What computer and monitor setup do u have for Post Production?

[neuroanatomist]

Apple 27" Thunderbolt display, with either a 17" MacBook Pro or 13" MacBook Air connected.

[bbb34]

NEC LCD3090WQXI-BK   (2560x1600)
i7-870

B)

[7enderbender]

That's a really good question. Not to be a whiner again but I find the current offering somewhat frustrating. My main computer for LR and PS is still my 14" IBM Thinkpad from 7 years ago. Why? Because I like the screen and because I like the handling of that thing. Even at home I prefer this one over my Franken-Dell XP PC with a 24" Dell screen. I actually just replaced the screen in it and was lucky enough to find an as-new replacement as Lenovo doesn't sell them any longer. It's 14" 1400x1050 screen and I really like that resolution. Colors are likely not perfect but it works for me.

So my next step will be to get a new desktop. And given how poor all the new Windows laptops are (just got a brand new HP Elite Book at work and it is awful) I'm actually thinking about switching to Apple in the long-run. But even then I'm not really thrilled with the screen options. I can't stand the shiny screens and the all-in-one concept makes me a little uncomfortable also. And the new laptop offering make me cringe also. The MBP retina has a great screen of course but the HD is just too small for my needs and can't be upgraded.

So I'm torn now between a Mac Mini with one or two nice third party screens (NEC for example) or a 27" iMac with the glass removed. Also the thing has to double as the center piece of a homerecording studio so specs have to be pretty good and the Mac Mini might be on the edge there.

I'm interested to see what new iMacs Apple might present in the Fall. If that's not appealing I can always take my cash and really go for that 50L first...

[c3hammer]

I'm still running an older ASUS i7-920 system with a GTX260 card and 12 gigs of ram, but have adapted a 27" Apple Cinema display to it at 2560x1440 resolution.

Here's the link to the adaptor you need to run any of the Apple Cinema Displays off any modern video card on a PC.
http://www.amazon.com/ATLONA-AT-DP400-Dual-DisplayPort-Converter/dp/B003CWEXWO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1338329038&sr=8-1

With many folks upgrading their monitors to the newer Thunderbolt, the older 27" Apple Cinema Displays can be found for $600 - $800 in the local classifieds.  It's s super cost effective way to make a big step up in your diplay on the PC.

Cheers,
Pete

[Waterloo]

Apple Mac Pro 3.33 GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon with 32 GB Ram (Lightroom 4.1 and Photoshop CS6)
NEC PA271W 27 inch monitor
Epson 3880 17 inch printer
Epson 7890 24 inch printer

[nightbreath]

Does anyone use Eizo ColorEdge? Are those really that good (to cost from $2k)?

[adhocphotographer]

Apple MacBookPro... 

[ro-b]

Hi Guys,

actually I'm new to that Forum...

I use a ThinkPad W520 Notebook with integrated color calibration and a 15" fullHD res Display, with an 120gb SSD and a Dell 24" IPS Display...or when I need to limit wheight a MacBook Air 11"

Actually I'm not satisfied with any of that...some things just do not work properly some are better under Mac some for the PC..

[unfocused]

The smartest thing I ever did was attach a second monitor.

I have one big monitor to look at the images and then all the various panels are over on the smaller monitor. You won't believe how much easier it makes life (or at least editing). Also works great for Dreamweaver and InDesign. Even comes in handy at times with programs like Word or when you want to transfer files between external and internal drives.

As for my actual computer, I use a Dell something or other with an i7 processor. My previous computer died over the winter and I do find that the new one processes things much faster, but that may be a combination of the new machine and the new Creative Suite programs (apparently Adobe improved the programming to speed up processing and it seems to have worked).

