <> wrote:
    >
    > > Hi,
    > > I just bought Mac G4 so I can use my old version Photoshop.
    > > My brother, is wondering to purchase G4 or G5.
    > > With G5 you have to use new Adobe Photshop. He said some of very useful
    > > part is not in with newest Photoshop. Most professional photographer in
    > > Japan is snapping G4 due to usage of OSX and OS9. Need your advice.
    > > Thank you very much :)

    >
    > Does it run too slowly for you now? I have a rather old G4 and 6MP
    > image manipulation is real-time in Elements 2.0. The only thing that
    > takes some time is opening a couple hundred JPEGs.
    >
    > The G5 computers aren't all that spectacular at the moment. That's
    > typical of new processors. A couple more hardware and OS revisions will
    > be needed before there's a remarkable benefit compared to a G4.


    Though I do most of my work now on a PC platform, I'd have to disagree. I
    ran one of my large (400mb) files on a new G-5 recently and it is *much*
    faster than my old G-4. Seat of the pants, I'd say at least twice as fast.




    -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
     
    Flycaster, Dec 20, 2003
    #5
  6. In article <3fe4bd82$>,
    "Flycaster" <> wrote:

    > "Kevin McMurtrie" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > In article <>,
    > > Yuko Horiuchi <> wrote:
    > >
    > > > Hi,
    > > > I just bought Mac G4 so I can use my old version Photoshop.
    > > > My brother, is wondering to purchase G4 or G5.
    > > > With G5 you have to use new Adobe Photshop. He said some of very useful
    > > > part is not in with newest Photoshop. Most professional photographer in
    > > > Japan is snapping G4 due to usage of OSX and OS9. Need your advice.
    > > > Thank you very much :)

    > >
    > > Does it run too slowly for you now? I have a rather old G4 and 6MP
    > > image manipulation is real-time in Elements 2.0. The only thing that
    > > takes some time is opening a couple hundred JPEGs.
    > >
    > > The G5 computers aren't all that spectacular at the moment. That's
    > > typical of new processors. A couple more hardware and OS revisions will
    > > be needed before there's a remarkable benefit compared to a G4.

    >
    > Though I do most of my work now on a PC platform, I'd have to disagree. I
    > ran one of my large (400mb) files on a new G-5 recently and it is *much*
    > faster than my old G-4. Seat of the pants, I'd say at least twice as fast.
    >


    Considering how exepnsive a G5 is, I don't think 2x is significant for
    most people editing photos. I'd wait until it's 4x in a year.

    And I hate to start up another resolution troll thread, but what kind of
    printer has 400MB of output quality? A seriously expensive printer that
    does 20x30 inch prints with 270 dpi 24 bit color is still only 125MB.
    No inkjet comes close to printing 400MB worth of image data. It sounds
    like you're wasting your time.
     
    Kevin McMurtrie, Dec 20, 2003
    #6
  7. Yuko Horiuchi

    JK Guest

    Why Apple? Why not get a PC with a 64 bit Athlon 64 processor?
    It will probably be priced much lower(perhaps even close to half
    as much?) as a G5. The Athlon 64 runs 32 bit X86 code rapidly as
    well as 64 bit X86 software(or even both together).

    Yuko Horiuchi wrote:

    > Hi,
    > I just bought Mac G4 so I can use my old version Photoshop.
    > My brother, is wondering to purchase G4 or G5.
    > With G5 you have to use new Adobe Photshop. He said some of very useful
    > part is not in with newest Photoshop. Most professional photographer in
    > Japan is snapping G4 due to usage of OSX and OS9. Need your advice.
    > Thank you very much :)
     
    JK, Dec 21, 2003
    #7
  8. Yuko Horiuchi

    sjs031 Guest

    Maybe he likes the Mac.

    -Steve

    In article <>, JK <>
    wrote:

    > Why Apple? Why not get a PC with a 64 bit Athlon 64 processor?
    > It will probably be priced much lower(perhaps even close to half
    > as much?) as a G5. The Athlon 64 runs 32 bit X86 code rapidly as
    > well as 64 bit X86 software(or even both together).
    >
    > Yuko Horiuchi wrote:
    >
    > > Hi,
    > > I just bought Mac G4 so I can use my old version Photoshop.
    > > My brother, is wondering to purchase G4 or G5.
    > > With G5 you have to use new Adobe Photshop. He said some of very useful
    > > part is not in with newest Photoshop. Most professional photographer in
    > > Japan is snapping G4 due to usage of OSX and OS9. Need your advice.
    > > Thank you very much :)

    >
     
    sjs031, Dec 21, 2003
    #8
  9. Yuko Horiuchi

    Flycaster Guest

    "Kevin McMurtrie" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >Considering how exepnsive a G5 is, I don't think 2x is significant for
    >most people editing photos. [snip]


    A 100% increase in productivity is "not significant?" Okeydokey...

