Retina MacBook Pro for photography?

[joshuaginter]

I just wanted to get a feel for how many photographers are considering purchasing the new Retina MacBook Pro. The immense amount of pixels in the 15" screen sure make it sound appealing for editing photos. But at its current price, I wonder how many people would dive into the expense.

Vote in the poll above as to your intentions.

[mulo]

performance gains for me are minimal + I like to wait 2-3 cycles before upgrading, just like with the iPhone

[VirtualRain]

I was very tempted, but would absolutely need a second display and until they update the Thunderbolt Display, I won't be changing my setup. So maybe a year from now, I'll consider it more seriously.

[joshuaginter]

Originally Posted by VirtualRain

I was very tempted, but would absolutely need a second display and until they update the Thunderbolt Display, I won't be changing my setup. So maybe a year from now, I'll consider it more seriously.

Do you think the laptop display will be enough for editing? I am considering selling all of my Mac gear to pay for the RMBP. Including the Thunderbolt Display.

[VirtualRain]

Originally Posted by joshuaginter

Do you think the laptop display will be enough for editing? I am considering selling all of my Mac gear to pay for the RMBP. Including the Thunderbolt Display.

The initial tests of the display rank it pretty highly... so I'm sure it would be great. Personally, I just find it claustrophobic to work on a single display... it's more of a psychological problem

[skinnygorilla]

I wouldn't suggest any professional photographer rely on a laptop display as their main display

[Digital Skunk]

Originally Posted by VirtualRain

The initial tests of the display rank it pretty highly... so I'm sure it would be great. Personally, I just find it claustrophobic to work on a single display... it's more of a psychological problem

I am with you. I would use the RMBP to do photography work, but I can't see myself working on such a small screen for too long. The 17" MBP made it a little more bearable, especially if I am just doing some basic editing (not toning) and reorganizing.

[Prodo123]

Color gamut is more important than resolution. Plain and simple.

[7enderbender]

Originally Posted by joshuaginter

I just wanted to get a feel for how many photographers are considering purchasing the new Retina MacBook Pro. The immense amount of pixels in the 15" screen sure make it sound appealing for editing photos. But at its current price, I wonder how many people would dive into the expense.

Vote in the poll above as to your intentions.

I want to say no but I haven't seen it yet. Maybe at 1920x1200 it has enough real estate. Question is how good the colors are and how this new screen coating works. Bigger problem is the lack of space and no room for a second hard drive. So despite having a nice shiny thin laptop you'll drag around a bag full of adapters and external drives. The upgraded 15" hi res matte version looks a lot more appealing still. Or a used 17"...

The screen may be interesting but overall this is going in the wrong direction for photography.

[joshuaginter]

Originally Posted by 7enderbender

The screen may be interesting but overall this is going in the wrong direction for photography.

Can you elaborate on why it is the wrong direction for photography?

[Prodo123]

Originally Posted by joshuaginter

Can you elaborate on why it is the wrong direction for photography?

He just did.
1. Lack of reusable, upgradeable storage
2. Questionable quality of screen and coating
3. Discomfort of using external drives and adaptors due to lack of ports and internal storage
4. Not enough real estate

All of which I agree with.

Also, if you use Photoshop, and use the internal SSD as a scratch disk, you can expect it to die in less than 6 years, whereas many of my hard drives are 10 years old and going strong.

[joshuaginter]

Originally Posted by Prodo123

He just did.
1. Lack of reusable, upgradeable storage
2. Questionable quality of screen and coating
3. Discomfort of using external drives and adaptors due to lack of ports and internal storage
4. Not enough real estate

All of which I agree with.

Also, if you use Photoshop, and use the internal SSD as a scratch disk, you can expect it to die in less than 6 years, whereas many of my hard drives are 10 years old and going strong.

I suppose he did. At first I assumed the added portability would be beneficial for photographers who need to edit on the go. Having said that, how portable can a 15" footprint actually be?

[Prodo123]

Originally Posted by joshuaginter

I suppose he did. At first I assumed the added portability would be beneficial for photographers who need to edit on the go. Having said that, how portable can a 15" footprint actually be?

Very portable. I carry my laptop with me all the time in the Lowepro Compudaypack and the Incase 15" sleeve with enough room for 4 plastic folders to squeeze into the laptop compartment.

Also, 6 lbs of aluminum isn't as heavy as it sounds. It's very light.

If I had to carry extra storage because this laptop lacked it, then portability would ultimately be sacrificed for a thin body, which is ironic.

I do feel that, even with the 1680x1050 screen on my Early 2011 15", the screen is a tad bit small. I'm planning to get a Thunderbolt display to compensate. This is not a problem that resolution independence can fix anyway.

