Gear Talk > Software & Accessories

new 13" MacBook Pro

<< < (3/3)

Harry Muff:
I've been doing high-end beauty retouching on my GF's 2011 13" MBP without any problems. They are pretty upgradable anyway for not a lot more:

8Gb RAM - £35

256Gb SSD - £125

You don't need those upgrades, but they make things a lot sweeter.

The screen is perfectly acceptable and calibrates nicely too - I usually check my images on my own Mac Pro and 26" NEC WUXI2 when I get the chance and they look absolutely fine.


--- Quote from: RLPhoto on February 04, 2013, 04:06:36 PM ---For serious editing, I'd never use a laptop. too expensive, outdated too quickly, Run too hot, screens too small, too slow.

Desktops are far more powerful for less $$$ and could be built to any spec needed, upgraded, run cool, and can have large screens.

--- End quote ---

Ditto.  I see this question often about getting a mac on a budget.  It's like buying any luxury item cheap.  Please understand that the words "BUDGET" and "MACBOOK" don't exist in the same sentence.  If budget is a factor, you'll get a lot more value for your money with a desktop system, good display, extra RAM and an SSD drive running Windows 7 Pro x64.  Use Lightroom 4 and perhaps the Adobe Elements/Premier package.  Get the software with an Academic discount if you qualify.

As has been discussed here over and over, Macs are great if you have the funds but you will pull your hair out trying to get a mac on a budget.

Disclaimer:  This isn't a mac bashing statement.  It's just a fact.  Please don't let this start a Mac vs. PC flame war.  I'm merely stating my experience with regard to the OP's point that a "budget" is a factor.  Apple doesn't sell anything to people with a budget.  Except maybe Apple TV.  (Assuming you don't start buying content from them.)

NatGeo photogs use far more older Macs in the field just fine. So do photojournalists in warzones as well.

So if your requirements are more challenging than theirs then you should buy a large, heavy, clunky and yet cheap PC. :)

What's more you can buy a PC to play games!!!!! Macs dont do games that well. :( Bad Mac!!!! Bad!!!

--- Quote from: hawaiisunsetphoto on February 04, 2013, 03:12:35 PM ---Aloha!  I'd welcome some advice....   I'm advising a friend, an amateur photographer with talent and potential, on what kind of computer setup that would be sufficient for photo editing.  Budget is a factor.  They are considering a new 13" MacBook Pro for about $1425 with these specs:  2.9GHz dual-core Intel Core i7, Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz, 8GB 1600MHz memory, 750GB 5400-rpm hard drive, Intel HD Graphics 4000. 

Given the limited screen real estate of a 13" MacBook, I've advised them that they will need an external monitor if they go that route. 

My question is:  Is the video graphics capacity in this MacBook Pro sufficient for LR and PS photo editing?


--- End quote ---

I have a 15" Macbook Pro at work, and a 13" Macbook Pro at home.  Both are connected to external displays.  The 13" is an early 2011 model, and is my primary machine for editing photos.  It's connected to a 24" Dell IPS display.

You really can't go wrong with a mac.  I've been a "power user" for most of my professional career, and flip flop between Windows and Mac OSX (depending on my needs at work).  I largely prefer OS X for photo editing for a very simple reason: the native ability for the file browser (Finder) to quickly cycle through and view photos.  I'll take a large volume of pictures during a "shoot" and need to tag the keepers.  Sure, there's a lot of third party software (including some I've written myself) that can do a good job of this, but I always find myself going back to Finder for the quick, "Do I want to further PP this shot?".

So +1 for the Macbook.  Though I would definitely get a SSD for it.  Size doesn't matter (I have a 128 SSD in both my macs) since you can get an external USB disk based drive for more storage (or offload to a NAS drive if you have one), and use the SSD for editing your current batch of photos.


[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page

Go to full version