EricM

<p>amazon.com "best sellers" is a great metric on what is hot and what is not. It's interesting to follow and see what people are buying.<br /><br> </p> <blockquote> <p>It seems that the much awaited new MacBook Pro has failed to get a recommendation from Consumer Reports for the first time in Apple history. <br /><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-macbook-pro-2016-consumer-reports-2016-12" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-macbook-pro-2016-consumer-reports-2016-12</a><br />Is it really an inferior product or are they splitting hairs in their criticism of the new MacBook Pro's battery performance?</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> It's not just battery problems. Others are having gpu issues, over-heating issues, and many are returning them because they are slower than their current MBP. Mac rumours forum is filled with threads...I've never seen anything like it; the pitch-forks are out. If you're doing video and able to take advantage of the write speeds of nmve ssd, you'll notice that it's faster than previous years. However if like myself and doing Lr and Ps and rely on ram, cpu, and gpu, the 2016 is slower. The monitor is nice though. </p> <p> Some good posts here from Lloyd.<br> <a href="https://macperformanceguide.com/related.html?dglyKW=2016%20MacBook%20Pro">Pages keyworded by “2016 MacBook Pro” at macperformanceguide.com</a> https://macperformanceguide.com/related.html?dglyKW=2016%20MacBook%20Pro</p>

"Skylake is supposed to have better onboard graphics too." It depends on what is driving them. Also with the 2016, an external gpu is also a possibility via thunderbolt. The truth often comes out in the comments. "New MacBook Pro's Dedicated AMD Graphics Chips Are 'Significantly' Faster and Support Dual 5K Displays" forums.macrumors.com/threads/new-macbook-pros-dedicated-amd-graphics-chips-are-significantly- faster-and-support-dual-5k-displays.2014874/

<blockquote> <p>Eric: Have you tried an external Thunderbolt SSD drive?<br /> I have not tested the 2016 vs. prior models of MBP. I just know I'm happy with both the 2013 and 2015 MBP for Lightroom and Ps.</p> </blockquote> <p>Sebastian, I have not. I use usb3 and networks. Reliable internet sources show that the 2016 MBP is slower than the 2015 for most LR and Ps users. The 2016, when put under load, heats up and the cpu protection system kicks in and automatically slows down the clock speed of the cpu. For me, the 2016 might be faster as my bread and butter work relies on importing hundreds of raws at a time and then after global adjustments in Lr, converting and exporting to dng and jpg. The new m.2 ssd drives in the 2016 are quicker than previous models at read/write but this is just a small element of a speedy and enjoyable workflow. The 2016 MBP is also plagued with gpu and battery issues. Again. Imo, the 2016 is a dud and I'd wait until 2017 for a new MBP as it will more than likely come with Rubylake and offering more than a pitiful 16gb of ram.</p>

<p>Hannu, cheers for an informative post and great writing. I currently don't have a 4K monitor or tv nor inteend to get one but I am nevertheless future proofing my next site and uploading 4K images in anticipation. One day internet speed in the USA will increase and catch up to the rest of the G8.</p> <p>Alan, thank you for the links and sharing. I should get off my butt and make more of those</p>

