Retina MacBook Pro for photography?

Nostromo said:

For me this sounds like the best machine short of a Mac Pro. (iMac not interesting for me due to its glossy screen and the lack of expandability of a laptop without having the mobility of the laptop)

Click to expand...

It has no optical drive to burn CD's to give clients. You really think a photographer will keep a lot of clients if they tell them they have to go online and download their pictures? Or do you think in 2012 people are content with a handful of prints? As far as editing, a typical shoot for me is 500 pictures, 12 meg raw files, so about 6 gig, plus edits, giant PSD files, and my finished jpegs, I'm usually around 10 gig per shoot. A 768gig SSD is way too expensive to be storing pictures and still pretty tiny. I'd rather have the thing 1/4" thicker than have to carry extra devices and dongles. you sure give up a lot for that 1/4". And the MBP is already really thin.

The screen is small and the "retina" feature is useless for photography. I want a good viewing angle so the colors don't screw up as I move my head, and something that I can calibrate so prints match what I see on screen. More pixels might make a picture look better on screen but they don't help at all as far as processing an picture into a final product.

Things like the soldered ram, glued battery and non-standard drive interface make the rMBP a DOA product for anyone who's not an apple nut.

Also, I think a retina MBP can render an iPad obsolete as the 15" screen should be great for demos to clients (and the screen stands up on its own, no need for a holder, and the display has, so I heard, a good viewing angle to be looked at by more than one person).

Click to expand...

Really? What kind of photography do you do?

Among other uses, I have an album of about 50 of my favorite pictures I've taken on my iPad and there are times when in the middle of a shoot I'm having trouble getting the model to understand what I want. I'll pick up the iPad, choose an image, and show it to the model to get the idea across. Try doing that with a 15" laptop. While you're holding a camera, there's nothing to rest the laptop on, the model is under the lights, and you've got a make-up artist/sylist standing over your shoulder. It's also good to have a free hand while doing that to point at details

I also like the iPad to show clients finished pictures, it's so easy to load their album and hand it to them to flick through at their own rate. Sitting around a computer advancing the pics for them makes everyone feel less comfortable. No need for a holder when you hand them the iPad.

Oracle1729 said:

It has no optical drive to burn CD's to give clients. You really think a photographer will keep a lot of clients if they tell them they have to go online and download their pictures? Or do you think in 2012 people are content with a handful of prints? As far as editing, a typical shoot for me is 500 pictures, 12 meg raw files, so about 6 gig, plus edits, giant PSD files, and my finished jpegs, I'm usually around 10 gig per shoot. A 768gig SSD is way too expensive to be storing pictures and still pretty tiny. I'd rather have the thing 1/4" thicker than have to carry extra devices and dongles. you sure give up a lot for that 1/4". And the MBP is already really thin.

The screen is small and the "retina" feature is useless for photography. I want a good viewing angle so the colors don't screw up as I move my head, and something that I can calibrate so prints match what I see on screen. More pixels might make a picture look better on screen but they don't help at all as far as processing an picture into a final product.

Things like the soldered ram, glued battery and non-standard drive interface make the rMBP a DOA product for anyone who's not an apple nut.

Click to expand...

If you'd be running photography as a business you would know that no professional photographer hands out CDs.

If you hand out images on tangible media, you have to take sales tax and forward it to the IRS. That increases the price of your service, adds a lot of extra paperwork for no reason.

Professional photographers deliver images electronically or with a hard drive, and there are IRS rules on how to do that so you don't get into tax trouble.

The retina MacBook pro will be a success among photographers as soon as calibration of the display has been proven reliable. Great display, great processing power, better cooling than even the classic MBPs of 2011, modern connectivity, responsive quality SSD will make it a must have or want very much item.

Posts like yours here come across misinformed and jealous/hateful and are not adding anything of value to the discussion.

Oracle1729 said:

The screen is small and the "retina" feature is useless for photography. I want a good viewing angle so the colors don't screw up as I move my head, and something that I can calibrate so prints match what I see on screen. More pixels might make a picture look better on screen but they don't help at all as far as processing an picture into a final product.

Things like the soldered ram, glued battery and non-standard drive interface make the rMBP a DOA product for anyone who's not an apple nut.

Click to expand...

WHAT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Have you even seen the screen? Chances are no but you are pontificating as though you are an IPS expert. IPS you ask? That is the screen type found on the new RMBP. If that sounds familiar, it is the same screen technology found on the iPhone and iPad 3 (or whatever you want to call it). You go on to make and additional spurious statement alluding to the idea that the monitor is not able to be calibrated. Post a link saying this is not possible. Your final statement is simply a non-sequitor based on your opinion, yes your opinion. Ever hear the statement: "you are entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts"...

