Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Special Interests > Visual Media > Digital Photography

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jun 27, 2013, 10:52 AM   #26
butch10x
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
If you get any type of external storage solution, you basically cripple portability and chain your machine to the desk where your external harddrives are located. Even if they are (more) portable 2.5" drives, I'd really give up that dream,

With the new Lightroom 5, this is solved with the Smart Preview function. I am now able to edit RAW photos while the originals sit at home. AWESOMENESS!!!!!

That being said, I too am also in search of a laptop for photo editing. I'm typing this on the new MBA at the moment. I do have a late 2011 15" 2.4 i7 cMBP loaded with a SSD, HDD, and 16gb ram. It runs like a beast. I just don't use it in the field as much because it weighs a lot, it's size is larger, and battery life isn't as good. At the time it was, but now in 2013, we have option that Apple wants to share with us to make our lives "want/ need" these new machines. So I bought the new MBA i5, 8gb ram, with 512 flash. Yes, I splurged for the 512.... i just did ok.

Performance of my new MBA: Lightroom runs great! All the sliders adjust in real time with no hiccups. The issue is photoshop (i use CS5). The brush tools cause my display to flicker severely, rendering my editing process useless. I'm hoping Apple or Adobe fix this before my 14 days are up (it's already been 7). The screen ok for culling, but as a previous poster mentioned, colors aren't accurate at all. Everything else runs great on the machine. The fan hardly ever turns on during photo editing, unless maybe a heavy batch conversion in LR or gaming (which it does when I run WoW). Other than Photoshop, I'd keep it, but at this point after shelling out 2k+ (Applecare), I want a machine that is solid! SO I will be waiting for the rMBP in hopes it''ll work with photoshop better.

--
For all that will post "did you contact apple or adobe." Yes I did and also some links to follow:

http://forums.adobe.com/message/5454363#5454363 (CS6)
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1602252
https://discussions.apple.com/thread...art=0&tstart=0
http://forums.adobe.com/message/5451214
__________________
2010 3.2 Quad Core Mac Pro, 12GB OWC Ram, 27" NEC /calibrated
http://500px.com/butch10x
www.bpatelphoto.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/butch10x/

Last edited by butch10x; Jun 27, 2013 at 11:13 AM.
butch10x is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 10, 2013, 06:30 PM   #27
KeithPratt
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
No, ChrisA is approximately correct, approximately, because the probability is higher than twice the probability of failure of a single hard drive.
The question is not how likely the drive is to die (we know it will) but, rather, when it will die. A RAID won't die twice as quickly as a single drive.
KeithPratt is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 10, 2013, 07:50 PM   #28
OreoCookie
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Fukuoka, Japan
Quote:
Originally Posted by KeithPratt View Post
The question is not how likely the drive is to die (we know it will) but, rather, when it will die. A RAID won't die twice as quickly as a single drive.
You're mistaking »twice as likely« with »twice as quickly«. Our arguments are mathematically correct, but we make statements about the likelihood of failure in a give (same) time period. Since RAIDs have other single points of failure (RAID software/RAID controller, a single power supply, etc.), the probability of failure in a given time period is actually more than twice as likely.
__________________
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
OreoCookie is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 14, 2013, 12:05 PM   #29
KeithPratt
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
You're mistaking »twice as likely« with »twice as quickly«.
I appreciate the difference. I'm just trying to point out a common misconception...

Quote:
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Since RAIDs have other single points of failure (RAID software/RAID controller, a single power supply, etc.), the probability of failure in a given time period is actually more than twice as likely.
Twice as likely as what? The difference in failure rate between two independent drives and two drives in RAID0 is purely down to the RAID hardware/software.

There seems to be a common misconception that the act of putting two drives in RAID0 doubles the probability of failure; where the same person wouldn't consider splitting their files over two drives (rather than one big one) doubling the probability of failure.
KeithPratt is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 14, 2013, 03:51 PM   #30
OreoCookie
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Fukuoka, Japan
Quote:
Originally Posted by KeithPratt View Post
Twice as likely as what? The difference in failure rate between two independent drives and two drives in RAID0 is purely down to the RAID hardware/software.
We're talking about the failure of volumes rather than hard drives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KeithPratt View Post
There seems to be a common misconception that the act of putting two drives in RAID0 doubles the probability of failure; where the same person wouldn't consider splitting their files over two drives (rather than one big one) doubling the probability of failure.
That's exactly what RAID0 (striping) does: it distributes files across two drives, thus (more than) doubling the probability of failure because it suffices that one drive fails to lose all data. If you have two independent volumes on two drives, you'd only lose half the data. It's not a misconception, it's a factually correct statement.
__________________
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
OreoCookie is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 4, 2013, 12:28 AM   #31
MajkJaro
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Do photos on the retina screen look so bad as someone mentioned here?
MajkJaro is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 4, 2013, 02:04 PM   #32
nburwell
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: PHL
Quote:
Originally Posted by MajkJaro View Post
Do photos on the retina screen look so bad as someone mentioned here?
No, not at all. I've had my rMBP for about a month now, and if anything, my images look better on the retina display than they did on my non-retina MBP.
__________________
13.3" rMBP 2.5GHz l iPhone 5s l iPad rMini l 4G iPod Touch l Apple TV l Nikon
nburwell is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Special Interests > Visual Media > Digital Photography

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:14 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC