For photography purposes, air or pro?

[eron]

Having used both MBPs and Airs, I agree that the MBP has more processing power, and RAM to handle photo editing.

However, you have to also consider what's her usage pattern. Does she move around with the laptop often? Does she travel with the laptop much?

The Air is an extremely light, and capable device, especially if someone is weight and bulk conscious. Though you have to account for the external HDD that you have to use to store bulks of the media.

They are very distinct machines, and the decision should be easy.
If she only wants to use it on the desk, or at home, then get the MBP.

 

[thermodynamic]

I'm starting to get the feeling some people on this forum have no idea what they're talking about.

PhotoShop is not slow on the mba. It's faster than the 2010 mbp ultimate. I guess PhotoShop was unusable back then...

The only thing i would be wary of is the color gamut of the air. It might be exaggerated, but its worth exploring.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5113/apple-15inch-macbook-pro-late-2011-review/3

The Pro does have the better contrast ratio... excellent delta-E as well... but the MBA's display specs aren't rubbish either...

 

[thundersteele]

I wonder how this same thread would have done in the Air forum.

Also, poor OP... I'm sure he came here to find some support for his suggestion...

 

[Krazy Bill]

I was a photography student for a while and really preferred a Desktop PC for photo editing.

I do this for a living. Desktops have the power but it's hard to drag a desktop from "shoot to shoot" cross country.

I had no issues using 4GB of RAM in Photoshop or Lightroom when using RAW image files and crappy dual core @ 2.0ghz on a Vista PC. It's really not that bad.

Try doing this for 1500+ RAW files in a day. I'd take an SSD over screen size any day. (As long as said screen is properly calibrated).

No smaller than 15" period... It is uncomfortable.

Take some of the savings and apply it an SSD and a decent external monitor. Keep the portability of the 13".

SD card reader is important. It makes life easier.

Doesn't help if your gear uses CompactFlash. I really wouldn't put a lot of feature points on the MacBooks because they have an SD slot. You can buy cheap 9 in 1 usb adapters for like 12 bucks.

 

[thekev]

The Pro will be perfect for storing and editing pictures.

- the Air has a higher screen resolution
- some say that the Pro screen has a better screen quality
- the Air costs more with less performance
- 128 GB is a lot of storage, but might not be enough for some
- SSD is awesome
- the Air can't be upgraded to 8 GB RAM

I'm not sure what to recommend here. I wouldn't want to live without a SSD, but you can also put a SSD in the Pro. If weight is not an important factor, I would go with the Pro, since it's more flexible and allows at least some upgrades.

The differences in screen resolution aren't enough to make a difference. If they have a serious interest in photography, laptop displays completely suck.

Not for photography. The matte screen is not at all faithful in its reproduction of colours and, especially, shadow areas.

Ben

Neither of them have accurate color reproduction. They are all approximations and poor ones at that.

Try doing this for 1500+ RAW files in a day. I'd take an SSD over screen size any day. (As long as said screen is properly calibrated).

.

That doesn't work so well on a macbook pro or Air. Most colorimeters on the market are not at all tuned for LED backlighting. Even some that say they are, really are not. There is one or two that seem to do an okay job, but LED produces weird color temps. TN laptop screens in general are by their nature not perfect for color. You get a ballpark figure on your laptop, and you fix it back at the office. I say this stuff for the people reading who might know nothing about it.

 

[alejandror91]

Hey guys! So after reading all your comments, my sister finally decided she will be getting the Pro, mainly because of the upgradability and the storage capacity. Plus the better processor and RAM on the Pro will come in handy when editing and she can buy a SSD later.

A 15 inch Pro would be great but it is significantly more expensive and the loss of portability doesn't help the cause.

You all have been very helpful 🙂 thanks a lot!

 

[Krazy Bill]

Most colorimeters on the market are not at all tuned for LED backlighting.

I use a CalMAN X2 which does exactly that. I also use different profiles matched to 3 different print labs.