Nostromo said:

If you'd be running photography as a business you would know that no professional photographer hands out CDs.

If you hand out images on tangible media, you have to take sales tax and forward it to the IRS. That increases the price of your service, adds a lot of extra paperwork for no reason.

Professional photographers deliver images electronically or with a hard drive, and there are IRS rules on how to do that so you don't get into tax trouble.

Click to expand...

That's really funny. Why do people on this forum always assume everyone is exactly the same as they are?

I'm in Canada, we don't have that sort of tax rule, it makes no difference to the CRA whether I distribute files on CD or hard drive or download. Why in the world should it matter? The customer is getting basically the same product in the same format from the same work for the same money. All photographers in my area deliver a tangible product. Usually a CD, sometimes prints.

Posts like yours here come across misinformed and jealous/hateful and are not adding anything of value to the discussion.

Click to expand...

Only misinformed to people like you who think everyone lives in the same place and acts the same way according to the same rules.

sapporobaby said:

Have you even seen the screen? Chances are no but you are pontificating as though you are an IPS expert. IPS you ask? That is the screen type found on the new RMBP. If that sounds familiar, it is the same screen technology found on the iPhone and iPad 3 (or whatever you want to call it). You go on to make and additional spurious statement alluding to the idea that the monitor is not able to be calibrated. Post a link saying this is not possible. Your final statement is simply a non-sequitor based on your opinion, yes your opinion. Ever hear the statement: "you are entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts"...

Click to expand...

Of course I use IPS panels, right now I have a couple of NEC 23" anti-glare IPS screens, that are a lot nicer to work with for editing pictures than a dinky 15", even if that 15" has more pixels than both of mine combined. The condescending tone in your post destroys any impact it may have and it's just funny that you're trying to lecture to me when I know more about the tech than you. By the way, there's different types of IPS panel, did you know that? Mine are S-IPS. What type does the rMPB use? I don't know the answer to that one and I doubt you do either.

I'm not using my own facts, I never said you can't calibrate the rMPB, I only said calibration is a required ability for photographers. If there's a fact that you can't currently calibrate the rMBP, then you supplied it.

My original post said the factors that are most important for photography. Resolution simply isn't one of them. And you and others certainly aren't offering any reasons to go for that screen besides resolution.

Oracle1729 said:

Of course I use IPS panels, right now I have a couple of NEC 23" anti-glare IPS screens, that are a lot nicer to work with for editing pictures than a dinky 15", even if that 15" has more pixels than both of mine combined. The condescending tone in your post destroys any impact it may have and it's just funny that you're trying to lecture to me when I know more about the tech than you. By the way, there's different types of IPS panel, did you know that? Mine are S-IPS. What type does the rMPB use? I don't know the answer to that one and I doubt you do either.

I'm not using my own facts, I never said you can't calibrate the rMPB, I only said calibration is a required ability for photographers. If there's a fact that you can't currently calibrate the rMBP, then you supplied it.

My original post said the factors that are most important for photography. Resolution simply isn't one of them. And you and others certainly aren't offering any reasons to go for that screen besides resolution.

Click to expand...

Now I will condescend so that there is no misperception to try to keep up. Ready???

Condescension begin...

Your quote: "The screen is small and the "retina" feature is useless for photography. I want a good viewing angle so the colors don't screw up as I move my head, and something that I can calibrate so prints match what I see on screen. More pixels might make a picture look better on screen but they don't help at all as far as processing an picture into a final product."

From this you imply that the retina screen is useless for photography, also that it cannot be calibrated...I guess the ability to change the resolution is waste on you. So now you speak for ALL photographers, even those who are undoubtedly better than you who are looking forward to processing their images on a far superior screen but then again you know so much about technology. It must truly be lonely in your society of one...

Different types of IPS panels? No, really? You mean this was never released on the Internet for public scrutiny? Ah, that's right you have a superior intellect and only you were privy to this technology let alone whether or not it is publicly disseminated to the IPS challenged. How lucky this forum is to have Einstein incarnate impart wisdom and knowledge as well as the ability to speak for ALL photographers. It must be lonely being you...

End condescension....

sapporobaby said:

1. 512 or 768 is a decent size drive to use. What kind of photographer would actually carry his photo lib with him on an internal drive? Makes no sense. In my opinion, your point is moot.
2. Questionable how exactly? Moot...
3. See my point at number 1.
4. Matter of opinion... After using a 17 inch MBP, I have no problems working with a 15 inch but again this my opinion.

Click to expand...

