Best Laptop for Photographers?

[stevenseelig]

<p>I have also been a Mac user since the mid '80's. My recent experience is consistent with my 20 some odd years of using Macs. I had an iMac that would not start up, but it would start from a bootable backup drive. Took to the Apple Store and they confirmed it was likely a hard drive failure. But it was over 6 years old (first time to the computer emergency room) and they do not repair such ancient machines. But they provided a referral to another store and it was successfully repaired in less than 2 days. It was back up and running with the latest software in less than 3 days.<br>

All but one of my Macs have been decommissioned because the hardware would not run the latest software, but if I wanted to use the older software, they were fine. </p>

[carbon_dragon]

I've had more issues lately with my Macs (the 2013 MacBook Air and IOS7 on my phone and iPad) than I used to. I've

lost track of the number of crashes on my iPad and iPhone in the last couple of weeks. Much as I like my Macs, Apple

has had a tendency to just cut people off -- remember firewire, floppies, and now even CDs/DVDs. Apple has a

paternalistic certainty about what you need that PCs typically don't show.

 

 

What you get for those hair tearing out moments is usually a smoother running machine. Except that recently I think

quality control has suffered some and Apple has never like to admit mistakes. I wonder if Apple is quite so dedicated to

insanely great computing with out Steve Jobs demanding it. Microsoft isn't exactly like it was in the old says when Bill

Gates was running it either right? They're still great computers but perhaps there isn't as much to distinguish them as

there once was.

[JDMvW]

<p>By the way, for those who are too young to remember, here is the "1984" original Mac ad<br />

<br /> Although it was supposed to represent IBM, the ideologue making the speech looks more and more like Bill Gates as he has aged.</p>

<p>Apple is and always was a "walled garden" - that is its strength as well as its weakness. This is a "<a href="http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_17.htm">dialectical contradiction</a>", BTW</p>

[Brad_]

>>> Although it was supposed to represent IBM, ...

 

Even better, to look like John Opel, who was IBM's CEO at the time...

[EricM]

<blockquote>

<p>Wow, I've been a Mac user since 1984 (that's why it wasn't like 1984), and the software and operating system have progressed along a much more natural and easy path than I found to be the case in only 5 years of working on Windows.</p>

<p>Seen from the outside, it's Windows that has a history of never knowing what will run and will not...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>JDM, Windows does not need a "Rosetta". Windows hasn't been close to bankruptcy. Windows isn't ignoring their desktop market. Windows is showing innovation and putting in an effort into the future. But to expand further on my statement (<em>I'm not cool with Apples history of switching hardware and never knowing what's going going to be supported a year or two down the road.</em>), I'd like to know what OS from Apple that was released 14 years ago (such as Win XP) can be installed on today's AMD and Intel computers? What OS from Apple (like Win XP/W7/W8) can you install half a dozen different versions of Photoshop, Office or Lightroom, on? If you bought software in 2003 for a Mac (MS Office, Adobe etc.), could you load the cd of that software onto a 2013 machine running Mountain Lion today? That is, providing that there is even a CD tray...? Do you think there are any Windows/PC owners that will have trouble loading Lightroom 5 onto their 4 year old machines like there are Mac owners? That's sort of what I was getting at ;p</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>All but one of my Macs have been decommissioned because the hardware would not run the latest software, but if I wanted to use the older software, they were fine.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Steven, timely post :)</p>

[Norman 202]

useful thread. i'm looking to upgrade my laptop soon. i've played around with the mbp + retina in the shops and i'm very

impressed

<p>

as for the os wars, windows stymied the growth of the home desktop computer for 30 years with their <i>de facto

</i>standards and dreadful software. thanks to another m/soft guru, steve balmer, the desktop is dead.