 

[thekev]

I use a CalMAN X2 which does exactly that. I also use different profiles matched to 3 different print labs.

Bleck it depends how pick you are. I've tested various devices. Here's the thing about calibration. Most displays can't actually be calibrated. They can only be profiled meaning that the OS adjusts the data it sends to the display to match the desired result as close as possible. Typically you can also adjust the backlight intensity. With really robust software, you can create a more sophisticated profile, and with certain displays, you can update them on a hardware lut level basically meaning the display is adjusting its own hardware profile on a slightly more refined level.

In my experience where this really helps is on the weird colors, rather than primaries. Any given display + colorimeter+ software combination has a specific margin of error which then tends to be higher when you can only profile it. Neither one of these methods can truly compensate for a quality display that was properly measured at the factory, as none of these measure every greyscale tone, none of the calibration methods are perfect, and none of them measure every color combination. Basically you get it close, but if you're trying to judge for print purposes, it's easiest with a quality desktop display that can be fully calibrated with your contrast at 300-350:1.

It sounds low, but it's pretty close to the contrast ratio of a quality print. Glossy ones go up to around 350:1 (at most). Color isn't the only thing. Having a lot of tonal discontinuity moves the colors further apart making it harder to render an accurate judgement. Anyway that was fun to write 🙂. I just ordered an i1 display pro a couple days ago. I'm going to see how well it functions.

Edit: +1 for a colorimeter I've never heard of 😛 I googled it and it returned a bunch of AV forums. Is it used for projectors too?

Hey guys! So after reading all your comments, my sister finally decided she will be getting the Pro, mainly because of the upgradability and the storage capacity. Plus the better processor and RAM on the Pro will come in handy when editing and she can buy a SSD later.

A 15 inch Pro would be great but it is significantly more expensive and the loss of portability doesn't help the cause.

You all have been very helpful 🙂 thanks a lot!

Let me put it this way, if she finds she needs the extra capacity of an HDD, she made the right choice. If she simply wants an SSD, we should see decent 128GB SSDs fall to around the $100-$125 range next year (maybe just a bit more, but not much).

@ethics101 photoshop basically gets bottlenecked if it's hitting scratch disks. The only thing that puts the Air ahead is if it has to write scratch disks constantly. Disable spotlight on your system folders so that it can't index scratch data and that'll solve half your problems right there 😛

 

[AlvinNguyen]

I'm a pro fashion photographer and let me tell you that in my opinion I would never edit on the air for more than 2-3 days before I started to lose my mind.

The speed is adequate but the screen is terrible! The color gamut is way off and in addition 13" is way too small. Even if she was ok if the screen size, the gamut would drive her to insanity. She might be able to get by if she's an amateur photographer but even then the mbp is a much better buy. The storage is also an incredible help.

I thought I could do the iMac + MBA setup so I got a 13" air and took it to my 3 weeks assignment in Asia. That turned into a 5 weeks assignment and I almost lost my mind. Retouching on the air is a PIA. I was so happy to go back to my 17" 2.5ghz i7 MBP!

 

[theSeb]

The OP's sister is just starting out and is far from needing to process 1500 RAW images a day so frankly either computer would be great. The screen is the major issue on both the Macbook Pro and the MBA, but out of the box the MBP's screen will be better for photography. The storage in the MBP will certainly be an advantage and the ability to upgrade beyond 4 GB when she starts doing more than basic editing is important to consider.

 

[Benbikeman]

Neither of them have accurate color reproduction. They are all approximations and poor ones at that.

All colour reproduction in a medium different to the final output is an approximation, even with calibration and profiling.

For real-life photography use (including magazine features) rather than pixel-peeping, the MBP glossy screen when calibrated and using the appropriate print profile does the job well, as is testified to by the large numbers of pro photographers using it.

 

[Krazy Bill]

The OP's sister is just starting out and is far from needing to process 1500 RAW images a day so frankly either computer would be great.

Exactly *where* does it say the sister is just "starting out"? For all you know she's Annie Leibovitz.