    > And I hate to start up another resolution troll thread, but what kind of
    > printer has 400MB of output quality? A seriously expensive printer that
    > does 20x30 inch prints with 270 dpi 24 bit color is still only 125MB.
    > No inkjet comes close to printing 400MB worth of image data. It sounds
    > like you're wasting your time.


    Who said anything about output devices? Not me. But, just FYI, there most
    certainly *are* inkjets that can handle 400MB flattened files: Epson 9600's
    do it every day, in service bureaus all over the country. I regularly work
    with scans that *start* at 150MB, and can end up with layered working files
    well in excess of 1GB, especially when I output to CMYK. So you see, I'm
    not wasting my time, I just work in a different league than you do.

    (Not everyone here is self-limited to working with 8x10 consumer inkjets
    with RGB drivers that max out at 300dpi, my friend)




    -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
     
    Flycaster, Dec 21, 2003
    #9
  10. Yuko Horiuchi

    Guest

    Yuko Horiuchi <> wrote:
    > Hi,
    > I just bought Mac G4 so I can use my old version Photoshop.
    > My brother, is wondering to purchase G4 or G5.
    > With G5 you have to use new Adobe Photshop. He said some of very useful
    > part is not in with newest Photoshop. Most professional photographer in
    > Japan is snapping G4 due to usage of OSX and OS9. Need your advice.
    > Thank you very much :)


    OS 9 in Classic works fine on a G5. If your brother can get a G5 at a price
    he can afford, why not? Your brother won't be able to boot directly into
    OS 9, but I don't you can either with your new G4. That's not a big deal.
     
    , Dec 21, 2003
    #10
  11. In article <3fe53cd6$>,
    "Flycaster" <> wrote:

    > "Kevin McMurtrie" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >Considering how exepnsive a G5 is, I don't think 2x is significant for
    > >most people editing photos. [snip]

    >
    > A 100% increase in productivity is "not significant?" Okeydokey...
    >
    > > And I hate to start up another resolution troll thread, but what kind of
    > > printer has 400MB of output quality? A seriously expensive printer that
    > > does 20x30 inch prints with 270 dpi 24 bit color is still only 125MB.
    > > No inkjet comes close to printing 400MB worth of image data. It sounds
    > > like you're wasting your time.

    >
    > Who said anything about output devices? Not me. But, just FYI, there most
    > certainly *are* inkjets that can handle 400MB flattened files: Epson 9600's
    > do it every day, in service bureaus all over the country. I regularly work
    > with scans that *start* at 150MB, and can end up with layered working files
    > well in excess of 1GB, especially when I output to CMYK. So you see, I'm
    > not wasting my time, I just work in a different league than you do.


    Yes, the Epson 9600 will make use of a 400MB file if it's a really long
    print. How much area does it take a 7-color Epson to reproduce an
    accurate color? I'm guessing in the area of 1/100 inch square. Finer
    detail doesn't show through the dither unless it's very high contrast.

    Photographic printers max out near 200 to 300 dpi.


    > (Not everyone here is self-limited to working with 8x10 consumer inkjets
    > with RGB drivers that max out at 300dpi, my friend)
    >

    True, that's not what I'm using either.

    Photoshop itself is often the root of the problem. It's an awesome
    photo editor but its pixel based editing is not well suited to graphic
    design. If you want sharp text or line-art over a photo, you have to
    upsample the photo to an insane resolution for the sake of the text and
    line-art layers. Pretty soon you have hundreds of MB when the sum of
    the input was only a few dozen MB. Photoshop doesn't support vector
    graphics layers that would allow you to print hardware resolution
    artwork and text over a 250 dpi photo. That's where Illustrator comes
    in.
     
    Kevin McMurtrie, Dec 22, 2003
    #11
  12. Yuko Horiuchi

    Flycaster Guest

    "Kevin McMurtrie" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    [snip]
    > Photoshop itself is often the root of the problem. It's an awesome
    > photo editor but its pixel based editing is not well suited to graphic
    > design. If you want sharp text or line-art over a photo, you have to
    > upsample the photo to an insane resolution for the sake of the text and
    > line-art layers. Pretty soon you have hundreds of MB when the sum of
    > the input was only a few dozen MB. Photoshop doesn't support vector
    > graphics layers that would allow you to print hardware resolution
    > artwork and text over a 250 dpi photo. That's where Illustrator comes
    > in.


    While I certainly would agree that PS is ill-suited for dedicated type and
    layout work, if you send a PS file as a PDF to off-set, with unflattened
    vector layers, you *will* end up with print resolution that is device
    dependent. There isn't any need for up-sampling. IOW, PS *does* support
    vector type layers that allow you to print at full hardware resolution; the
    trick is to not flatten (and thereby rasterize) the vector layers.

    I do this quite often with large posters that don't have terribly complex
    type. The type comes out sharp as a tack at full hardware resolution,
    irrespective of the underlying rasterized image(s).




    -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
     
    Flycaster, Dec 22, 2003
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. elie
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,035
  2. elie
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    945
  3. elie
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    977
  4. elie
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,017
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,405
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page