1. That's hardly true. I shoot weddings. I have the CS6 creative suite, FCP, etc and resources like templates, effects, presets, textures, etc taking up 50+ GB. This season my wedding Aperture 3 libraries are consistently between 20 to 50GB each before initial culling.
I dump libraries off monthly at my office on a pair of 2TB FW800 drives, but I like working at home as well to be with the pets.
-150GB+ of Aperture Libraries I am working on, and this is ONLY weddings. -200GB+ of day job stuff like HD video and AE projects, monstrous graphics etc.

I don't want to be forced into a position to be lugging around an external drive when my 750GB + 120GBSSD inside my MBP works perfectly. In a perfect world I would continue rocking this while drive capacities continue increasing. If I wanted to store my working projects on an External drive I would have never sold my imac for a MBP. That's the ENTIRE point.

Not to mention losing the idea to reliably backup a crucial project from my working HDD to the boot SSD in case of an emergency, which I actually had to do this weekend in a time crunch.

4. I would love a 17" but I agree with you on this point. 17inches is kind of comically big and I doubt apple sold many. I have my ACD in my office for when I need a large monitor. At home and on the road 15" works, and is probably too big but I do like the screen real estate over the 13".

MattSepeta said:

1. That's hardly true. I shoot weddings. I have the CS6 creative suite, FCP, etc and resources like templates, effects, presets, textures, etc taking up 50+ GB. This season my wedding Aperture 3 libraries are consistently between 20 to 50GB each before initial culling.
I dump libraries off monthly at my office on a pair of 2TB FW800 drives, but I like working at home as well to be with the pets.
-150GB+ of Aperture Libraries I am working on, and this is ONLY weddings. -200GB+ of day job stuff like HD video and AE projects, monstrous graphics etc.

I don't want to be forced into a position to be lugging around an external drive when my 750GB + 120GBSSD inside my MBP works perfectly. In a perfect world I would continue rocking this while drive capacities continue increasing. If I wanted to store my working projects on an External drive I would have never sold my imac for a MBP. That's the ENTIRE point.

Not to mention losing the idea to reliably backup a crucial project from my working HDD to the boot SSD in case of an emergency, which I actually had to do this weekend in a time crunch.

4. I would love a 17" but I agree with you on this point. 17inches is kind of comically big and I doubt apple sold many. I have my ACD in my office for when I need a large monitor. At home and on the road 15" works, and is probably too big but I do like the screen real estate over the 13".

Click to expand...

You have good points and at the end of the day this entire debate comes down to individual work flow. For me, the combined size of the 2 SSD's in my MBP are 370 gigs. As I am shooting a D4, the file sizes are now about 20-24 plus gigs. My machine is lean with only what I need on it but I carry a 1TB external to dump stuff to. For me, a FW800 drive (hope the Thunderbolts become avail soon) is more than plenty. But as I said, this is my particular work flow. I do miss the 17 inch sometimes but it required special camera/computer bags, and was just like a roadblock. It was entirely too big.

Oracle1729 said:

That's really funny. Why do people on this forum always assume everyone is exactly the same as they are?

I'm in Canada, we don't have that sort of tax rule, it makes no difference to the CRA whether I distribute files on CD or hard drive or download. Why in the world should it matter? The customer is getting basically the same product in the same format from the same work for the same money. All photographers in my area deliver a tangible product. Usually a CD, sometimes prints.



Only misinformed to people like you who think everyone lives in the same place and acts the same way according to the same rules.

Click to expand...

Professional photographers everywhere prefer ftp uploads and electronic delivery.

In the US, where the majority of the forum members lives, the tax law adds economical reason to this preference.

Stop trolling.

Nostromo said:

Professional photographers everywhere prefer ftp uploads and electronic delivery.

In the US, where the majority of the forum members lives, the tax law adds economical reason to this preference.

Stop trolling.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't call that trolling...

I have only delivered images on a disc two times to date, deliviring primarily via FTP and Zenfolio for weddings. Yet I still want the optical drive. I would promptly remove it and place a real HDD where it was so I could have an SSD and HDD, like I do now.

I would love if the Retina model simply kept the old body with the optical bay. I wouldn't mind the extra weight or bulk, if there even was any one tiny bit.

FYI, here is someone claiming that the Retina's IPS panel manages 99% of sRGB.



http://cdtobie.wordpress.com/2012/06/19/retina-display-macbook-pro-for-calibration-and-photography/

Better than I expected. I wonder what % of AdobeRGB it gets.

I'm eagerly awaiting some ICC profiles to be posted..

Ruahrc said:

Is this still a TN display or is it IPS now? That would be a significant upgrade. The iPad gets IPS screens, why can't the MBP?

