I need a laptop for photo work
July 9, 2010 8:28 AM Subscribe
Help me pick a new laptop for my photography business!
I'm an aspiring part-time amateur photographer with a need for a good laptop to do my post processing work on. I know I'd get much better bang for the buck in a desktop, but I can't always sit down at home to do the work.
The biggest issue I have with my old laptop (aside from a lack of RAM and a slow HDD) is the terrible screen. I know I am not going to get an EIZO ColourEdge on a laptop or anything, but I want something with a decent dynamic range and good colour reproduction. The more pixels the better as well. I also wouldn't complain about a good enough video card to manage Diablo 3 when it comes out!
I'm a PC guy too, so although I've considered a 15" or 17" MacBook Pro I can't justify the switch right now.
I'm an aspiring part-time amateur photographer with a need for a good laptop to do my post processing work on. I know I'd get much better bang for the buck in a desktop, but I can't always sit down at home to do the work.
The biggest issue I have with my old laptop (aside from a lack of RAM and a slow HDD) is the terrible screen. I know I am not going to get an EIZO ColourEdge on a laptop or anything, but I want something with a decent dynamic range and good colour reproduction. The more pixels the better as well. I also wouldn't complain about a good enough video card to manage Diablo 3 when it comes out!
I'm a PC guy too, so although I've considered a 15" or 17" MacBook Pro I can't justify the switch right now.
Response by poster: Yeah, I was a bit concerned about that too. I've managed up until now, but it's certainly a concern.
I guess what I am hoping for is a screen that's not totally useless when I don't have access to a calibrated one.
posted by WinnipegDragon at 9:18 AM on July 9, 2010
I guess what I am hoping for is a screen that's not totally useless when I don't have access to a calibrated one.
posted by WinnipegDragon at 9:18 AM on July 9, 2010
- I'm a PC guy too, so although I've considered a 15" or 17" MacBook Pro I can't justify the switch right now.
- Except that it came with a high-gloss laptop screen, which seem to be hard to avoid. (I can't imagine trying to process photos on a high-gloss laptop screen. The whole idea is stupid, honestly.)
To the OP: Do yourself a favor and go to your local Best Buy/Apple Store and play with a MacBook Pro. They really are phenomenal pieces of equipment. Plus, they have some crazy-high resolution pictures preloaded on there for you to look at.
posted by StarmanDXE at 9:30 AM on July 9, 2010
Best answer: Starman, I think the concern is that while the glossy screen makes photos look nice on the screen, it's not really true to how the picture would look printed. That's also one of the big reasons professionals use calibrated monitors--the goal is to see the same image on the screen as if it was printed.
posted by DMan at 9:35 AM on July 9, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by DMan at 9:35 AM on July 9, 2010 [1 favorite]
Best answer: DMan is right. Pictures as they are displayed on a high-gloss backlit screen do not look the same when they are printed or even displayed elsewhere, and being successful with graphics means making them look consistently good. It's really annoying when your expensive print does not match your screen after hours of processing work.
In addition, the most annoying thing is that a high gloss screen reflects light and I can even see myself in it. It's not about viewing other people's high resolution images- it's about making tiny adjustments on your own images so that they look great. And if you have to dodge your head around to see if your image has problems or if that's just a reflection of a light, you're wasting your time. Blacks will be black and greys will be grey after careful calibration.
I love Macs. If you can afford to go that route, do it. I already owned Windows versions of Adobe and other software and couldn't afford migrate everything, in addition to the fact that a fully-tricked-out Mac is more expensive than the PC equivalent. Otherwise it's cutting into my budget for new lenses and camera equipment. But Mac or PC or Linux or whatever, the calibration thing will still be the same. Better to process photos on a calibrated monitor.
posted by aabbbiee at 10:02 AM on July 9, 2010
In addition, the most annoying thing is that a high gloss screen reflects light and I can even see myself in it. It's not about viewing other people's high resolution images- it's about making tiny adjustments on your own images so that they look great. And if you have to dodge your head around to see if your image has problems or if that's just a reflection of a light, you're wasting your time. Blacks will be black and greys will be grey after careful calibration.
