Posted by Paul Wegemann on August 23, 2009 at 7:09 AM
I'm looking for a good (not cheap, not top of the line) laptop for Photoshop and Lightroom use. Speed is not as important as an accurate and profilable display. Can anyone offer any recommendations? I don't really care if it's a Mac or PC.
Thanks,
Paul
I have a MacBook Pro, which I'd recommend, as it has accurate colours and sharp details. Macs have a good reputation for photo editing purposes, so even a less expensive MacBook should be pretty good if that's more within your price range.
I have made only brief comparisons with others' PCs, but that was enough to reconfirm my happiness with MacBook Pro, too. Lots less troublesome to maintain and use, as well as fast and durable. I've got the 15" and find it the best compromise in size for both usefulness and compactness when traveling.
I have to admit that I dropped mine and it left an unsightly dent in a front corner. To my great relief, it still functions like new.
I'm not saying PCs are worse, rather I'm just happier with mine.
Posted by Rohn B. McKee on August 23, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Mac easy
PC hard
Posted by Kah Kit Yoong on August 23, 2009 at 12:46 PM
Get the 15" MacBook Pro, the latest version now comes with an anti-glare matte option. The 13" have previously had inferior screens compared to the 15". I presume this is still the case.
Posted by Carol Hyman on August 23, 2009 at 3:05 PM
MacBook Pro, beyond a shadow of a doubt. I've used my 3 years and never been unhappy. Get the max RAM, which I believe is currently 4 Gb
Oh, yes, do go with the anti-glare matte option for the monitor.
Carol
Posted by Kurt Budliger on August 23, 2009 at 3:27 PM
Consider me another vote for the macbook pro. I love mine, colors are good but you'll still want to connect to a better display for really color critical work.
To fly in the face of conventional wisdom, and since I don't drink the kool-aid that Apple serves, I will say that the Macbook Pro is no better or worse than any PC-based notebook - the display is 6 bit times three or 18 bit - which means that it can only display 262,000 simultaneous colors, which is clearly not even close enough for photo editing.
One that does come to mind is the Lenovo W700, which offers a 17" display that provides 100% of sRGB and 72% of Adobe RGB color gamut that has built in calibration and profiling, powerful CPU and memory options, many ports for connectivity, fast graphics cards, and a built in Wacom tablet. It is a computer designed for the professional graphics person with all the bells and whistles. Now the bad news - it weighs 12 lbs and costs over $3000 in a workable configuration.
At the risk of offending those who have made the purchase of a Macbook Pro, if it were my intent to use the computer's display for photo editing, I would not select it. It is fine if you connect a decent 8 bit monitor to it.
Here is a comparison of 4 models - Macbook Pro 15", Dell Mini 9, Lenovo T60 (discontinued), and the Lenovo W700 -
One of the problems I've seen with all laptops is the poor vertical viewing angle of the displays. Make sure to check this out before purchase. I finally just decided to put up with the laptop display and for critical editing/viewing use an external display.
I had an old IBM laptop with a great screen, but it was just to slow to use.
Posted by John Mumaw on August 23, 2009 at 9:46 PM
Thanks for posting the Galbraith link, and for providing some much needed perspective, Gene!
Posted by Paul Wegemann on August 24, 2009 at 12:20 AM
Thanks for your input, everyone. I really appreciate it.
Posted by Dan Baumbach on August 24, 2009 at 10:44 AM
For all you Macbook fans. I currently work on a Macbook pro but still do all my image editing with a PC. It's an older dual-core Intel Mac with a metal case. Even setting it up for 2.2 gamma, the screen is still noticably warmer than my calibrated PC. This is when both of them are driving my Dell 24" monitor. Is there a way to make the Mac screen cooler?
- Dan.
Posted by Jim DeWitt on August 24, 2009 at 7:58 PM
I don't know if "drink the kool-aid that Apple serves" really advances the discussion all that much. I prefer facts: I have lugged my MacBook Pro from Amazonian Ecuador to the Arctic coastal plain and all points in between. I have used it in sleet in Gambell, Alaska, in 110 degree heat in Arizona and in -40 degree F. in Interior Alaska. I have had exactly one problem: the power cord had to be replaced, which Apple did for free even though it was out of warranty.
I have never spent a penny on malware protection. I've never had to erase the hard disk and re-install system software. I've never had or been threatened by a malware attack. I can fly from Fairbanks to Quito and get by with two batteries. I can run Photoshop CS3 with perfectly acceptable speed. I can even run Windows software if I really want to.