Click to expand...

This is the whole reason I'm thinking of getting a retina MBP for photography. One of the critical areas in post-processing is color fidelity. It's extremely frustrating for me working on my MacBook and then I find I got the color correction, brightness, contrast, etc. wrong because I was viewing the screen at a slightly obtuse angle. The new Retina MBP has an IPS display. Why they can't just put an IPS display in their laptops with traditional display sizes is beyond me. But I'm guessing the IPS display combined with higher resolution allows one to get a much more accurate representation of photographic work on-screen, especially if your target output is a print. If photoshop and other photo software is updated for the screen, it may be a much more ideal computer for photographers than the regular macbook pro. If you're worried about scratch fouling up the HD, attach a USB flash drive or an external HD. I've got a 2.5" enclosure that's not much larger (just fatter) than a credit card. These don't take much space at all in one's bag, especially if you're lugging around lenses and flashes.

My 2011 13" MBP suits me just fine for using LR4 and CS5. Maybe once this laptop goes, I'll consider it. However, seeing as I just purchased this a little less than a year ago, I'll be fine.

Oracle1729 said:

The screen is small and the "retina" feature is useless for photography. I want a good viewing angle so the colors don't screw up as I move my head, and something that I can calibrate so prints match what I see on screen. More pixels might make a picture look better on screen but they don't help at all as far as processing an picture into a final product.
...
Really? What kind of photography do you do?

Click to expand...

The 15" screen is plenty sufficient and the viewing angle is actually pretty amazing. I'm writing this on the retina display and even rotated it around a bunch to make sure. The viewing angle is something around 170 degrees. If you need to be able to see your images clearly beyond that, I don't know what to tell you.

As for calibration I can tell you that having loaded images onto the MBP-r that were previously published I see no alteration in color. Of course this will be lab dependent for those of you that run a print based business. Personally, I do strictly commercial and editorial work so there is a different workflow than say a wedding photographer or portrait studio.

The retina display is amazing for tethering in studio. Yes you could tether to an iPad but it's nowhere near the same. As I said in the review I posted, I would never have edited on a laptop before but this changes things. I'm no longer limited by an insufficient display and that is amazing for the quick turnaround on traveling projects. The only limitation I'm really not satisfied is the 256gb SSD, but it was my choice to get the base model because I plan to buy a multi-terabyte thunderbolt external pocket drive as soon as they come out.

Not for me

Admittedly I like the sound of a high resolution display which also appears to cover 99% gamut (sRGB), but I think I'll wait and see. My current aim is the iMac +/- additional display...

Here's an interesting article on the display, including the 99% coverage of sRGB gamut.

http://cdtobie.wordpress.com/2012/06/19/retina-display-macbook-pro-for-calibration-and-photography/

It also gives the display a good review of its response to calibration.

I just spent 15 plus minutes at my local Apple store playing with Aperture on an RMBP. Boy, am I impressed. That machine is awesome. It won't replace my iMac but it may join it.

This is for anyone looking for portable storage, other than Oracle1729 who hasn't bothered to respond anymore after being proven wrong...

http://www.iClarified.com/entry/index.php?enid=22722

Sorry to bring back an old thread but here's the numbers on the rMBP Adobe RGB 1998 gamut:


As you can see, the rMBP sacrifices nearly 10% of gamut for resolution. By comparison here is the gamut for the New iPad:


Pretty much on par with it. What you get for a rMBP is practically an enlarged iPad screen.

When my Unibody Pro is calibrated and warmed up I've seen it deliver up to 80% gamut.

Sure you could say i'm just arguing numbers right now but I do see a difference between 60%, 70% and 80% gamut displays. It can be very tangible at times, especially when working with red hues.

In my personal opinion, the keyboard has also shrunk (Anand also noticed this) which made the keyboard less comfortable for me. Even as a Dvorak typist who deals with all sorts of keyboards with some discomfort, I can say this with confidence.

For a mobile photography workstation I would still recommend a Unibody MBP over the rMBP.

Prodo123 said:

Sorry to bring back an old thread but here's the numbers on the rMBP Adobe RGB 1998 gamut:
Image

As you can see, the rMBP sacrifices nearly 10% of gamut for resolution. By comparison here is the gamut for the New iPad:
Image

Pretty much on par with it. What you get for a rMBP is practically an enlarged iPad screen.

When my Unibody Pro is calibrated and warmed up I've seen it deliver up to 80% gamut.

Sure you could say i'm just arguing numbers right now but I do see a difference between 60%, 70% and 80% gamut displays. It can be very tangible at times, especially when working with red hues.