[sapporobaby]

Originally Posted by Prodo123

He just did.
1. Lack of reusable, upgradeable storage
2. Questionable quality of screen and coating
3. Discomfort of using external drives and adaptors due to lack of ports and internal storage
4. Not enough real estate

All of which I agree with.

Also, if you use Photoshop, and use the internal SSD as a scratch disk, you can expect it to die in less than 6 years, whereas many of my hard drives are 10 years old and going strong.

I am running my Aperture libs from a 2TB Thunderbolt drive and travel with a 1TB FW800 drive and there are no hiccups. Sorry but it sounds as though you either like to nitpick or nothing will every really satisfy you.

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.

I use Photoshop sporadically but my scratch drive sits on my TB external and things sail right along. Another moot point... 6 year old drives? Really? I had a bunch but as new and new drive technology comes out I tend to put the external cases and give them away considering the price of new drives is reasonable.

[ka-spot]

I'm currently using Air 13 i5 with 4GB of RAM for photography (as hobby). I own Sony NEX 7 and shooting RAW only (20+ MB files). Absolutely no pain with ACR (PS CS5).

I'm very happy with both toys

My previous setup was Macbook Pro 13 mid 2009 - C2D 2.26 with 8GB of RAM and Canon 5D mark II. Also everything was ok with editing of big RAW files.

So prety much everything is ok with Photography, but can you live without top line, guys?

I know for me, that sn or later I'll own better things anyway..

[MattSepeta]

Originally Posted by sapporobaby

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.

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".

[7enderbender]

Originally Posted by Prodo123

He just did.
1. Lack of reusable, upgradeable storage
2. Questionable quality of screen and coating
3. Discomfort of using external drives and adaptors due to lack of ports and internal storage
4. Not enough real estate

All of which I agree with.

Also, if you use Photoshop, and use the internal SSD as a scratch disk, you can expect it to die in less than 6 years, whereas many of my hard drives are 10 years old and going strong.

You are exactly right. The scratch disc issue is another reason I'm disappointed that there is no option for a second (ideally swappable) HD. This is a problem for both PS and for any attempts to use the machine for audio recording (which I have pretty much moved to desktop computers for that reason).

I'm surprised that a lot of people don't see the difference between screen size and and screen real estate. Is that due to the way things are marketed these days? If you want to find screen resolution you actually have to look at the fine print these days. And I find it shocking how many laptops are now offered with less resolution than what was available a few years ago.

Same is really true for desktops in a way. Why is it that Apple wants me to put a 27" (shiny) monstrosity on my desk just to get 2500 by something resolution which results in meager 100 something ppi resolution? Let's hope that the retina technology will catch up and lead to true resolution independence.

[maflynn]

Originally Posted by Prodo123

Also, if you use Photoshop, and use the internal SSD as a scratch disk, you can expect it to die in less than 6 years, whereas many of my hard drives are 10 years old and going strong.

Most people here seem to upgrade their computers less then 10 years so that risk is more or less moot

[sapporobaby]

Originally Posted by maflynn

Most people here seem to upgrade their computers less then 10 years so that risk is more or less moot

I didn't want to say anything at first but it was a pretty useless statement to make.

[7enderbender]

Originally Posted by joshuaginter

Can you elaborate on why it is the wrong direction for photography?

My issue is that it is not adding to the desperately needed real estate, at least not at the intended resolution. Also the fact that the 17" is going away is a problem for a lot of photographers who rely on those machines on the road.

Then there is the obsession with design and flatness at the expense of disk space options and ports. I see no gain if the machine is flat (yet still bigger than it needs to be really) but I have to carry around a bag full of expensive adapters and external storage. True - I would probably do that anyway when on the road.

But again, I haven't seen or tried it yet - so maybe it works well at the 1600 or 1900 resolution. And in all fairness: this is not an Apple specific problem. My quest for a desktop AND laptop replacement with photography and audio production in mind started out when I realized how difficult it would be to find a replacement for my current laptop which works really well for photography. It's 1400x1050 in a 14" format and its color rendition is surprisingly good. It's actually my preferred tool, even when at home.

Problem is that given that it is 6 years old I was hoping to get something way better than this with respect to speed (no problem), HD size (problem) and screen real estate (big problem). I had looked at the MacBooks because they seem to be made really well compared to a lot of the WinPC laptops. Some aspects of those I like better than others (not a fan of the keyboard and the trackpad for example but that's a matter of taste and getting used to).