[prettyprint]

Looked into what hardware matters for image manipulation a couple of months ago when my old computer was starting to get slow. What I found out was:
* It's all about CPU. This is what matters if the rest isn't seriously neglected (ie. really old). The Intel i7-2700K seemed to have the best price/performance ratio last month. It's quite a lot faster than an i5 CPU for image manipulation.
* Memory isn't that important. I'm not typing this at home so can't check the exact figures, but LR didn't take more than around 1 GB of memory. I have a total of 8GB, and more than 4 wasn't used in total (even for OS caches etc).
* Disk speed matters somewhat, but OTOH rendering everything from scratch will make the CPU a bottleneck anyway. Previews in cache are not that large, so reading them from disk doesn't take long. Having an SSD is nice for general usability, but not worth investing in for image manipulation specifically.

If your LR is slow, the first step is to increase the cache size. More is better. I have 50GB. Having a faster CPU is a nice second step, if you don't want to wait for previews to be rendered.

[pierceography]

I've got a Dell U2412M.  24", 1920x1200, IPS Display.  You gotta go IPS if you want accurate colors.  It's hooked up to my 13" Macbook.  It's a pretty simple setup, but considering the amount of money I've already dumped into camera gear, I couldn't justify spending a ton on computer equipment too.  ;-)

Highly recommend the Dell, and it was around $270 earlier this year after the sale price.  Definitely a huge savings over going bigger/high resolution.

[RLPhoto]

I use a Asus 19" monitor and an ACER 23" monitor I got from Newegg. They're pretty good as long as you calibrate them. I use the Spyder 3 elite.

IPS is the best, but eh, I get great results from what I have. If you consider most people's will not have an IPS monitor to even view your images at there best, Why bother?

[Quasimodo]

I use a Asus 19" monitor and an ACER 23" monitor I got from Newegg. They're pretty good as long as you calibrate them. I use the Spyder 3 elite.

IPS is the best, but eh, I get great results from what I have. If you consider most people's will not have an IPS monitor to even view your images at there best, Why bother?

Thank you for your IPS tip, and to all for an interesting thread. I googled IPS and found something on their site, where they list the top ten screens for photoediting:

http://www.ipsmonitor.com/guides/best-monitor-for-photo-editing-2011-the-top-10/

[sdsr]

I currently have a hp envy 17-3d with the 1080p tn panel and it is good but was curious what reasonable desktop setups were being used most importantly monitors that do not cost $1k +. It must be windows sorry but I get all the software free. Also if you use a laptop which model?

Thanks.

A couple of years ago I had a computer custom-built at my local Microcenter (sounds expensive, but wasn't) with Windows 7 home premium, whatever one of the better i7 processors was back then, 8GB memory, and a fairly high-powered video card; all of which work well together.  I had been using a Samsung 24" monitor, which looked pretty good, but ten days ago upgraded to a Dell 30" ultrasharp - the improvement is remarkable, both in terms of the extra space you have to work with and image quality, and it's only slightly above the upper price limit you gave (c. $1100).  I have a couple of laptops, but I don't like working with small screens (don't much like laptops period, in fact).  The other half recently bought a Macbook Pro with retina display - am looking forward to the time when decent size monitors use that technology.... 

[unfocused]

I use a Asus 19" monitor and an ACER 23" monitor I got from Newegg. They're pretty good as long as you calibrate them. I use the Spyder 3 elite.

IPS is the best, but eh, I get great results from what I have. If you consider most people's will not have an IPS monitor to even view your images at there best, Why bother?

This is an excellent point and often overlooked. Not to belittle the importance of monitor calibration, but it is important to remember what your final output is going to be.

Like most things, color accuracy is a "garbage in, garbage out" situation, so you do want to start with the most accurate rendition you can, but frankly I agree with RL that there is no point in obsessing over it unless you are working in a professional environment that demands absolute color accuracy (product photos for advertising for example)

If your images are going to be viewed primarily on the web you can't very well go around the world and adjust everyone's monitor before they go to your website.

If your final product is printed with a CMYK process be prepared for colors that are much different than what you see on your screen. You will need to adjust your images accordingly and if color accuracy is critical, you might want to consider letting a professional color house do the final adjustments. 

BTW, I've been know to go around Best Buy and Apple stores and pull up my website on every device I can find, just to see how it looks under different environments. Particularly important for websites. Some of the clerks get a bit annoyed, but most are good-natured about it.