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>I'd like to know what OS from Apple that was released 14 years ago (such as Win XP) can be installed on today's AMD and Intel computers?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Although this is getting as pointless as the arguments on whether Nikon was smarter to stick with the F mount, or Canon making a clean break to a new mount (EOS), my closing comment on the view from the Windows walled garden is:</p>

<p>What possible point could there be to installing a 14-year old OS? You think Windows XP was that good? Why on earth would you ever want to do that?</p>

<p>I lost whole classes of software to "updates" in 5-years of Windows use. I guess if you keep trying you can get it right sometime or other...<br>

BTW, you may have forgot that the OP, for reasons of his own, was in fact running Window XP on his MACINTOSH.</p>

[EricM]

<p>Are you able to answer any of my questions, JDM?</p>

<p>Windows isn't a "wall garden", JDM. You have your OS's mixed up. The fact that Windows is the opposite, an open playing field, makes it the virus magnet that it is.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What possible point could there be to installing a 14-year old OS?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You're otherwise saying you can't appreciate 14 years of never having to worry about hardware and software compatibility...I find that really odd. My dentist, my bank teller, my car mechanic, the library, and on and on the (enterprise) list goes, all run XP. Do I like it? Gosh, no....XP has the most known viruses and malware off all the OS's.</p>

[upsman]

<p>IN response to the comment - "I use a laptop with native screen resolution of 1280 x 768, yet when I connect it to a large HDTV via the HMDI port and cables, I do have the 1920 x 1080 resolution pictures on the HDTV."<br /><br />Well I bought a Levono laptop with the same "native resolution" and I couldn't for the life of me get it to spew out 1920x1080 on my HD TV. The reason I put the "requirement" of the high resolution was more to make sure the graphics card supported the dang thing. I ended up sending that unit back and I hate doing that to companies.<br>

<br />I found that now with Intel getting into the graphics game it's difficult to insure what exactly is being defined as HD by looking at the specs - and then there are the systems that use both the Intel and Nvidia graphic chips.<br /><br /><br>

It seems this thread turned into a love/hate Apple discussion - which definitely interests me - but I've yet to hear a recommendation of a non apple laptop. Any Windows based laptop users out there? If so, what brand and set up do you like in your laptop?<br /><br /><br>

Thanks Again!</p>

[EricM]

<blockquote>

<p>- but I've yet to hear a recommendation of a non apple laptop. Any Windows based laptop users out there? If so, what brand and set up do you like in your laptop?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I've used Dell workhorses for years. Asus makes great stuff as does Lenova. But I'm convinced the best Windows laptop is a MBP. By the time you configure a Dell etc with a ssd and 16 gb's of ram, those plasticy windows laptops are more expensive than the MBP. </p>

[w_t1]

<p>Any modern $400-500 laptop will work, it's not that great of requirements as say video editing and 3d rendering. I prefer my desktop for photo viewing and editing, but if I do use the laptop for LR or PS then the hdmi out to the desktop's 24" monitor makes it a lot more comfortable. And a large external hd.</p>

<p>JDM: ot, but what's that antiquey iron(as in clothes iron)-looking thing between your monitor and scanner to the left? Just curious...</p>

[digitaldog]

<p>Point, counterpoint:<br>

http://www.powerpage.org/why-the-mac-still-beats-the-pc/</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>JDM: ot, but what's that antiquey iron(as in clothes iron)-looking thing between your monitor and scanner to the left? Just curious...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>sorry missed that.<br>

It is in fact an iron (Mahony polishing iron out of Troy NY), made to be heated up on a stove, for use. Its current use is as a handy weight to hold down materials for scanning.</p><div></div>

[Mike D]

<p>JDM, (for what its worth) I recently upgraded a couple computers to Windows 7 Pro from XP. On the laptop (32 bit), all my legacy software and older PS plugins worked great. On the other (64 bit), all kinds of problems. The difference it turns out is that Win 7 32 bit is a lot more compatible with my old software and plugins than the 64 bit version even when I use the same version of Photoshop. The 32 bit version is also smoking fast. It took weeks of work to figure out why one computer worked great and the other didn't. </p>

[upsman]

<p>So what's the reason for a 64 bit rather than the 32 - is it to be able to load more RAM?</p>

[JDMvW]