I love how these threads get a life of their own after 20 posts or so and people just start making things up. 🙂

 

[theSeb]

Exactly *where* does it say the sister is just "starting out"? For all you know she's Annie Leibovitz.

I love how these threads get a life of their own after 20 posts or so and people just start making things up. 🙂

You're right. I have made an assumption.

 

[ethics101]

Bleck it depends how pick you are. I've tested various devices. Here's the thing about calibration. Most displays can't actually be calibrated. They can only be profiled meaning that the OS adjusts the data it sends to the display to match the desired result as close as possible. Typically you can also adjust the backlight intensity. With really robust software, you can create a more sophisticated profile, and with certain displays, you can update them on a hardware lut level basically meaning the display is adjusting its own hardware profile on a slightly more refined level.

In my experience where this really helps is on the weird colors, rather than primaries. Any given display + colorimeter+ software combination has a specific margin of error which then tends to be higher when you can only profile it. Neither one of these methods can truly compensate for a quality display that was properly measured at the factory, as none of these measure every greyscale tone, none of the calibration methods are perfect, and none of them measure every color combination. Basically you get it close, but if you're trying to judge for print purposes, it's easiest with a quality desktop display that can be fully calibrated with your contrast at 300-350:1.

@ethics101 since you know nothing about photoshop and are just quoting silliness, photoshop basically gets bottlenecked if it's hitting scratch disks. The only thing that puts the Air ahead is if it has to write scratch disks constantly. Disable spotlight on your system folders so that it can't index scratch data and that'll solve half your problems right there 😛

And this addresses me how?

 

[Mojo1]

Not for photography. The matte screen is not at all faithful in its reproduction of colours and, especially, shadow areas.

Ben

It's actually the glossy displays that have over-saturated colors and poor rendition of dark areas... Glossy displays also make it difficult to correctly ascertain the amount of sharpening required, resulting in under-sharpened images. Many pros stick with matte displays for these reasons. (As if staring into a mirror for hours on end isn't enough of a reason to stick with matte...)

No portable Mac display is great for critical image editing, but the MBA displays are the worse.

At any rate, a 13" combined with a good external display is a great way to go. B&H currently has the NEC 2490WUXi2 for a great price. It is well regarded in photography circles.

 

[thekev]

And this addresses me how?

You said the Air was faster than the fastest 2010 MBP. I pointed out that this is only if the machine is slowed by scratch disks, although I did it in a silly manner. I'm going to take out the mean part..

 

[Spadoinkles]

PhotoShop is not slow on the mba. It's faster than the 2010 mbp ultimate. I guess PhotoShop was unusable back then...

The only thing i would be wary of is the color gamut of the air. It might be exaggerated, but its worth exploring.

This is spot on. I still have my late-06 Whitebook running full force on CS5. I've made commercial banners that've been printed, web images and worked with everything up to a 70-megapixel stitched document. If a 2.0GHz C2D, 2GB RAM and GMA950 suffices, I'm sure any current MBA will be more than plenty.

Good thing with my shiny new 15" and SSD, no more 8-hour saves for my 2gig-plus-sized files 😛

 

[DocNYz]

This is spot on. I still have my late-06 Whitebook running full force on CS5. I've made commercial banners that've been printed, web images and worked with everything up to a 70-megapixel stitched document. If a 2.0GHz C2D, 2GB RAM and GMA950 suffices, I'm sure any current MBA will be more than plenty.

Good thing with my shiny new 15" and SSD, no more 8-hour saves for my 2gig-plus-sized files 😛

Yeah seriously, look at the actual performance results of the MBA, not just the specs or the fact that it is in AIR and you still think of them as the first model.

 

[Spadoinkles]

Yeah seriously, look at the actual performance results of the MBA, not just the specs or the fact that it is in AIR and you still think of them as the first model.