For photography I had hoped for an improved (meaning higer res) version of the matte 15" and 17" hi res screens. And I had hoped for two hard drives for both safety and space reasons. For comparison: even as a photographer who is more working a vanity business if you will 256 GB is completely out of the question. And no way to upgrade yourself. I'm running out of space with my current 750GB drive...

[danetello]

Should be perfect for photography

[prodigee]

Originally Posted by sapporobaby

Best post ever. I calibrate my monitor and use the ICC profiles for my Epson printer when I print and the colors look spot on. Some people simply need a reason to complain about something and to find fault.

Completely agree. People like to have a reason other than themselves to blame for their lack of quality in work. If you're doing it right, then you should have no problem.

Originally Posted by joemod

I don't think that the issue is if the RMBP is perfectly viable which of course is. I think the question is how it compares with the regular new MBP which if I recall correctly is faster. In other words, is it worth to sacrifice the extra processing power for more pixels, or if it is worth to sell a previous macbook pro model to buy the new one.
In my humble opinion (disclaimer: I haven't seen or worked with the new RMBP) I don't think it is worth either of those two.

Honestly, I don't think the sacrifice is speed will effect photographers in the slightest, the processor and graphics card in it are MORE than capable of handling photoshop, if it had anything less than 8 GB of RAM I could see reason for concern. But really I can't say that I see any of that being a foreseeable issue. If you were trying to do more graphic intensive things and decent sized renders, then yeah, I can see where you would be troubled trying to run at full res, but for photographers who are primarily going to be running an editor, and maybe a organization program at the same time I see no issue there. Would I buy one right now? No of course not, I'll wait till next year when the retina display doesn't cost a super premium over a regular display.

Originally Posted by 7enderbender

My issue is that it is not adding to the desperately needed real estate, at least not at the intended resolution. Also the fact that the 17" is going away is a problem for a lot of photographers who rely on those machines on the road.

Then there is the obsession with design and flatness at the expense of disk space options and ports. I see no gain if the machine is flat (yet still bigger than it needs to be really) but I have to carry around a bag full of expensive adapters and external storage. True - I would probably do that anyway when on the road.

But again, I haven't seen or tried it yet - so maybe it works well at the 1600 or 1900 resolution. And in all fairness: this is not an Apple specific problem. My quest for a desktop AND laptop replacement with photography and audio production in mind started out when I realized how difficult it would be to find a replacement for my current laptop which works really well for photography. It's 1400x1050 in a 14" format and its color rendition is surprisingly good. It's actually my preferred tool, even when at home.

Problem is that given that it is 6 years old I was hoping to get something way better than this with respect to speed (no problem), HD size (problem) and screen real estate (big problem). I had looked at the MacBooks because they seem to be made really well compared to a lot of the WinPC laptops. Some aspects of those I like better than others (not a fan of the keyboard and the trackpad for example but that's a matter of taste and getting used to).

For photography I had hoped for an improved (meaning higer res) version of the matte 15" and 17" hi res screens. And I had hoped for two hard drives for both safety and space reasons. For comparison: even as a photographer who is more working a vanity business if you will 256 GB is completely out of the question. And no way to upgrade yourself. I'm running out of space with my current 750GB drive...

The size downgrades are a simple matter of because they can, and because why not, that's how everything is going these days, there is no reason not to go smaller if you can.

I don't see where you are trying to go with the storage argument, though. If you wanted to, you could easily throw a 2 TB drive in there and be done with it. But of course as time goes on, files keep getting bigger as cameras get better, with higher res, and better sensors capturing more data. If this were 3 years ago the thought of coming with a 768 GB SSD in a laptop, the computer would have been worth its weight in gold, and you probably would have questioned whether or not you needed that much space on your laptop. I also don't understand why you would want 2 HDs for safety. Are you not backing up to external storage? Do you really need to have every single one of your photos on your computer at once? These are the questions you need to ask yourself. You definitely SHOULD be backing up, because who is to say you won't drop your bag into a fountain while at a wedding and ruin everything? I think that is something that you should really take into consideration. I highly doubt that you take in more than 64 GB of photos at once either, especially on an every day basis, and even then the keepers from that 64 GB of photos will not even come close to that in terms of space.

Storage is completely upgradeable anyway, and you wouldn't be able to have 2 HD in a laptop in any form of RAID and gain storage either. You would have to have at least 3, which won't happen, at least for a while. So that is a moot point as well.

I'm also not trying to attack anyone here if that's what you think. I'm simply just saying, think it through. Honestly if you take away the updated screen, how is it really that different from any other laptop in this category that you would consider?


EDIT:
I missed the part where you couldn't upgrade storage. My mistake, regardless, back up to external, and good cloud storage. Cloud storage > anything else IMO anyway, don't have to deal with it being on your computer, can access it whenever you want, and if you get a good service you'll never have to worry about losing your data anyway.