<p>(do we have over 100 responses yet?)</p> <p>FUD. I had to look that up. Seems only retired people use it. Anyways, can't be FUD as I've provided links and graphs from all over the internet that counter your claims. That's all you have provided us with is your own typed words on this thread. Here's a couple more links with data that counter your claims. It's no wonder you wont do this little Lr test.</p> <p><a href="https://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2016/20161201_1214-Apple2016MacBookPro-LightroomImport.html">diglloyd 2016 MacBook Pro TESTED: Lightroom Import RAW Files</a> "Disappointing on two counts: the 2016 MacBook pro and Adobe’s algorithms. 2016 MacBook Pro: Adobe Lightroom Import RAW Files with 1:1 Previews Between the minimal or negative improvements with Photoshop and this inferior performance with Lightroom, the 2016 MacBook Pro surely deserves being sent back to its maker." https://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2016/20161201_1214-Apple2016MacBookPro-LightroomImport.html</p> <p><a href="https://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2016/20161121_2138-Apple2016MacBookPro-Photoshop.html">2016 MacBook Pro TESTED: Photoshop Performance</a> "I am seriously doubting that spending close to $4800 (with AppleCare and tax) on a top-flight 2016 MacBook Pro makes any sense at all. My original premise was that (a) I needed Thunderbolt 3 for testing (still true), and (b) that there would be real world gains for the things I do in Photoshop. The latter premise is proven false, making me seriously consider returning the 2016 MacBook Pro and sticking with my 2013 MacBook Pro Retina, which still performs like a champ and has none of the port hassles." https://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2016/20161121_2138-Apple2016MacBookPro-Photoshop.html</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>I just read a piece in my local paper today about going with the prior version of the MBP, for the faster processor and SD/USB ports. The writer complained about the emphasis of the new MBP leaning more toward form factor that performance and user convenience. </p> </blockquote> <p> <br> Yes. This is the consensus on the internet. Almost all benchmarks show the equally spec'd 2013/2014/2015 MBP being faster than the 2016. If one is familiar with Skylake in the 2016, it's hard to argue. Interestingly, the late 2015 MBP's have gone up in value on the used CL market since the release of the 2016. Where the 2016 does shine though, is with rendering video. This is because of the new m.2 ssd drives and they are "lots and lots" faster with read/write than the previous years with sata ssd.<br> <br> Dave, I have an old 2013 i7 MBP that's maxed out in ram and ssd but the monitor is truly horrible and I'm tired of plugging in my Dell. I'm also tired of watching paint dry while raws import from sd card and then again when they are exported to dng and jpg. When I get home, the quicker I can finish my beer and get to bed, the better. I wish I could throw more money at the problem, but I can't. Unless I look at Windows laptops. But i want dual boot along with the apple keyboard and monitor. And six weeks ago, I was looking forward to the 2016 MBP and NVMe ssd to help with my throughput but like everyone else after the Apple keynote, we were left disappointed. The 2016 has a crummy cpu, gpu, and a only 16gb of ddr3 ram...in other words, there's nothing "pro" about the MBP. Like (almost) everyone else out there that already has a fully spec'd MBP with i7/16gb/ssd, there is no compelling reason to spend $4500 on the 2016 MBP and have the same performance. And then spend hundreds of dollars in dongles and adaptors that might work. The monitor and the new wider video gamut is nice though. For awhile there, I though the 2016 would have made a great machine.<br> <a href="https://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2016/20161201_1214-Apple2016MacBookPro-LightroomImport.html"> </a><br> Lightroom and Ps are relevant to me, not video. I trust diglloyd and he claims both programs run slower on the 2016 than previous years. I wish there was a second trustworthy source around to do similar tests.<br> <a href="https://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2016/20161201_1214-Apple2016MacBookPro-LightroomImport.html">diglloyd 2016 MacBook Pro TESTED: Lightroom Import RAW Files</a> "Disappointing on two counts: the 2016 MacBook pro and Adobe’s algorithms. 2016 MacBook Pro: Adobe Lightroom Import RAW Files with 1:1 Previews Between the minimal or negative improvements with Photoshop and this inferior performance with Lightroom, the 2016 MacBook Pro surely deserves being sent back to its maker." https://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2016/20161201_1214-Apple2016MacBookPro-LightroomImport.html<br> <br> <a href="https://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2016/20161121_2138-Apple2016MacBookPro-Photoshop.html">2016 MacBook Pro TESTED: Photoshop Performance</a> "I am seriously doubting that spending close to $4800 (with AppleCare and tax) on a top-flight 2016 MacBook Pro makes any sense at all. My original premise was that (a) I needed Thunderbolt 3 for testing (still true), and (b) that there would be real world gains for the things I do in Photoshop. The latter premise is proven false, making me seriously consider returning the 2016 MacBook Pro and sticking with my 2013 MacBook Pro Retina, which still performs like a champ and has none of the port hassles." https://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2016/20161121_2138-Apple2016MacBookPro-Photoshop.html</p> <p>(it's not a cat fight. it's entertainment while watching paint dry)</p>

<blockquote> <p>Last post I'll direct <strong>your</strong> way on this topic to limit the OP and other's from hearing another dozen or more rants of misinformed FUD from you. </p> </blockquote> <p> <br> Andrew, I wish we could take your word for it</p>

<p>Oh what the hell...</p> <blockquote> <p>I've been a PC user since 1984 but I'm thinking about going to the Dark Side and switching to Mac, partly for the fun of learning something new and partly because the rest of my family uses Macs and I would be able to help them more if I was more familiar with the Apple ecosystem. Besides, Macs are cool.</p> </blockquote> <p>How many posts have you started with this intro over the years? Three? Four?</p> <blockquote> <p>* The trolls will be quick to point out that acceptable performance is subjective, but the rest of you will know what I mean. I'm looking for "Wow, this is fast" instead of "Damn, this is slow."</p> </blockquote> <p>Funny. I read this and thought "Hey! It's the annual Dave '<em>I'm thinking about going to the Dark Side and switching to Mac'</em> troll post!" Did you actually ever end up buying that <a href="/digital-darkroom-forum/00cvcq">high-end MacBook Pro?</a> http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00cvcq or maybe that <a href="/digital-darkroom-forum/00cv8j">iMac with retina?</a> http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00cv8j</p> <p> </p> <blockquote> <p>Would a top-end 13" MacBook Pro provide acceptable performance* for processing RAW files from a Canon 5D3 in Lightroom using add-ins like Perfect Photo Suite and Nik? </p> </blockquote> <p>How long is a piece of string? If you do 17 files a month while arguing from Starbucks on internet forums, then I suppose even an iPad is fast enough. I come home three or times a week with 700/800 raw files at a time. I then cull down to 500 or so, convert to jpg and dng and then FTP to the client, and go to bed. I had my fingers crossed that the 2016 MBP would have Rubylake, 32gb of ram and a discrete gpu. I like that I can dual boot my MBP with Bootcamp and run Windows. I guess I'm waiting a bit longer for a pro machine from Apple.</p>

<p>Troll post.</p>

<p>Steven, I routinely make tif files over 2gb. It only takes six or seven frames from a 24mp camera when "photo merging" a panorama, for instance.</p>

<p>Thanks, Alan. I've never output a slideshow of stills from Elements. I tried it half-assed on Ps but got distracted. Do you host them on Vimeo and/or Youtube?</p> <p> </p>

<p>Alan, is your slideshow question aimed at me? I'm just using a WP plugin that uses media in the library.</p>

<blockquote> <p>That from<strong> actual experience using the damn thing</strong> daily the last three weeks.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> I wish we could take your word for it. Perhaps use your YouTube channel to satisfy us?<br /></p> <blockquote> <p><br />Oh and no viruses affecting all my images and files on this planet either. An experience of <strong>yours</strong> I never hope to experience.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> The trouble with successful malware is that you don't even know you have it. Safari is the easiest browser to compromise so I try to practice safe surfing habits and avoid clicking on links provided by strangers in internet threads </p>

<blockquote> <p>Again, I'm so very sorry the <strong>facts</strong> and <strong>reality</strong> on this end...</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> "reality on this end" can't be verified and your blind faith fanboy-ism has time and time again shown Andrew has a different experience than everyone else. Lots and lots of links and graphs from Eric. From Andrew? Nil. It's very strange you wont do this simple Lr test that anyone is capable of, why? After 13 years on PN with you, one would think you'd gladly spend half an hour with a stopwatch and do this little Lr import exercise on your two MBP's. Something is amiss...Did your 2016 MBP go back to Apple because to all the GPU problems that the 460 is having? Do you even own a 2016 MBP?<br> <br> FStoppers published a post yesterday for over-heating MBP's. You might find it useful Andrew and put your $4800 MBP on an egg crate! (This is so funny, I couldn't even script this into a short film if I wanted to.)<br> <br> "To improve its weak ventilation, place the laptop on something that lets the air flow below the computer. Something as simple as an egg tray can do the trick"</p> <p><a href="https://fstoppers.com/education/5-tricks-keep-your-macbook-overheating-156932">5 Tricks to Keep Your MacBook From Overheating</a> https://fstoppers.com/education/5-tricks-keep-your-macbook-overheating-156932</p>

<p>I just put a 4K introduction slideshow on my Wordpress website. I'm updating all the galleries now to 4K. I used Lr and cropped either at 16:9 or 2:3, and then exported for jpg at 3840 on the longest, sRGB, max file size 600K, sharpen for screen low, and it worked out great. </p>