<p><em>This thread</em> is the place where the usual criticisms of Windows have been turned on their head and applied to Apple by people who show very little evidence of ever having worked on a real live Macintosh.</p>

<p>Bully for you-all on your upgrades of legacy and outdated hardware, </p>

<p>I'm personally more concerned with the problem of how to convert a signal from Super-SCSI to a more modern interface, even Firefox, much less Thunderbolt. Then I won't have to worry about how my G4 Mac (running Mac OS X) will fit in with my new Mac Pro. Otherwise, I may have to buy a Nikon scanner.</p>

<p>I have lots of old legacy machines myself, but I don't use them much these days since the applications I use have strangely kept up with the OS and hardware. I guess I could boot one of the old computers up, if I needed to run Photoshop 2.5 for some reason?</p>

<p> </p>

[john_mullinax]

<p>Windows 8 has been great for me. A small learning curve, but not nearly as much as learning a Mac OS, I suspect. If you don't already have a Wacom tablet, you might want to consider something with a touch screen and high quality digitizer so you can use pen with Photoshop. <br /><br />Even lower resolution laptops can output 1080p to an HD tv, so that by itself should not be a point of concern, but more resolution is always nice so by all means go for the 1080p (or more!) if you want the higher resolution on your laptop. <br>

A Lenovo ThinkPad or for more portability a Surface Pro 2 might fit your needs? Asus and Acer are also both making excellent products these days. I recently had an HP Revolve 810 that looked great on paper, but the N-trig digitizer was not high enough quality for regular pen usage -- I would stay away from that one. </p>

<p>One more thing, if you shoot with a high resolution camera(say, 24mp+), or plan to get one, then getting a beefy processor, graphics card, RAM, and a SSD drive will really help with the larger file sizes. </p>

[stevenseelig]

<p>Andrew,<br>

I have a 15" MacBook Pro Retina Display (Mid 2012). I use it with Aperture 3.5.1, Photoshop CS6, FCPX, and Perfect Photo Suite 8. <br>

I travel with it regularly on internationally and family vacations (10-15 people). When traveling in this mode, I use it primarily for moving pictures off my cards into a Aperture library designated for that travel event. In doing this I label each picture with a unique number and enter relevant keys. Occasionally, I will edit one or two pictures, but I don't do extensive editing in this mode as I want to enjoy the travel. I use Western Digital Passport drives (2TB) for the original and backup copies. <br>

I also travel locally to my cottage. I use the MacBook to move pictures off of cards as described above, but I will do much more editing with the programs mentioned above. In this mode, I attach my laptop to a Thunderbolt display (27" screen) which is wonderful for editing. In fact I have been editing July 4 video and stills.<br>

I also use AirPlay Display and display my pictures to my large TV screens using the Apple TV. Depending on how you want to do it, there are a choices. For me, for pictures that I have completed, I load them into the iTunes on a desktop computer. I would call these a 'permanent' set of pictures. My biggest issue or the thing that I find frustrating is the iTunes strategy does not allow me to create subfolders thus forcing long lists of picture folders. Commonly, when I want a particular set of pictures, I will just have that one checked in iTunes.<br>

BUT, for pictures that are new and I am still working on, and I want people to see right away, I will have them in Aperture and use AirPlay Display to show them on my big screen HD TV. BUT if you wait and get a 4K TV, then display to that should also be possible with Yosemite.<br>

Lastly, the name Aperture is disappearing and no one knows with Photos will be like. I don't either, but here are a couple of thoughts of mine. Aperture technology is very old (both image and database) and I believe it was getting much more difficult to migrate it to the newer technologies. Apple also had the problem that it had two photo programs which was costly to maintain. Also there are a lot of digital photography processing tools out there and there is no way Apple could compete with all of them. In putting this puzzle together, I believe they decided to do two things: integrate Aperture and iPhoto into one program and call it Photos; Photos will have have all the capabilities of Aperture in expanded mode, but in amateur mode will be easy for anyone to use and more importantly Photos will have tools that allow for extensibility of image processing capabilities in a very cool way for the professional photographers as well as amateurs. </p>

<p> </p>