In my personal opinion, the keyboard has also shrunk (Anand also noticed this) which made the keyboard less comfortable for me. Even as a Dvorak typist who deals with all sorts of keyboards with some discomfort, I can say this with confidence.

For a mobile photography workstation I would still recommend a Unibody MBP over the rMBP.

Click to expand...

There is also the number of "color accuracy" where the classic MBP is better.

But I would be careful to go by numbers only. A much greater variety of purples, for example, wouldn't be such a great advantage.

There's are two numbers in the same review (which you didn't post), and those are black levels and contrast, and in these the rMBP is the clear winner. I'd say these numbers are more important. Black levels are one key number for good displays (the lower, the better), and contrast is also an important number.

For softproofing a laptop isn't that great anyway, no matter how great the screen, and that's where color gamut comes in. Professional quality displays come close to 98% of Adobe RGB color gamut.

There is one other number where the classic MBP wins, and that's the white level - it can go much brighter. But, again, I don't see this as a very big advantage. What photographers usually fight with is to get overly bright displays to a lower brightness level to do editing work on.

The one thing I'll take several good looks at before deciding is the glossiness of the display. Here the classic MBP has a clear advantage, but I have to check out how big an advantage that is.

Nostromo said:

Professional photographers everywhere prefer ftp uploads and electronic delivery.

In the US, where the majority of the forum members lives, the tax law adds economical reason to this preference.

Stop trolling.

Click to expand...

I call B.S. on this, you can't generalize on pro photogs worldwide; the audience for forums like this one.

Good or bad, I simply am required to deliver images on optical media there & then on a weekly basis to some of my clients;
having to lug an external DVD writer along is another factor to take into consideration, however big/small that factor is to different people.

Please stop making sweeping statements on issues that you seem you have absolutely no clue about; much less make comments like "trolling"; your behaviour is adding nothing to the discussion.

Regards,
JF

Black and White photography on this thing is amazing. I compared it directly to the Hi-Res anti glare and there was a depth to the Retina that was just missing from the other photo. Amazing

Nostromo said:

If you'd be running photography as a business you would know that no professional photographer hands out CDs.

If you hand out images on tangible media, you have to take sales tax and forward it to the IRS. That increases the price of your service, adds a lot of extra paperwork for no reason.

Professional photographers deliver images electronically or with a hard drive, and there are IRS rules on how to do that so you don't get into tax trouble.

The retina MacBook pro will be a success among photographers as soon as calibration of the display has been proven reliable. Great display, great processing power, better cooling than even the classic MBPs of 2011, modern connectivity, responsive quality SSD will make it a must have or want very much item.

Posts like yours here come across misinformed and jealous/hateful and are not adding anything of value to the discussion.

Click to expand...

Oh my this is so confusing. I have been reading about the retina display all day. I bought my mac book pro a few weeks ago, right before the new updates and the retina display. I can't decide what to replace it with. Can I instal photoshop cs5 on the new retina or do I need to upgrade to Cs6?

I had my first in-person look at the RMBP a few days ago when I had to go to the mall. Pretty impressive.

I DL'd and ran the little hack program that enabled native 2880x1800 res on the screen to try it out- it maddens me beyond belief that Apple would not let a user choose this resolution without resorting to hacks- I honestly hate how Apple too often cripples their great hardware with bonehead software. They do not know better than I do as to how I want to use the computer. Running at native 2880x1800 is amazing. And no nothing is too small, at least for me. I was standing well over an arm's length away (further than I would be able to reach down and use the keyboard) and I could still see/read everything just fine.

Nonetheless, the screen is pretty astonishing and I'm glad to see the "next level" of displays finally arrive. High DPI + IPS = win. Now I'm pretty sure I will keep my older MBP until I get a replacement that has a highDPI screen and IPS panel... I really wish they start making desktop displays like this soon too. 24" at 220dpi would be great.

MBP Retina - Photography

MBP 15' Retina, 768gb Flash, 16gb Ram: I use it for editing on the go, using Final Cut Pro, Adobe Premiere Pro CS6, After Effects CS6, Photoshop CS6, and some other technical applications.
The MBP retina is amazing. Screen real estate works well with time lines, preview and program panels, etc for video editing. The retina is so clear that smaller fonts and screen display panels are easy to read. I am using my iMac 27 as a directed display for the MBP. Only when I am at the desk. Otherwise, I am able to take my project with me to SBUX and have a cup while I work. The wireless Mac keyboard and super mouse work well with the retina MBP as well.
Work flow with the MBP is same as working from my iMac at home. If you can spring for the cost, you will not be unhappy with performance. This is just my opinion. The MBP retina is a welcomed addition to my work flow.