Laptop Advice for Photography

cauliflowers

Hi there,

I have recently taken the plunge and have purchased my first DSLR (Nikon 3300D) and I love it! I am slowly getting to grips with it but now realise my laptop is useless and it is holding me back greatly from getting cracking with using the camera. My current laptop is years old, the storage is full (I'm using an external hard drive too but I'm only able to view pictures very slowly) and it is very temperamental but has served me well.

What should I look for in a new laptop which will be used predominantly for photography? Off the top of my head, I guess a good sized high quality monitor. Good storage (particularly as I would like to shoot RAW as I improve). I want to be able to edit photos with minimal effort. I would like to also spend as little as possible too so would really appreciate if anyone could provide any feedback on what I should look back and point me in the direction of good laptops to consider and what sort of prices they might be?

Thanks in advance !!

Donal55

I know a professional photographer and he prefers a desk top over a laptop for photo processing.

bogman

cauliflowers wrote: »

What should I look for in a new laptop which will be used predominantly for photography? Off the top of my head, I guess a good sized high quality monitor. Good storage (particularly as I would like to shoot RAW as I improve).

I want to be able to edit photos with minimal effort.

I would like to also spend as little as possible too

Interesting, I am in the same situation and have been looking out for a suitable laptop for the past month or two without too much luck, for me the laptop would have to have
I7/I5 Processor
16+GB ram
Dedicated graphics 2GB, 4GB+ preferable
Hybrid SSD/HDD storage 256/2TB
64 bit OS
I have an early 2009 24" Imac, want to upgrade but would prefer not to go the desktop route.
Wonder if anyone can help out both of us...

BreadnBuddha

Ye need to share your budgets folks. There's no point in people trying to help and coming up way beyond what you can spend. Give what you're comfortable spending and what you'd push it to, for the right machine.

Cianmcliam

bogman wrote: »

Interesting, I am in the same situation and have been looking out for a suitable laptop for the past month or two without too much luck, for me the laptop would have to have
I7/I5 Processor
16+GB ram
Dedicated graphics 2GB, 4GB+ preferable
Hybrid SSD/HDD storage 256/2TB
64 bit OS
I have an early 2009 24" Imac, want to upgrade but would prefer not to go the desktop route.
Wonder if anyone can help out both of us...

Not sure you would need 16GB RAM, it would be nice but 8 is plenty for photo editing. 16GB would be good for video. I have been using Lightroom and Photoshop simultaneously for years on 8GB and it's fast.

I was just looking at new laptops today and there seems to be a big jump in price between 8GB and 16GB but you might not see the full benefit. You can always add more down the road.

The more important aspect is the display, you want IPS at a minimum with 95-100% sRGB gamut. That is where manufacturers cut costs, the displays are often only 60% of RGB and as they say, you can't edit colours you can't see.

Bacchus

Screen quality and disk space are two very important considerations.
1. Screen quality... obvious really
2. Disk space... not just because you want to store RAW & JPEG but because with a full (or fairly full) disk your laptop will run slower. More RAM helps but the disk will be the bottleneck. Ideally, if budget allows get a laptop with an SSD drive on it and implement a regular (monthly/quarterly) process of moving RAW files to an external disk once you're done with them to keep the disk usage down. Alternatively go the hybrid SSD/HDD route as suggested above.

Not sure how important a dedicated graphics card is to be honest when it comes to Lightroom or Photoshop. I would have thought that was more for the video (and gaming) side of things.

bogman

cauliflowers wrote: »

I would like to also spend as little as possible

Thats not going to happen, going to cost €1200 minimum if you want to get something anyway decent, if you are on a budget go the desktop route.

Bacchus

bogman wrote: »

Thats not going to happen, going to cost €1200 minimum if you want to get something anyway decent, if you are on a budget go the desktop route.

I disagree. I got a nicely spec'd Acer laptop 2 years ago with a lovely screen, i7 processor, 8Gb RAM and 1TB drive for around €700... give or take. It has served me well but I need to clear out my disk as LR is starting to get a bit sluggish.

A grand would easily get you nice laptop that would fit requirements IMO. You do get more bang for your buck though with a desktop... but quality monitors can be pricey - they will probably be better than a laptop monitor though and you can go bigger with them too

EDIT: I should add I got the laptop during January sales IIRC so that obviously helped with the price

Paulw

For storage - buy external disks. You should also backup your internal disk data on to an external disk. External disks are cheap.

You really want a good monitor.

When in the field, I use a laptop. But, when I get home, everything goes on to my desktop. More storage, better monitor, better processor and specs.

