CS3 on MB vs MB Pro

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Chitoneus, Feb 26, 2008.

  1. Chitoneus macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    Chicago
    #1
    I'm sorry if this is the wrong forum for this, or if it is a common question, but I've had trouble finding helpful answers. The MacBook Pro forums are full of benchmark scores and such, but I'd like to get advice from people who are using CS3 for the same purpose I intend to use it for.

    I am what you might call a hobbyist, but I am hoping to develop my skills and do some more serious work over the next couple of years. I recently bought a Canon XTi, and I've been shooting RAW, ending up with files of about 10 MB. Now, I'm ready to buy a new laptop, and I am wondering if the lack of dedicated GPU or anything else about the MacBook leaves anything to be desired when editing photos with CS3.

    I'm only choosing between the 2.4 GHz BlackBook and the 2.4 GHz MacBook Pro. I intend to max out the RAM on whichever one I get.

    Feel free to weigh in on the matte vs glossy issue as well.

    Thanks!
     
  2. Lovesong macrumors 65816

    Lovesong

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Location:
    Stuck beween a rock and a hard place
    #2
    The MB and MBP are essentially the same machines, save for the option for a slightly faster (7200) HD in the MBP, a couple of extra ports (DVI, as opposed to miniDVI; FW800) and a dedicated GPU. The GPU is useful for programs that will take advantage of it, such as many games, if you do 3-D animations, render a lot of video, and the likes. The MB will give you the exact same performance when working on 2-dimensional images, such as photographs.

    The only downside to the MB for photography is the glossy display, which will not produce colors accurately (they will be over-saturated).

    In your position, I would look for a MB, and a larger screen (like a 24" widescreen).
     
  3. redrabbit macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
  4. chriscl macrumors 6502

    chriscl

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2008
    Location:
    Nottingham, England
    #4
    As mentioned above, for photography, you won't really 'miss' not having a dedicated GPU - system RAM (when using Photoshop) is far more important/useful.

    Much like the OP, I'm a (fairly) serious hobbyist-photographer, using a MacBook Pro, Photoshop CS3 and Lightroom are my weapons of choice...

    I upped the RAM in my MBP to 4GB (via play.com in the UK - cheapy-cheapy) and I definitely saw benefits from that.

    My MBP has the matte screen - this is much better for photo-editing than the glossy screen (IMHO...)
     
  5. Chitoneus thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    Chicago
    #5
    This is interesting. Can you tell me a bit about how this is useful, or is it just Aperture being a resource hog?

    Either way, I don't think I quite need Aperture yet. As for an external display, that would be great, but I move too frequently to accumulate stuff. :D

    Thank you all for your input.
     
  6. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #6
    I run CS3 design premium and Lightroom both on my Macbook, I think they both hum along quite nicely. I've got the 2.0 GHz core 2 duo with 2 GB of RAM. I haven't noticed a performance problem that makes me want 4 GB of RAM yet, but even if I did I bought the Macbook a month before the Santa Rosa chipset hit so I'd be out of luck anyway!

    I say save the $$$ and get a Macbook, then get a bitchin' lens for that XTi with the cash you saved.

    SLC
     
  7. Chitoneus thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    Chicago
    #7
    Oooh, now there's an idea. I'm pretty happy with what I have right now--the 18-55 mm that came out last year that's not the kit lens, and the 50mm f/1.8 II... but an extra wide angle might be nice... :cool:

    Not to change the subject or anything.
     
  8. zeesa macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2008
    #8
    I am in the same boat as you! I'm a hobbyist as well and really want to do Photoshop on my new machine. For me, it's the glossy issue! Ah, why can't Macbooks come in matte?
     
  9. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #9
    People think of a GPU as just helping 3d games. It can also do things like color space transforms much faster than a CPU can.

    Mac OS X has a framework or library called "Core Image" Program use it to display images. Core image looks at your hardware and decides it some function would run faster on the CPU or the GPU and then runs those functions where ever they are faster. So A person could change out a video card in a Mac Pro and Core Image might change what functions run on what. Must of Apple's software uses Core Image. We dont and can't know in advance if Core Image uses the CPU or the GPU

    Also Adobe dose not use Core Image but there is a checkbox (some place) in Photoshop that says "Use GPU" I think this is for a filter of some type.

    I would stay with iPhoto and CS3. Both run fast enough. When people tell you Aperture is slow ask if they've used the new 2.0 version. It is much quicker. You will want to keep the iPhoto library on a fast external firewire disk.

    Mak sure you like the glossy screen and it's small size. Both are deal breakers for me.
     
  10. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #10
    Because (1) anti glare coatings cost more to make and (2) 99% of Mac users use their machine as media players and glossy works well for that purpose. They assume the 1% of users who create media will just buy the MBP
     
  11. Techguy172 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Location:
    Ontario Canada
    #11
    You could get the Macbook and then get an external display however I'm not really sure on how much of a difference the GPU makes I wouldn't think that much.
     
  12. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location

Share This Page