Building a photography workstation

March, 2006

Digital photography is extremely demanding in computer resources, especially for RAW shooters. A run-of-the-mill home computer will very easily be overwhelmed by the processing power requirements of RAW conversion and the sheer masses of data that make up a RAW image library. Losing your photos because of a computer failure is a real tragedy. Any serious digital photographer should take their digital darkroom at least as seriously as their lenses -- and much more seriously than mere camera bodies. The only way to get the kind of digital darkroom that exactly fits your needs and budget is to build it yourself -- but even though things have gotten much easier over the past few years, box-building isn't for everyone. It takes time, patience, problem-solving, and research, and it's only "worth it" if you actually enjoy doing it. Much like photography itself.

So suppose you've just dropped a grand or two on some new computer components. Suppose you've just assembled them. Suppose you switch on the power. And suppose nothing happens. How do you react?

If your reaction is to march right back to the store that sold you that heap of junk and give them a piece of your mind, building a computer isn't for you. Buy one from Apple instead, or if you absolutely have to have a Windows box, from Dell or some other huge brand that allows you to customize what you want. In the latter case, you might want to read the first couple of paragraphs in this article -- they describe what I believe a solid photo workstation should look like, and this information will stand you in good stead.

I am not and do not claim to be an expert system builder. I have built about a half-dozen boxes for myself, friends, and family, and I do try to be conscientious about my research. I also deal with different kinds of computers in my day job a quite a lot. I'm also a severe gearhead, which is a major asset when dealing with something as geeky as computer building. So take this article for what it's worth: the personal perspective of a box-builder who's just past the "complete newbie" stage.

On the other hand, if your reaction is to sigh deeply, take it all apart again, read through all the instructions carefully, connect up the components again one by one, and find out exactly where it went wrong, go for it. You'll very likely spend a few days working on your system, but you will end up with something that runs faster, cooler, quieter, and more stable than anything you're likely to get from a store -- and you'll be able to make it fit your needs and budget exactly. You will learn a great deal about what makes a computer tick in the process, and you will have gotten your system for considerably less money too: say, 25 per cent less than a comparatively-specced machine from a major vendor, and you'll be using better components in the places where the major vendors usually cut a few corners. In use, it will be less trouble to maintain, and if something does go wrong, you'll be able to fix it yourself. But don't kid yourself -- even with today's jumper-free configuration and plug-and-play components, putting together a computer is not something even the mildly technophobic should undertake.

An alternative to building your own is speccing your own with a small-scale "box builder," and having them build and install it for you. However, in my opinion this is not a great idea: they will very likely not be able to resolve all the potential glitches in it, and you'll end up with something that's just a little bit wobbly -- without the skills needed to make it stable again. So my advice is either to buy a "package deal" from a major vendor and get the pretty inexpensive on-site support plan for it, since it will have been pre-configured and tested to run pretty much without trouble, or else go the whole hog and do it all by yourself.