I love Macs. If you can afford to go that route, do it. I already owned Windows versions of Adobe and other software and couldn't afford migrate everything, in addition to the fact that a fully-tricked-out Mac is more expensive than the PC equivalent. Otherwise it's cutting into my budget for new lenses and camera equipment. But Mac or PC or Linux or whatever, the calibration thing will still be the same. Better to process photos on a calibrated monitor.
posted by aabbbiee at 10:02 AM on July 9, 2010
Best answer: Don't force yourself to learn a whole new OS just because you want a killer display. Just look for anything with an IPS panel and you'll be fine. Here's a Lenovo T60p refurb on EBay going for $500 (buy-it-now). That's got a 1600x1200 screen resolution, BTW, which is better than just about anything you can find for displaying high-resolution images, including those big-ass 19" widescreen LCD monstrosities (all max out at ~1050 max vertical resolution). I challenge you to try and get anything close to that from Apple.
Plus you get a usable keyboard.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:24 AM on July 9, 2010 [1 favorite]
Plus you get a usable keyboard.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:24 AM on July 9, 2010 [1 favorite]
- Don't force yourself to learn a whole new OS just because you want a killer display.
- Here's a Lenovo T60p refurb on EBay going for $500 (buy-it-now).
- That's got a 1600x1200 screen resolution, BTW, which is better than just about anything you can find for displaying high-resolution images, including those big-ass 19" widescreen LCD monstrosities (all max out at ~1050 max vertical resolution). I challenge you to try and get anything close to that from Apple.
- Plus you get a usable keyboard.
Oh: and while we're talking about build-in peripherals, let's go over the trackpad. Has anyone else managed anything nearly as nice as the trackpad in the MacBook and MacBook Pro? Even if some other company has, they couldn't guarantee the OS would support the wonderful multi-touch commands that OS X has built in. The MacBook trackpad is the only one which doesn't instantly make you desire a mouse.
posted by StarmanDXE at 11:14 AM on July 9, 2010
Seconding StarmanDXE - use an external monitor. Most laptop screens are also not 8bits per pixel (usually 6 IIRC) which limits the number of colors they can display and further impacts their usefulness.
posted by cftarnas at 11:17 AM on July 9, 2010
posted by cftarnas at 11:17 AM on July 9, 2010
Response by poster: However, I would have to imagine a self-professed "aspiring part-time amateur photographer" is more worried about making sure his photos are in focus and the lighting is ok. I would have to imagine those professional calibrated monitors are more for touching up things that will be printed in nationwide magazines and the like...
I'd like to think I am getting beyond focus issues by now :)
And a calibrated monitor is incredibly helpful when you are printing engagement photos for a bride-to-be. I've worked with some full time photographers that just do portrait and wedding, and they almost all have calibrated monitors.
The Mac thing is really not an option for me now, I think I was pretty clear about that.
posted by WinnipegDragon at 1:23 PM on July 9, 2010
I'd like to think I am getting beyond focus issues by now :)
And a calibrated monitor is incredibly helpful when you are printing engagement photos for a bride-to-be. I've worked with some full time photographers that just do portrait and wedding, and they almost all have calibrated monitors.
The Mac thing is really not an option for me now, I think I was pretty clear about that.
posted by WinnipegDragon at 1:23 PM on July 9, 2010
I don't normally bother replying to idiots that don't take the time to read the fucking question, but this sort of frothing Mac-head fucked-up-ness drives me so far up a goddamned fucking wall that I simply must respond, if for no other reason than to benefit future fanatics that one day stumble across the barren wasteland of a thread while searching for Mac-related AskMe posts to masturbate to. Read my fucking words and despair.