[Bear]

Originally Posted by prodigee

...
EDIT:
I missed the part where you couldn't upgrade storage. My mistake, regardless, back up to external, and good cloud storage. Cloud storage > anything else IMO anyway, don't have to deal with it being on your computer, can access it whenever you want, and if you get a good service you'll never have to worry about losing your data anyway.

It doesn't matter if you have a good cloud service, you still need your own backups. Anything could happen to a cloud service including dropping offline due to an issue with their internet provider.

I know you did say back up to external, but people need to be reminded that cloud service is not perfect yet.

[blanka]

I zoom in when editing photo's all the time. 90% happens at 300% magnification, so a Retina screen absolutely adds nothing to that.

[sapporobaby]

Originally Posted by 7enderbender

My issue is that it is not adding to the desperately needed real estate, at least not at the intended resolution. Also the fact that the 17" is going away is a problem for a lot of photographers who rely on those machines on the road.

Then there is the obsession with design and flatness at the expense of disk space options and ports. I see no gain if the machine is flat (yet still bigger than it needs to be really) but I have to carry around a bag full of expensive adapters and external storage. True - I would probably do that anyway when on the road.

But again, I haven't seen or tried it yet - so maybe it works well at the 1600 or 1900 resolution. And in all fairness: this is not an Apple specific problem. My quest for a desktop AND laptop replacement with photography and audio production in mind started out when I realized how difficult it would be to find a replacement for my current laptop which works really well for photography. It's 1400x1050 in a 14" format and its color rendition is surprisingly good. It's actually my preferred tool, even when at home.

Problem is that given that it is 6 years old I was hoping to get something way better than this with respect to speed (no problem), HD size (problem) and screen real estate (big problem). I had looked at the MacBooks because they seem to be made really well compared to a lot of the WinPC laptops. Some aspects of those I like better than others (not a fan of the keyboard and the trackpad for example but that's a matter of taste and getting used to).

For photography I had hoped for an improved (meaning higer res) version of the matte 15" and 17" hi res screens. And I had hoped for two hard drives for both safety and space reasons. For comparison: even as a photographer who is more working a vanity business if you will 256 GB is completely out of the question. And no way to upgrade yourself. I'm running out of space with my current 750GB drive...

This is by far the biggest complaint and whining thread I have seen by far. Come on dude. Are you really not hip to the fact that external drives are fast becoming the norm when it comes to being mobile? You are on a laptop for God's sake, not a desktop. I have two external drives that I work with. One 2TB Thunderbolt drive when I am at home and a 1TB FW800 drive for when I am shooting outside of my working space. Am I burdened by the half pound external drive and cable? No. If this is too much for you, I really suggest you invest in a gym membership, and hit the weights.

Your statement: "Then there is the obsession with design and flatness at the expense of disk space options and ports. I see no gain if the machine is flat (yet still bigger than it needs to be really) but I have to carry around a bag full of expensive adapters and external storage. True - I would probably do that anyway when on the road." Make zero point zero sense. One minute you are complaining about having to carry adapters and external storage but then go on to say that you would do it anyway. Makes no sense...

Your statement: "I realized how difficult it would be to find a replacement for my current laptop which works really well for photography. It's 1400x1050 in a 14" format and its color rendition is surprisingly good. It's actually my preferred tool, even when at home." Another rambling non-sequitor statement. You say that you like your 14" and then in the first paragraph complain about the 15" size... You are all over the map with contradictory statements... You go on mention that you had hoped for a 15" or 17" replacement but prior to this you say that 15" is too small...

Your statement: " And I had hoped for two hard drives for both safety and space reasons. For comparison: even as a photographer who is more working a vanity business if you will 256 GB is completely out of the question. And no way to upgrade yourself. I'm running out of space with my current 750GB drive..." My absolute favorite piece of nonsense to date. You really thought that Apple would put two hard drives into a Mac? Really. You just showed you know absolutely nothing, and I mean nothing about Macs or how Apple operates. Now, as an aside, I currently have two SSD's (1 x 120gig, and 1 x 250gig) in my 15" MBP but I installed them myself and use an Optibay, thus shedding the optical drive. I run my OS and Apps on the 120gig, and maintain my iTunes library on the larger drive. I use the larger drive as a temporary storage space if I want to process while on a plane or bus, or train without having to connect the external.

It looks as though you are searching for reasons to complain and whine about something that is not going to happen no matter how much YOU want it. Laptops will continue to get smaller, thinner, lighter and use less and less moving parts. There is always a PC out there with your name on if what Apple has to offer does not suit your fancy.