<p>Planet Earth, like the one that uses MBP's to edit video on Planet Hollywood?</p> <blockquote> <p>17 raws were <strong>measurably</strong> faster on the newer machine than the older machine, <strong>just like every function I've used since I got the new MBP.</strong></p> </blockquote> <p><strong> </strong><br> 1.3% quicker? Is the 2016 MBP so embarssingly slow that you wont publish your results?</p> <p>Glad we can get the straight goods from Dig Lloyd.</p> <p><a href="https://macperformanceguide.com/MacBookPro2016-LightroomImport.html">2016 MacBook Pro: Adobe Lightroom Import RAW Files with 1:1 Previews</a><br> <em>"This test is as real world as it gets and for a very large number of users: importing digital camera RAW files into Adobe Photoshop Lightroom. How does a 3-year-old 2013 MacBook Pro beat out the fastest possible build of the 2016 MacBook Pro*? These tests were (tediously) repeated three times for each machine**, with the best result from each shown (consistency was strong). The explanation is that <strong>2016 MacBook Pro performance declines</strong> with sustained usage. It is pathetic that the 2016 MacBook Pro runs at 2.9 GHz and with a 4.5X faster SSD, and the 2013 model runs at 2.6 GHz and yet <strong>the 2013 MacBook Pro wins</strong>."</em> https://macperformanceguide.com/MacBookPro2016-LightroomImport.html</p> <p><a href="https://macperformanceguide.com/MacBookPro2016-diglloydBenchmarks.html">2016 MacBook Pro: diglloyd Adobe Photoshop Benchmarks</a><br> <em>"<strong>The 2016 model is slower than the 2013 model!</strong> Indeed, the 2015 model (not available for testing) stands a good chance of beating the 2016 model too. These results were triple-checked: the 2013 model is faster. Possibly it is GPU related and some update will improve matters, but that is wild speculation. After waiting 3 years and spending about $4800 (with AppleCare) for the 2016 MBP, this is hardly a compelling argument for upgrading to the 2016 MacBook Pro, which as tested here is the maxed-out fastest possible variant."</em> <br> https://macperformanceguide.com/MacBookPro2016-diglloydBenchmarks.html</p> <p><a href="https://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2016/20161122_1906-Apple2016MacBookPro-Photoshop-CreateSizeVariants.html">2016 MacBook Pro TESTED: Photoshop Performance on Real World Job 'Create Size Variants'</a><br> <em>"Today another Photoshop test, and one that Lloyd does day in and day out for generating lens rendering aperture series shows a smidgen better performance for the 2016 MacBook Pro, effectively no gain at all. This test is as real world as it gets, at least for Lloyd’s photographic work. This particular job was one performed only a few days prior for this lens comparison, repeated here on all four test machines. 2016 MacBook Pro: Photoshop Create Size Variants Here, the 2016 MacBook Pro ekes out a 2.7% win over the 2013 MacBook Pro. But in one run it turned in a slower time, <strong>and its performance is oddly variable in all the tests, suggesting some kind of power management behavior that degrades performance at times."</strong></em><br> https://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2016/20161122_1906-Apple2016MacBookPro-Photoshop-CreateSizeVariants.html</p>

<p><a href="http://planeteric.ca">Planet Eric</a>. I like that. I like it so much in fact, that I bought the domain name. http://PlanetEric.ca</p> <p>17 raws...five seconds and six seconds...What would you think if you're someone google researching the 2016 MBP and landed on this page and read this test result performed by a self-proclaimed expert?</p> <p>We want a 1000 raw files because of the sustained work load it puts on the machine. A 1000 raws is a real-world number for pros that want a pro machine and might be considering the 2016. You've come back with 17. I don't even know a soccer parent that comes home with 17. And instead, you've spent more time and energy returning here with insults than actually proving your new $4200 MBP is faster in Lr than your 2013. I'm suspicious. You claim to have both laptops, own a camera, and have a Lightroom subscription. I assume the digital dog able to configure Lr on both machines in the same manner. You spend enough time arguing on the Adobe, DpReview, and PN forums so it can't be a lack of time. So, what's the problem? </p>

<p>That's kinda funny....suggesting a MBP doing video editing in Hollywood...</p> <p>Unsure why you keep bringing up video in this thread as some sort of validation for Lr and Ps performance? The slight performance improvements that <strong>some</strong> FCPX users are experiencing has nothing to do with Lr and Ps performance. Conversely, Lr and Ps users are actually reporting going slower on their spanking new 2016 than their 2013 MBP and is why we're curious on your Lr results, Andrew. Are we going to get them, or not?</p> <p>What memory card (speed) and card reader did you use for your six second test?</p>

I was hoping you'd do 1000 files and do Lr tests...oh well, tried my best. (Even before it was released to public a few weeks ago, we knew the 2016 SHOULD BE faster with a usb-c card reader connected to that pcie ssd, Andrew. It's crazy fast compared to your old sata. I work in the film industry, Planet Hollywood, and surrounded by DOP's, DIT's, viz fx, SPFX, sound dept, art dept, construction, legal, and other still photogs.)