The thing is, OS X is much more intuitive than Windows. Things just generally make sense.
FOR YOU. But the problem is, not everybody is you, are they? The OP, for instance. They almost definitely aren't you. So you're presuming someone's likes and dislikes, even when they fucking tell you what they are?
Tell you what, asshole. Next time you walk into a restaurant and order something, I hope the fucking chef takes a look at your order and says, "Hmm, you know what? No. Instead of a gardenburger, I'm going to give you a bacon cheeseburger because it's so goddamned better you'll thank me!" Even though you were quite specific about it. Something tells me NO YOU'LL LIKE IT I'M RIGHT isn't going to be persuasive-enough of an argument for you when you realize the the switch has been made. That would be Pretty. Fucking. Obnoxious. Right? So, what you're doing, do you not see the fundamental similarity? The core, analogous patterns?
Awesome! It has a 32 bit processor! That's definitely what I'd want for photo editing...
No, you're right. 64-bit is way fucking faster at everything, isn't it? Even though we're really just talking about an increase in address space, which is kind-of like saying your Buick is faster than my Ford because you've got a bigger gas tank. But no, you're right! The performance is night-and-day different. I've also heard they have an additive you can put on your CPU to make it 5 HP faster but the government tried to ban it because of the Iranians.
Fucking idiot.
Dude, check your facts before spewing garbage.
Dude, I did. And I hate to harsh your buzz, but dude, I'm still right. Most laptops max out at WSXGA+ resolution, which is 1680x1050. True, you can get WUXGA laptops (1920x1200), but 1) they're fucking huge and 2) they're fucking expensive.
So. Where's your $500 Apple that counters my example? Please, before we drown in all this "spewing garbage!" Five hundred bucks, and it better have a killer screen, better be 64-bit holy-shizness... I'm waiting.
BTW, who buys a non-widescreen laptop anymore???
Duh... who buys shit they don't use just to have extra shit they have to carry around? Oh, that's right, you do! The OP is a photographer. A widescreen laptop is fucking useless for viewing photographs. Know why? Because a fucking photograph is a fucking 4:3 aspect ratio. Wide-screen laptops are for children who like to watch movies.
And, seriously, you're setting yourself up for failure if you buy based on resolutions numbers alone...
Which is why I wrote that whole part about IPS. But you didn't read that part, or you completely ignored it, because you have no Apple retort, because Apple doesn't make a fucking IPS panel, do they? No! And they certainly won't offer one on a fucking MacBook for fucking $500 any time this fucking century. But what's so big and bad-ass about an IPS panel, anyway? 180° viewing angle, bitch. Which is really fucking useful when you're… (drumroll…) LOOKING AT PHOTOS.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:32 AM on July 12, 2010
The thing is, OS X is much more intuitive than Windows. Things just generally make sense.
FOR YOU. But the problem is, not everybody is you, are they? The OP, for instance. They almost definitely aren't you. So you're presuming someone's likes and dislikes, even when they fucking tell you what they are?
Tell you what, asshole. Next time you walk into a restaurant and order something, I hope the fucking chef takes a look at your order and says, "Hmm, you know what? No. Instead of a gardenburger, I'm going to give you a bacon cheeseburger because it's so goddamned better you'll thank me!" Even though you were quite specific about it. Something tells me NO YOU'LL LIKE IT I'M RIGHT isn't going to be persuasive-enough of an argument for you when you realize the the switch has been made. That would be Pretty. Fucking. Obnoxious. Right? So, what you're doing, do you not see the fundamental similarity? The core, analogous patterns?
Awesome! It has a 32 bit processor! That's definitely what I'd want for photo editing...
No, you're right. 64-bit is way fucking faster at everything, isn't it? Even though we're really just talking about an increase in address space, which is kind-of like saying your Buick is faster than my Ford because you've got a bigger gas tank. But no, you're right! The performance is night-and-day different. I've also heard they have an additive you can put on your CPU to make it 5 HP faster but the government tried to ban it because of the Iranians.
