# Laptop comparison for fast and reliable photoediting



## KongKurs (May 12, 2011)

Hi y'all..

I've been thinking about getting a Macbook Pro, since my age old Acer Travelmate seems to crash and be very slow at photo editing. I do a bit of HDR, panoramas and Photoshop CS5 editing, and we all know this requires a bit of power.

Trying _NOT _to start a "PC vs. MAC" debate here, I still find myself drawn towards a Mac, since I'm generally tired of working at PC's..

But the Macbook Pro's are just more expensive compared to the PC's, so I stand at a crossroads, going ether for the MAC OS or some more hardware-power..

Take a look at this comparison, for instance:
Elgiganten|

The PB is cheaper, has more (although slower) RAM and 1GB dedicated video card, the MAC has 385MB onboard video? I've always heard one should avoid onboard video RAM, but also that MAC's are very good at photo editing, and many many photographers still recommend these.. I'd love a MAC, but maybe it's just because I want to avoid Windows...

What's more important when photoediting? CPU speed or Video RAM?

What would you go for, and why?


----------



## LarissaPhotography (May 12, 2011)

We're needing a new laptop too.  I'm sure we'll go pc just because we've never done anything but pc.  Either way, I'm interested to see what people suggest.


----------



## KongKurs (May 12, 2011)

Please note as well, that one of the reasons I tend to lean towards getting a Mac is that I assume that it is more stable..

Heck, I've been photoshopping on my Acer 1GB with onboard graphics for years now.. And even though it _is_ awfully slow, and it would be nice with more speed, the main problem is the stability of the system.. And even after I upgrated to 4GB, Photoshop still crashes on me... I prioritize stability before speed...

Plus, the Mac's have a reputation for having some of the best LCD-displays out there...?


----------



## Big Mike (May 12, 2011)

Fast is one thing...but 'reliable' isn't something I'd say about photo editing on a laptop (any laptop) unless you use it in a proper work station with a proper (external) monitor.  

When you're getting serious about photo editing, you really need to think about calibration of your display.  Laptops don't have great screens to start with, but because of the way we use laptops, the viewing angle and environment is unlikely to be consistent, so you may never really know if what you are seeing, is how the image actually should look.



> What's more important when photoediting? CPU speed or Video RAM?


I'm no expert, but I'd say that CPU speed and CPU RAM are the most important.  It wasn't until recently that Photoshop actually became able to really use Video RAM at all.


----------



## KongKurs (May 12, 2011)

Big Mike said:


> Fast is one thing...but 'reliable' isn't something I'd say about photo editing on a laptop (any laptop) unless you use it in a proper work station with a proper (external) monitor.


 
I'm sure that's true, but I'm looking to get the best stable laptop available in the Macbook Pro price range, since my apartment doesn't allow a proper workstation for a permanent stationary PC. The flexibility of a laptop is a must for me... External monitor is the next upgrade on the list..



Big Mike said:


> When you're getting serious about photo editing, you really need to think about calibration of your display. Laptops don't have great screens to start with, but because of the way we use laptops, the viewing angle and environment is unlikely to be consistent, so you may never really know if what you are seeing, is how the image actually should look.


 
Agreed, and I've read a few articles that favours the Macs on this point...


----------



## KmH (May 12, 2011)

Yep, the Mac Book pro is one of the few laptops that has an IPS type display.


----------



## Cyclographist (May 12, 2011)

I did a little reading on ips displays but am still confused. How are they advantageous for photo editing?


----------



## KmH (May 19, 2011)

Most laptops have a TN display. TN displays have limited accurate viewing angles compared to IPS displays.

One of the problems with laptops (even laptops having an IPS display) is that if you do your editing in different locations the amount and color of the ambient light changes and the display has to be re-calibrated to ensure you are making accurate edits.

TFT LCD - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## stevod (Jun 13, 2011)

If you're working with big files then IMHO the most important thing is to use SSD storage rather than HDD storage.  Changing this in my laptop (which I also dock to a large monitor as a workstation) changed my computing experience like nothing else - the speed is incredible.  They still seem to be expensive when fitted new, and it generally cheaper to buy the laptop with the HDD in, and then swap out for an SSD drive.  I use the Intel and have had no problems.

Re screens, there's a new Vaio Z coming next month.  Looks like it will use the same panels as the existing one (1600 x 900 and also a full HD panel at 13.1") and the quality is fantastic for a laptop.

Hope this helps.

S


----------



## tyler_h (Jun 13, 2011)

The Video Card (onboard or dedicated) is like a replication of your CPU/RAM/Motherboard specifically for driving your screen. In photo editing nothing is going to be that intensive on your video card.

You'll have to read and write large raw and photoshop documents; so harddrive (or SSD) speed is important. For most computers this is the bottleneck; the CPU and RAM will be underutilised as they wait for the file to be read. I'm yet to get a SSD for my desktop and I have a lengthy wait time for reading/writing files when they turn into 500+MB .psd's so CPU, RAM, and graphics are all irrelevant for that time. SSD will also increase your useful battery life. They consume less power (typically) but more importantly by shortening the delay the CPU/RAM see waiting for the information to be read they reduce the power use there.

Looking at in terms of what will best reduce your editing time I'd give priority to an SSD and RAM, followed by CPU then graphics.


----------



## stevod (Jun 13, 2011)

One thought on GPUs though - if you get one which has a CUDA-compatible driver (Nvidia only? Can someone confirm?) then you'll get GPU acceleration in PS.

And no point putting in more than 4GB unless you have a 64bit version of Windows.

SSD is still no.1 though, and although expensive, I think they offer great value for this sort of work.

S


----------