<p>I'm not sure why you're avoiding a simple test? Five and six seconds with seventeen files? That's a benchmark we can all believe! You were asked to do a thousand files for a good reason. Why didn't you do a thousand 1000 files? Or, maybe you did and...</p> <p>What card reader did you use? Imight have to ask Santa for one.</p> <blockquote> <p>are <strong>vastly faster</strong></p> </blockquote> <p><strong> </strong><br> "Vastly". Like "5.3 percent, 4.2 percent faster, 1.5 percent better"? That's vastly worth $4200 and $300 in dongles...</p> <p>A thousand files. With your experience and youtube channel, it'd be easy to watch your experiment too?</p> <p><strong> </strong></p>

<p>That sure is taking a long time, Andrew. What's the hold up in comparing these simple tasks with both of your machines?</p> <p>Barry, check it out! https://www.vanartgallery.bc.ca/the_exhibitions/exhibit_evans.html </p>

<p>I knew it. Andrew, it's simple, we just want to know if the card reader via dongle increases or decreases the time of file transfers compared to your older machine with a built in reader. Do you need me to buy you a card reader and have Amazon deliver it to you? Or is there another reason why you are being so difficult and avoiding this simple test with us? There's lots and lots of new owners with 2016 MBPs that are plagued with gpu problems, is yours one of them?</p> <p>Anyway, I'm sure it's within your skill set to import 1000 raws and set up the "parameters" on both machines in an identical manner and report back with your findings. Easier yet, just make a folder on the desktop and drag the 1000 raws from sd card to the desktop folder while timing it. I'm wondering if the 2016 (even with the faster m.2 ssd) is actually faster getting the files from sd card to the harddrive than the non-dongled 2013 with built in card reader. I look forward to your next post!</p>

<p>Hmm. Sound like anyone we know? :)</p> <p>"The study is detailed in a paper called, <em>Predicting smartphone operating system from personality and individual differences</em>, from psychology researchers at the University of Lincoln, Lancaster University, and the University of Hertfordshire.</p> <p>They went looking for differences between iPhone and Android owners in honesty-humility, emotionality, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness, and whether people preferred to be unique, and whether they viewed their phone as a status symbol.</p> <p>"In comparison to Android users, we found that iPhone owners are more likely to be female, younger, and increasingly concerned about their smartphone being viewed as a status object," they write.</p> <p>That would seem to confirm the view that iPhone owners are anxious about appearances and willing to pay through the nose to satisfy their insecurities.</p> <p>But if the findings really are generally applicable in the real world, job hunters might want to think twice before whipping out an iPhone at an interview for a service role or one where they'd be handling cash.</p> <p>"Key differences in personality were also observed, with iPhone users displaying lower levels of honesty-humility and higher levels of emotionality," the researchers add."</p> <p><a href="http://www.zdnet.com/article/are-iphone-owners-really-less-honest-than-android-users-thats-what-this-study-says/">"Are iPhone owners really less honest than Android users? That's what this study says"</a> www.zdnet.com/article/are-iphone-owners-really-less-honest-than-android-users-thats-what-this-study-says/</p>

<blockquote> <p>Andrew can test for us! He can import 1000 raws, if he still has a camera, onto both of his machines with a stop watch and report back with the time difference. When could you do this for us, Andrew?</p> </blockquote> <p><br /> It's an easy test to do, right? Unless there's some reason you don't want to share with us :)<br /> <br /> As well Andrew, on both your 2013 and 2016 machines, make a folder on the desktop and drag the 1000 raws from sd card to the desktop folder while timing it. I'm wondering if the 2016 (even with the faster m.2 ssd) is actually faster getting the files from sd card to the harddrive than the non-dongled 2013 with built in card reader.<br /> <br /> Barry, the Walker Evans "Depth of Field" show is here! Wow, 200+ images....it was too much actually, stimulus overload. I guess you've seen it but it's rare something like this makes it up here.</p>

<blockquote> <p>-Eric- Pulling out the big guns with the 5 bay NAS!! Very nice, I assume that's RAID? What level RAID?<br> </p> </blockquote> <p>Hi Joe, I use a Synology unit with 6TB WD Red drives and run them in Synology Hybrid Raid (SHR) which is their raid 5. I've had one WD Red get a bad sector report (it still ran and held data) but I replaced it anyways and mailed it off to Western Digital and they replaced it, no questions asked. I really like WD.<br> </p> <blockquote> <p>Everything on three drives, including one off site. Cloud doesn't make sense for me, as I archive around 1TB per year. (My career files around 9TB right now.)</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> Do you have a slow connection, Ian? I don't understand the correlation between cloud and the amount of data you create. I just let it trickle up to Amazon and Crashplan. Initial back up takes awhile, that's for sure!</p>