It's a tool, not a religion. For me, it is a durable, powerful, cost-effective tool, stable as a brick and powerful enough to let me listen to tunes, get email and run PS all at the same time. Your mileage may vary, but on a life-cycle basis, I'll take my savings where I find them.
Dan, you can customize the gamma to your desires: System Preferences > Displays > Color. Click on the Calibrate... Button and click the "Expert Mode" checkbox and go through the Calibrator Assistant dialogs.
Gene's references to a Rob Galbraith article is about the previous versions of the MacBook's. The latest article and review from Rob Galbraith from July 1, 2009, is about the latest versions of the MacBook line of laptops and is at http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-10041-10146 . The newest version of Apple's laptops, including the 13" model, are much improved and can be profiled very easily. From the article:
"Fast forward to today and the overall MacBook Pro story is quite different: not only does the recently-revamped MacBook Pro 15 inch now ship with a superb colour-accurate display, but the new MacBook Pro 13 inch does too. "
If Apple provides a true color display, ie, 8 bit, capable of displaying 16.7M colors or 256 shades per color, then it would be in their best interests to do so. They don't, which leads me to believe that it is just like most other laptop screens, a 6 bit display, only capable of 262k colors, or only 64 shades per color. That is not enough to do critical photo editing.
Paul's original question was for an accurate and profilable screen.
Apple's screen is profilable, and for the colors that it displays is probably as accurate as you are going to find. However, for critical work you find it frustrating to work with a display that has a very narrow gamut, and uses dithering to show out of gamut colors. With all due respect to Mr. Galbraith, dithered display is fine for everything including hobby/enthusiast level photo editing, but not for color-critical applications. If it is that good, then manufacturers are wasting time and money developing wider gamut display systems. If you want to see the difference between color depth and you are on a PC, simply adjust the display parameters to show high color as opposed to true color - the colors will not change, so accuracy remains the same, but the lower color depth and dithering will diminish subtle luminance and hue transitions.
Here is a good article that explains the difference between 6 and 8 bit displays.
Apple still prefers to skirt the issue of pixel depth in their specifications, perhaps because of the two lawsuits, at least one of which was settled out of court, presumeably so Apple did not have to answer the question. If you call Apple and ask what the pixel depth is, still they respond with "its proprietary information" and nowhere in the literature does it state the pixel depth. The original Macbook Pro screen was only capable of 40% of NTSC gamut, so a 60% improvement brings it up to 72% NTSC, but still not adequate by current professional standards. Compare that to the Sony AW which has 137% of Adobe RGB, or other 8 bit desktop displays and you will readily see the difference. The MBP is a significant improvement, and look spectacular especially with video (video editing is my favorite application for the MBP), it is still lacking for critical photo work, where I prefer to work on my Eizo 21" CRT display.
John, as Paul pointed out, the Galbraith link has been updated, sort of, with new qualitative, but sadly not quantitative information about the new displays.
Here is a good article and some test images that can illustrate the difference between 6 and 8 bit displays:
Calling a MBP color accurate may not be technically incorrect, but saying that it is the preferred display for accurate photo editing, which is what this thread is all about, is misleading.
Posted by Charlie Bierly on September 1, 2009 at 11:32 AM
Art Morris (BIRDS AS ART) just ordered a new laptop for processing photos in the field. He uses a laptop for 99% of his optimizing.
See:
http://www.birdsasart.com/bn297.htm
BIRDS AS ART BULLETIN #297
August 31, 2009
Visit www.birdsasart.com
Posted by Nat Coalson on September 1, 2009 at 7:09 PM
Whatever you do, don't use your laptop for your "final" editing. The displays on current laptops aren't up to snuff.
If you need to work on pictures out in the field, fine, and all of the current laptops can be profiled/calibrated to some extent. Just dim the brightness a couple of stops.
Right now I use a Dell Inspiron 1525 in the field... can't afford a nice new Mac and my old PowerBook G4 doesn't quite cut it.
For final processing, a late model NEC LCD on a dedicated machine is the only way to go.
I look at my laptop as a portable hard drive that happens to have a 17 inch screen on it.
Discussion
16 repliesThanks,
Paul
I have to admit that I dropped mine and it left an unsightly dent in a front corner. To my great relief, it still functions like new.
I'm not saying PCs are worse, rather I'm just happier with mine.
PC hard
Oh, yes, do go with the anti-glare matte option for the monitor.