My laptop is a MacBook Pro 2016.

bogman

I have adequate external storage, 2 Lacie 2tb rugged hard drives, thanks for your comments, can anybody recommend laptops suitable for Photoshop/Lightroom.

Dinarius

I would never process on a laptop - always on a desktop.

Laptops are great for capture on location. You can have a much bigger preview than the back of the camera, and you have the added security of a second copy of your files.

But, there is no comparison between editing on a laptop and editing on a colour calibrated desktop monitor.

D.

Dinarius

Dinarius wrote: »

I would never process on a laptop - always on a desktop.

Laptops are great for capture on location. You can have a much bigger preview than the back of the camera, and you have the added security of a second copy of your files.

But, there is no comparison between editing on a laptop and editing on a colour calibrated desktop monitor.

D.

A retina display on an MPB will accurately represent 99%+ of sRGB. Plenty of windows laptops will do the same. That's plenty good enough for the vast majority of people, even enthusiastic amateurs, especially if it's for online publishing and viewing.

Adobe RGB is a different story but even then, you're into spending as much on an accurate monitor as you would on a mid level DSLR body. IMHO, you need to be looking very seriously at prints/traditional publication to justify that kind of investment for it to be a sensible expense.

For a professional photographer such as yourself that's entirely justified. As someone who's just bought a D3300 (which I'm far from knocking, as a great entry level Nikon), I doubt that can be reasoned out the same way.

Dinarius

I take your points.

But, you can build a reasonable desktop for the price of a good laptop.

If the desktop goes awry, you whip out the faulty part and replace it. Laptops are a different story.

But, I totally accept it's horses for courses.

D.

beauf

I much prefer desktops. How ever most people only have a laptop these days. Most reviews of high end laptops often comment on the accuracy of the screens. Most of them are fixated on editing 4k video.

CabanSail

I have a Macbook Pro with the RAM full to 16GB. It has the 17" screen and use external hard drives. It goes into the camera bag when travelling along with the Wacom Graphics Tablet. When at home it is connected to a 27" full gammat Adobe RGB monitor.

Would like to upgrade the laptop myself but I cannot find a suitable replacement. Do not want to put up with Windoze rubbish and Apple have not released anything worth buying. I await their next model and hope that it is better than the current offering. If not I will be forced back into the Microstuffed viod.

Dinarius

CabanSail wrote: »

I have a Macbook Pro with the RAM full to 16GB. It has the 17" screen and use external hard drives. It goes into the camera bag when travelling along with the Wacom Graphics Tablet. When at home it is connected to a 27" full gammat Adobe RGB monitor.

Would like to upgrade the laptop myself but I cannot find a suitable replacement. Do not want to put up with Windoze rubbish and Apple have not released anything worth buying. I await their next model and hope that it is better than the current offering. If not I will be forced back into the Microstuffed viod.

Why do you have a problem with Windows? The most important bits of a Mac are also used in Windows computers.

You can have a Windows "Porsche with a keyboard", for a fraction of the price of an equivalent Mac - if you can even get an equivalent Mac. My build is i6800k, 64Gb RAM, 1080 GPU. It has 2 x 4TB drives for storage and 256/500Gb SSDs for software and processing. It spits out 175Mb Canon files in about 3 seconds. It cost about Euro2.5k (excl. monitor) A similar Mac would cost twice that. Windoze? I don't think so. And if it ever develops a fault, I can fix it myself.

The days of Macs being better for photo/graphics software ended years ago.

But, as I said above, it's horses for courses. The MacBook I use on location is fabulous. But, I'd never use one back at base. I prefer the customisation of Windows.

D.

Cork Photographer

Hi there, my personal preference is MacBook pro or iMac. Windows just didn't meet the mark for visual presentation, speed, file management and options. I switch three years ago to IOS and haven't looked back. It seems like a big layout of cash at €1,400 for the MBP but you will find that better results in less time worth every penny.

Hope this helps,
GK

Sheeps

Set yourself a budget and stick to it. There's no right answer when it comes to a laptop for photo editing (beyond having a true representation of colour) or anything for that matter. For a reasonable budget of about €1000 you can get the 80% then you're going to be putting double in for the extra 20% of that performance. The hardware has very little to do with it anyway (and now you can only use light room in the cloud anyway, unless you had it previously).

A 13" macbook pro is a nice choice, if you want the beautiful apple design and user experience that's extremely portable. You'll be paying the extra, but you will just have to decide if you value the build quality and design for the price.