Fucking idiot.
Dude, check your facts before spewing garbage.
Dude, I did. And I hate to harsh your buzz, but dude, I'm still right. Most laptops max out at WSXGA+ resolution, which is 1680x1050. True, you can get WUXGA laptops (1920x1200), but 1) they're fucking huge and 2) they're fucking expensive.
So. Where's your $500 Apple that counters my example? Please, before we drown in all this "spewing garbage!" Five hundred bucks, and it better have a killer screen, better be 64-bit holy-shizness... I'm waiting.
BTW, who buys a non-widescreen laptop anymore???
Duh... who buys shit they don't use just to have extra shit they have to carry around? Oh, that's right, you do! The OP is a photographer. A widescreen laptop is fucking useless for viewing photographs. Know why? Because a fucking photograph is a fucking 4:3 aspect ratio. Wide-screen laptops are for children who like to watch movies.
And, seriously, you're setting yourself up for failure if you buy based on resolutions numbers alone...
Which is why I wrote that whole part about IPS. But you didn't read that part, or you completely ignored it, because you have no Apple retort, because Apple doesn't make a fucking IPS panel, do they? No! And they certainly won't offer one on a fucking MacBook for fucking $500 any time this fucking century. But what's so big and bad-ass about an IPS panel, anyway? 180° viewing angle, bitch. Which is really fucking useful when you're… (drumroll…) LOOKING AT PHOTOS.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:32 AM on July 12, 2010
I'm assuming that's supposed to be another lame attempt at a mock of Apple products? Their keyboards are far, far better than any others I've used.
Aw damn, I totally missed this.
<deep breath>
No, you fucking tool. Take a look at this keyboard. Do you see anything missing? Here's a ThinkPad keyboard for reference. Go back and forth a couple of times if you have to. Hint: I'm not talking about the color of the keys.
Now, if you're a person who actually uses their keyboard, like, knows the home keys and actually types shit other than the occasional "WTF D00D", you'd know just how important and useful these fuckers are. On the ThinkPad, you get those keys exactly as you'd expect them, in exactly the same pattern you'd expect them. No keyboard combinatorial acrobatics required. Not to mention they feel like actual keys and not like some programmable drum pad from the 80s.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:46 AM on July 12, 2010
Aw damn, I totally missed this.
<deep breath>
No, you fucking tool. Take a look at this keyboard. Do you see anything missing? Here's a ThinkPad keyboard for reference. Go back and forth a couple of times if you have to. Hint: I'm not talking about the color of the keys.
Now, if you're a person who actually uses their keyboard, like, knows the home keys and actually types shit other than the occasional "WTF D00D", you'd know just how important and useful these fuckers are. On the ThinkPad, you get those keys exactly as you'd expect them, in exactly the same pattern you'd expect them. No keyboard combinatorial acrobatics required. Not to mention they feel like actual keys and not like some programmable drum pad from the 80s.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:46 AM on July 12, 2010
Well, I have no idea what happened to a post I made back on July 9 (it seems to have vanished), but it was basically along the lines of this:
It sounded like the OP was on the fence about switching to Mac. It seemed like people like you were keeping on the Windows side. I honestly don't care which he chooses, and then I went on to explain that I had been helping my girlfriend price out a new Dell less than a week ago before she checked out a MacBook Pro and found that it's a significantly better computer and basically sold herself on it. What does bother me is when people perpetuate the "I know Windows, therefore Windows is awesome and OS X must suck" attitude. (Especially that "Macs are expensive, therefore they suck" attitude... You get what you pay for! By your logic, a Chevy with a 200 HP engine beats a Mercedes with a 150 HP engine...)
Processor: Have you actually used a 64-bit computer? They do hard computer significantly faster than 32-bit computers. Manipulating photos = hard computing.
Screen: Most photos aren't 4:3... My Cannon Kiss X3 (aka T1i) takes photos which are approx 4.7:3.2. But, let's assume they are actually 4:3. That means the photo will fill your screen and then there's no room for toolboxes or anything other than on top of the photo. :-/
Keyboard: Sure, you don't get those keys. But, because Apple has this extra "Command" key integrated into the OS, they were able to make simple keyboard shortcuts using it which replace Home, End, Page Up, and Page Down. Just hold the Command key and press left, right, up, or down, respectively. Best of all, using those shortcuts keeps your hands right where they normally are for typing instead of having to go use those specialty keys.
Trackpad: Way to completely ignore the awesomeness of the MacBook trackpad with the OS integrated two, three, and four finger swipes!
Let me reiterate: I really have no investment in the decision the OP makes. It's just, I hate seeing misinformation spread around and I would like to have the whole truth here instead of just your one-sided point of view.
posted by StarmanDXE at 11:45 AM on July 12, 2010
It sounded like the OP was on the fence about switching to Mac. It seemed like people like you were keeping on the Windows side. I honestly don't care which he chooses, and then I went on to explain that I had been helping my girlfriend price out a new Dell less than a week ago before she checked out a MacBook Pro and found that it's a significantly better computer and basically sold herself on it. What does bother me is when people perpetuate the "I know Windows, therefore Windows is awesome and OS X must suck" attitude. (Especially that "Macs are expensive, therefore they suck" attitude... You get what you pay for! By your logic, a Chevy with a 200 HP engine beats a Mercedes with a 150 HP engine...)
Processor: Have you actually used a 64-bit computer? They do hard computer significantly faster than 32-bit computers. Manipulating photos = hard computing.
Screen: Most photos aren't 4:3... My Cannon Kiss X3 (aka T1i) takes photos which are approx 4.7:3.2. But, let's assume they are actually 4:3. That means the photo will fill your screen and then there's no room for toolboxes or anything other than on top of the photo. :-/
Keyboard: Sure, you don't get those keys. But, because Apple has this extra "Command" key integrated into the OS, they were able to make simple keyboard shortcuts using it which replace Home, End, Page Up, and Page Down. Just hold the Command key and press left, right, up, or down, respectively. Best of all, using those shortcuts keeps your hands right where they normally are for typing instead of having to go use those specialty keys.
Trackpad: Way to completely ignore the awesomeness of the MacBook trackpad with the OS integrated two, three, and four finger swipes!
Let me reiterate: I really have no investment in the decision the OP makes. It's just, I hate seeing misinformation spread around and I would like to have the whole truth here instead of just your one-sided point of view.
posted by StarmanDXE at 11:45 AM on July 12, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
It's a bad idea to use a laptop screen to process photos. Even if you find a laptop with a really nice screen, it is kind of moot because when you open and close your laptop screen, it will be at a slightly different position every time. That really affects things when you're dealing with delicate balances in dynamic range and color reproduction.
While I have a laptop that I use for photo processing, I do my processing when the laptop is hooked up to a calibrated monitor. I usually have it set up so that the laptop screen is a second screen, and if I move the image from the calibrated monitor to the uncalibrated laptop screen, the difference is enormous. You can calibrate a laptop screen, but what's the point? Again, it will be in a different position every time so unless you want to spend 5 minutes fully calibrating every time you open your laptop, your better bet is a dependable monitor.
My laptop is more than a year old now, but I bought a fully-loaded Dell XPS, a line that I recommend because it comes with all the good stuff and none of the pointless extras. Except that it came with a high-gloss laptop screen, which seem to be hard to avoid. (I can't imagine trying to process photos on a high-gloss laptop screen. The whole idea is stupid, honestly.) I have been very happy with the laptop, which cost me less than $1300. I have a NEC monitor and use an Eye1 calibration device.
posted by aabbbiee at 8:59 AM on July 9, 2010 [1 favorite]