Carol
One that does come to mind is the Lenovo W700, which offers a 17" display that provides 100% of sRGB and 72% of Adobe RGB color gamut that has built in calibration and profiling, powerful CPU and memory options, many ports for connectivity, fast graphics cards, and a built in Wacom tablet. It is a computer designed for the professional graphics person with all the bells and whistles. Now the bad news - it weighs 12 lbs and costs over $3000 in a workable configuration.
At the risk of offending those who have made the purchase of a Macbook Pro, if it were my intent to use the computer's display for photo editing, I would not select it. It is fine if you connect a decent 8 bit monitor to it.
Here is a comparison of 4 models - Macbook Pro 15", Dell Mini 9, Lenovo T60 (discontinued), and the Lenovo W700 -
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-9320-9876
And here you will find a decent review of the W700
http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=4638
I had an old IBM laptop with a great screen, but it was just to slow to use.
- Dan.
I have never spent a penny on malware protection. I've never had to erase the hard disk and re-install system software. I've never had or been threatened by a malware attack. I can fly from Fairbanks to Quito and get by with two batteries. I can run Photoshop CS3 with perfectly acceptable speed. I can even run Windows software if I really want to.
It's a tool, not a religion. For me, it is a durable, powerful, cost-effective tool, stable as a brick and powerful enough to let me listen to tunes, get email and run PS all at the same time. Your mileage may vary, but on a life-cycle basis, I'll take my savings where I find them.
Dan, you can customize the gamma to your desires: System Preferences > Displays > Color. Click on the Calibrate... Button and click the "Expert Mode" checkbox and go through the Calibrator Assistant dialogs.
Gene's references to a Rob Galbraith article is about the previous versions of the MacBook's. The latest article and review from Rob Galbraith from July 1, 2009, is about the latest versions of the MacBook line of laptops and is at http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-10041-10146 . The newest version of Apple's laptops, including the 13" model, are much improved and can be profiled very easily. From the article:
"Fast forward to today and the overall MacBook Pro story is quite different: not only does the recently-revamped MacBook Pro 15 inch now ship with a superb colour-accurate display, but the new MacBook Pro 13 inch does too. "
Cheers,
Duane
Paul's original question was for an accurate and profilable screen.
Apple's screen is profilable, and for the colors that it displays is probably as accurate as you are going to find. However, for critical work you find it frustrating to work with a display that has a very narrow gamut, and uses dithering to show out of gamut colors. With all due respect to Mr. Galbraith, dithered display is fine for everything including hobby/enthusiast level photo editing, but not for color-critical applications. If it is that good, then manufacturers are wasting time and money developing wider gamut display systems. If you want to see the difference between color depth and you are on a PC, simply adjust the display parameters to show high color as opposed to true color - the colors will not change, so accuracy remains the same, but the lower color depth and dithering will diminish subtle luminance and hue transitions.
Here is a good article that explains the difference between 6 and 8 bit displays.
http://compreviews.about.com/od/multimedia/a/LCDColor.htm
Apple still prefers to skirt the issue of pixel depth in their specifications, perhaps because of the two lawsuits, at least one of which was settled out of court, presumeably so Apple did not have to answer the question. If you call Apple and ask what the pixel depth is, still they respond with "its proprietary information" and nowhere in the literature does it state the pixel depth. The original Macbook Pro screen was only capable of 40% of NTSC gamut, so a 60% improvement brings it up to 72% NTSC, but still not adequate by current professional standards. Compare that to the Sony AW which has 137% of Adobe RGB, or other 8 bit desktop displays and you will readily see the difference. The MBP is a significant improvement, and look spectacular especially with video (video editing is my favorite application for the MBP), it is still lacking for critical photo work, where I prefer to work on my Eizo 21" CRT display.
John, as Paul pointed out, the Galbraith link has been updated, sort of, with new qualitative, but sadly not quantitative information about the new displays.
Here is a good article and some test images that can illustrate the difference between 6 and 8 bit displays:
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/6bit_8bit.htm
Calling a MBP color accurate may not be technically incorrect, but saying that it is the preferred display for accurate photo editing, which is what this thread is all about, is misleading.
See:
http://www.birdsasart.com/bn297.htm
BIRDS AS ART BULLETIN #297
August 31, 2009
Visit www.birdsasart.com
If you need to work on pictures out in the field, fine, and all of the current laptops can be profiled/calibrated to some extent. Just dim the brightness a couple of stops.
Right now I use a Dell Inspiron 1525 in the field... can't afford a nice new Mac and my old PowerBook G4 doesn't quite cut it.
For final processing, a late model NEC LCD on a dedicated machine is the only way to go.
I look at my laptop as a portable hard drive that happens to have a 17 inch screen on it.