You can pick up a dell XPS for a bit cheaper which again has the nice factor for a bit less than the apple machine if you're looking for windows. You can probably find a less portable slightly uglier laptop for a bit cheaper if you want too. Bump up the graphics card and spend the extra cash on a nice monitor.


I have a 15" Mac Book pro (which is an absolute work horse, by far the best laptop I've owned), but I also have I'm running windows 10 on a desktop that i built (albeit I originally put the desktop together for gaming). A 27" dell ultrasharp gives me plenty of screen real estate and I can switch the source between the desktop and mac depending on what I'm feeling like. They're both great for photo editing, software development and gaming.

Heebie

As Sheeps said, stick with your budget.

I'll also preface this comment with this statement: I am not an Apple "fanboy" (I'm a Linux user myself most of the time.)

That being said, Adobe's applications in particular run better on a Mac with a good video subsystem in it. My MacBook Pro, which is ancient, is still usable for editing 36MP photos on Lightroom and Photoshop, mainly due to the good graphics engine in it, coupled with the fact that Adobe's products will use the GPU when running on a Mac. (last I knew, the same was not true of PS or LR running on Windows, giving a Mac a significant speed advantage.) The older MacBook's cannot be upgraded to the very latest MacOSX, and never will be, so checking that any used Mac you buy is compatible with the latest MacOS *BEFORE* you purchase it is a good idea.

I'm hoping to move to a newer MacBook Pro sometime in the future, but for the moment, upgrading mine to SSD disk, and maxing out the RAM was definitely a good idea. Getting a Mac Pro (desktop) seems to be quite expensive, although there seem to be plenty on eBay in the used arena. A desktop should give significantly more power for the money.. but won't be usable in remote-location shoots. (If you like to shoot tethered, this can be a big deal.)

beauf

Just to correct you graphics card acceleration is dependent on the graphics card. It's doesn't seem to be Mac only.

https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb/photoshop-cc-gpu-card-faq.html

The faster the card the more acceleration. You can build a faster desktop than a laptop for cheaper. Though if it needs to be portable the obviously a laptop is better. Get both is there best of worlds.

A premium pc laptop is on a par with MacBook. It really comes down to personal preference of the OS.

Reati

I use both mac and windows machines but right now my laptop driver is a dell xps 15 9550 (4K screen, 16gb ram, 512 SSD 960gtm) w/ win10.

You can get a bettr spec Windows laptop for less than a top end and worse spec mac. It's more about the OS and truth be told little difference in them.

Any way the 9550 is stunning yolk so it is. Drives 2 externals screens at 2K. Lighting fast but very pricey so you want to ensure your income covers the expense of it.

If on a budget, get a desktop. You can custom job it and upgrade as you can afford it.

Heebie

beauf wrote: »

Just to correct you graphics card acceleration is dependent on the graphics card. It's doesn't seem to be Mac only.

https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb/photoshop-cc-gpu-card-faq.html

Thanks for that information. It used to be that it would only use the GPU on a Mac. That has apparently changed.

Now if only Linux would get good colour control and Adobe would start supporting Linux! =D (I can dream, can't I?)

the_syco

Heebie wrote: »

Now if only Linux would get good colour control and Adobe would start supporting Linux! =D (I can dream, can't I?)

They'd have to only pick one distro to release it on, and ensure that the random choice would support it well.

purplemonkey79

Hi I've been looking at going down the route of mac mini hooked up to my 4k tv at home ,due mainly to lack of space
I am only starting out in the world of photography (more hobby than professional work) and wonder would this route
be of any use ?

Heebie

It might work. If it does work, and you have the necessary calibration kit & software, it should work well. If you can get a colour profile from the manufacturer, that might be adequate if you don't have calibration software.

But.... there's a chance it might have adjustments that it makes dynamically based on content, so that even if you calibrated it, it might adjust itself in a fashion that makes the output no longer correct. I have a SONY Bravia, and it's useless for photo editing. It displays brights too bright, and darks too dark, and is inconsistent from one image to the next due to dynamic adjustments that I cannot turn off.

I'd check for reviews online, specifically looking for notes on photo editing and colour control specific to your exact telly model, and less so for the brand/line.

If it's a cheap brand, it's probably going to perform poorly in shadow areas, as well, so be careful of that. Check lots of content where you really know what it should look like, and how it displays.
If the display is curved, you have to be careful positioning the equipment to measure for calibration.. learned that when I got a curved monitor and the first few calibrations were *WAY* off

I wish you luck with it.

purplemonkey79 wrote: »

Hi I've been looking at going down the route of mac mini hooked up to my 4k tv at home ,due mainly to lack of space
I am only starting out in the world of photography (more hobby than professional work) and wonder would this route
be of any use ?

Tiriel

Dinarius wrote: »

I would never process on a laptop - always on a desktop.

Laptops are great for capture on location. You can have a much bigger preview than the back of the camera, and you have the added security of a second copy of your files.

But, there is no comparison between editing on a laptop and editing on a colour calibrated desktop monitor.

D.

I am a desktop user and what I will say is that if you want to participate in workshops, be a part of a camera club where you often share images/get tutorials etc. then a laptop is really the best way to go. Many workshops require you to bring in your own machine, something I simply can't do.

I love desktop for editing, has the power and the screen etc. Ideally.. if I had the budget I'd have both!

purplemonkey79

Heebie wrote: »

It might work. If it does work, and you have the necessary calibration kit & software, it should work well. If you can get a colour profile from the manufacturer, that might be adequate if you don't have calibration software.

But.... there's a chance it might have adjustments that it makes dynamically based on content, so that even if you calibrated it, it might adjust itself in a fashion that makes the output no longer correct. I have a SONY Bravia, and it's useless for photo editing. It displays brights too bright, and darks too dark, and is inconsistent from one image to the next due to dynamic adjustments that I cannot turn off.

I'd check for reviews online, specifically looking for notes on photo editing and colour control specific to your exact telly model, and less so for the brand/line.

If it's a cheap brand, it's probably going to perform poorly in shadow areas, as well, so be careful of that. Check lots of content where you really know what it should look like, and how it displays.
If the display is curved, you have to be careful positioning the equipment to measure for calibration.. learned that when I got a curved monitor and the first few calibrations were *WAY* off

I wish you luck with it.

Yea I was worried about the curve myself , I've a 49" Samsung curved and knew there'd bit a bit of fiddling around with hit

fingers crossed it works

uck51js9zml2yt

I've a 14" laptop but find it too small for photo editing.
I had thought about connecting a screen to it. Has 8gb Ram and 500gb ssd, no graphics card.
The other alternative is an all in one.

It would be used solely for photo editing so I'm slow to spend extra on a machine.

Ben D Bus

I do everything on a laptop (older i5 and 6Gb RAM). But when at home I plug it into a large monitor and wireless keyboard/mouse/Wacom tablet.

This works just fine but it's about 4 years old I think. A newer i5 machine and 8Gb would probably be more than enough.

Cianmcliam

About 60% of my processing is done on a laptop with a 100% sRGB screen, I use an external wide gamut monitor for critical stuff and stuff for web I often do on an iPad Air 2 now that RAW editing is supported. Snapseed is excellent and can now be used to apply the same look to lots of files.

A desktop hidden away in the office would be cheaper but this way you can still have a family life! Divorces are expensive I hear

Bacchus

This thread has evolved a bit

I'm actually considering a change to my setup too. Everything is on my laptop at the moment. It was well spec'd 3 years ago but starting to show its age. LR slowing down, loading up PS too reduces it to a crawl. I'd also like to invest in a separate monitor (around the 24" size) for the office. The options I'm considering are...

1. New monitor, wireless keyboard/mouse + NUC (i7, 16Gb RAM, 500Gb SSD). It would be a neat setup that can just live in the office. I'd still have my old laptop if I want to do culling/blogging on the go but all editing would be in office. Alternatively, I'd build my own mini PC if I can get better performance for my money.
2. New monitor, wireless keyboard/mouse + new laptop (i7, 13", 16Gb RAM, 500Gb SSD). Would plug into monitor etc. in office for bulk of work. Smaller screen makes it less practical for any work independent of the monitor but still usable. It'd be smaller than what I currently have so it would be more mobile and powerful (than what I currently have) for doing some work when I'm away or even just for backing up SD cards on the go.

Monitor + wireless keyboard/mouse would probably set me back around €350.

NUC would be about €500 with an i7 processor... + 500Gb SSD + 16Gb RAM... about €800-€850 in total? I could probably do better than that with a DIY build. Another upside of this option is that I could have it running a few other bits... Home Assistant springs to mind.

The Dell Inspiron 13 5000 2-in-1 with the spec I want is around €800 (on discount). That's the touch-screen one too... cheaper without touchscreen but whats the point of that on a 2-in-1. XPS 13 would be about €1300. If I dropped down to 8Gb RAM and 256Gb SSD, the XPS 13 comes in at around €1100. TBH, I'm not sure what I really get extra on the XPS systems that would justify the price difference. A more premium finish and a about 300g lighter?

Has anyone ever used Adobe CC (LR and PS specifically) on a touchscreen? How is it?