Anyone uses a retina MBP without an external monitor?

gdourado

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 22, 2010
417
53
Hello, how are you?
I was wondering if anyone works and edits photography on a standalone 15 inch retina.
I know that the retina is super-sharp, but the realestate for tools, bars and menus is the same as on a 1440x900 display. Is this enough for photo editing and workflow with Lightroom and photoshop?
Does the display calibrate well with a spyder 4 for example?

I would really like to hear your experiences.

Cheers!
 

mackmgg

macrumors 65816
Nov 2, 2007
1,396
6
For me, 1440x900 is enough, but I've always used laptops so I'm used to switching between programs instead of side-by-side. If I really need the space (which does happen from time to time) I just set it to the full 2880x1800 without scaling and sit really close to the computer.
 

Shacklebolt

macrumors 6502a
Sep 2, 2004
596
0
I do, and for photo editing, I utterly hate it. Love the computer, but the retina display itself has been kind of a bust -- world/internet/software just ain't ready to support it, and pixel doubling is the devil.
 

gdourado

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 22, 2010
417
53
Anyone use the retina MBP in the scaled modes of 1680x1050 or 1920x1200 for photo editing in lightroom and photoshop?
How does the image look? And the performance?

Cheers!
 

gdourado

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 22, 2010
417
53
I have found this comment on the Apple forums. Is it accurate?

They ONLY are optimized for 1440x900 on the 15" mbp's !!!
If you try to use the display at 1920x1200 or 1680x1050 ALL the pixels will be BLURRY for pictures, video, anything that the computer does not draw itself.


I'll explain.

Basically the native resolution of the retina display is 2880x1800.
so if you're using 1440x900 then everything is perfect (which is why apple recommends it). Every pixel can be mapped to 2 pixels of the retina display, and everything is sharp.

Many of us know that 1440x900 isn't enough for many types of work (programming, graphics, video editing, web development).

so you want to use the larger resolutions provided (1920x1200 or 1680x1050).
Unfortunately, this means there's no direct relation between the pixels you want to use, and the native screen, so apple interpretes EVERYTHING.

Every single (clear) pixel, gets blurred with it's neighbors, or displaced and doubled, changing the size and shape of the displayed images.


Imagine two grids. One is 2x2 (4 pixels total). The other is 3x3.
Now if you scale up the 2x2 to the 3x3, you'd think you'd be ok, because the 3x3 is bigger, but what do you do with the middle pixel? Which corner's color does it get?

if you choose any color, you distort the image, so the only choice is a blurred mix of all 4 colors. It's a mess.


So a movie can easily look great on a desktop with a native resolution of 1920x1200, but if the macbook has the same resolution (1920x1200) it has to blur all the pixels to match the resolution.

As a photographer all I can say is...
no thanks.

I'm waiting for a 17" macbook pro with a decent native resolution, or it's time for another brand of computer.
 

fivedots

macrumors 6502a
Jun 29, 2011
695
3
Not a retina exclusive problem, but my biggest challenge with editing photos on my 15" rMBP has been brightness. I've calibrated the display, but by default the Spyder doesn't calibrate brightness on a notebook display. Need to find out what brightness setting is accurate and revert to it when editing. The challenge is the contrast varies dramatically with brightness.

As for real estate, I've had no problem with the screen size using both Lightroom and Photoshop. In fact, even though I have 2 24" Dell IPS displays, I rarely hook them up because I ultimately prefer not sitting at my desk. Thinking of selling at least one of them.

Then again, Lightroom could make a 27" display look cramped.
 
Last edited:

OreoCookie

macrumors 68030
Apr 14, 2001
2,681
69
Sendai, Japan
I have found this comment on the Apple forums. Is it accurate?
Technically, it's correct, but the retina resolution is so high that in most circumstances you will not be able to perceive the difference between native and non-native resolutions. In any case, I would still go for the retina model since it will give you a much better experience at viewing as well as editing photos and reading text.
 

akdj

macrumors 65816
Mar 10, 2008
1,161
58
Alaska
My experience has been almost 180º different than Shacklebolt. I've got a pair of NEC monitors @ home for video and photography color grading...and my rMBP is right on the money. They calibrate just fine...and most Adobe CS software has been updated...as have smaller but widely used programs like Pixelmator, etc.

I've actually been impressed with the amount of software and browsers that have been 'updated' in a year's time to support HiDPI monitors. Hopefully Windows 8.1 will address some of their scaling issues...OSx can address multi monitor support in Mavericks...and 2013 will be the year of HiDPI monitors across the board

*I edit photos and video in Alaska for Discovery, Nat Geo and Biography/The Military Channel*

J
 

gdourado

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 22, 2010
417
53
Technically, it's correct, but the retina resolution is so high that in most circumstances you will not be able to perceive the difference between native and non-native resolutions. In any case, I would still go for the retina model since it will give you a much better experience at viewing as well as editing photos and reading text.
So, between a retina MBP and a Hi-res anti-glare I should go for the retina?
I was thinking about going for a 15 anti-glare with the 2.7 i7, upgrade the ram to 16gb and upgrade the spinning hdd to a crucial m500 960gb ssd.
That way I could fit all in the internal drive and have SSD access speeds to all the data. Then just a couple of 1tb usb3 externals for backup.
With the retina, I would have to rely on external drives to work from.

Cheers!
 

emptysoul

macrumors regular
May 26, 2009
101
0
Although the posts about running at non native resolutions on the Retina display are technically true, I cannot see any blurring or distortion on mine when I bump up the resolution.

Having everything crystal clear at 1440x900 and being able to run comfortably at higher resolutions is like having the best of both worlds.
 

Fuchal

macrumors 68020
Sep 30, 2003
2,422
676
I use 1920 mode 100% of the time. It's fantastic. It's not blurry and is super quick.
 

inscrewtable

macrumors 68000
Oct 9, 2010
1,610
380
I've just moved from a 27" iMac to a rMBP and I am loving this sharpness. I can sit 13" from the monitor and I usually don't have any panels when I'm editing and even if I do a quick 'tab' and they are gone.

I also do not see any blurriness at all when using 1920. I don't think I could go back to non retina. I was looking at some MBP's yesterday and after the r they look like normal crap PC notebook screens in comparison