Having said that I'm lovin my new MBP. Except the fact I've lost my biggest and best excuse for missing deadlines 😀

 

[jlc1978]

Let me put it this way, if she finds she needs the extra capacity of an HDD, she made the right choice. If she simply wants an SSD, we should see decent 128GB SSDs fall to around the $100-$125 range next year (maybe just a bit more, but not much).

They're already there - I've seen them from 30 - 256 GB all around $1/BG. they are not the latest and creates but still a decent alternative for the price. I have a 256 in my MBP and it is a big jump one the old HDD>

 

[DocNYz]

Having said that I'm lovin my new MBP. Except the fact I've lost my biggest and best excuse for missing deadlines 😀

Yeah don't get me wrong, if you use it for serious things, especially visual, I personally would almost always recommend the Pro (esp with SSD so you can get really fast response and don't have to worry about shaking it around, if you're on a photo shoot, for example). I was just saying people can no longer quickly dismiss the Air as something not powerful or completely functional/fast.

 

[Benbikeman]

It's actually the glossy displays that have over-saturated colors and poor rendition of dark areas

You're mistaken: it is the low contrast of the matte screen that produces poor rendition of shadow areas. There are many aspects of the matte vs glossy debate that are subjective in nature, but this isn't one of them.

 

[thekev]

They're already there - I've seen them from 30 - 256 GB all around $1/BG. they are not the latest and creates but still a decent alternative for the price. I have a 256 in my MBP and it is a big jump one the old HDD>

I was going slightly conservative to avoid looking up prices 😛. Pretty soon even the latest ones will be near that cost per gigabyte. For me the difference in weight really is not a big deal, so the inherent compromises in the Air are pointless to me. If I was purchasing one today, I'd get a quad 15" refurb and swap the drive for an SSD. The extra ram capacity is quite nice. With current SSD pricing, buying the Air for the SSD shouldn't really be necessary anymore. There are cheaper ways to obtain upgrades than through Apple🙄. and cheaper does not have to mean lower in quality. Either way I'd require some external drives. I have too much data.

You're mistaken: it is the low contrast of the matte screen that produces poor rendition of shadow areas. There are many aspects of the matte vs glossy debate that are subjective in nature, but this isn't one of them.

Explain poor rendition in context here as this hasn't matched my own experience with the two. There are tons of false pretenses in the debate over what is good for photography. I haven't seen a loss of shadow detail in the matte compared to the glossy one. Just making a blacker black does not make it better. Plenty of cheap consumer displays do this by clipping their shadow values slightly with aggressive sharpening algorithms. I really think reflections are a much bigger issue. The thing about contrast is that it's not really about contrast ratio specs at all. You don't need a .2 cd/m^2 black point. It looks really black, but it's not necessarily representative of the density of printed values. In fact quality printed media does not exceed 350:1 or so in contrast going from paper white to the darkest possible neutral black. Quite often the look of bad contrast is really more an issue of poor distribution of tonal values, as in the xyz or rgb 0-255 simply does not continuously fall along a gamma 2.2 curve.

Edit: I am reading this back, and I really am a nerd.

 

[VMMan]

I have an early 2011 MBP 17", 2011 MBA 11", and use occasionally my wife's early 2011 MBP 13".

They're all awesome.

The MBA runs Adobe CS 5 incredibly well and is truly a standout, amazing Mac. I hook it up to a 24" Dell 2407 LCD and its just incredible. Store the photos on an external drive.

The MBP 13" has a much better screen than the MBA in terms of gamut and viewing angles as far as my experience.

I'd get the MBA 13" if I had to get only one Mac. For serious photography, I'd use an external LCD for postprocessing and given the gigantic sizes of RAW files, even a 1TB or 750GB HDD would be too small. One would end up needing an external drive even if one bought an MBP. The smaller SSD in the Air is fine since one would need a large external drive anyways even with the MBP.

 

[Benbikeman]

I haven't seen a loss of shadow detail in the matte compared to the glossy one.

I'm at a loss to explain that, because it is very obvious to me when the two are placed side-by-side displaying the same photo.

I really think reflections are a much bigger issue.

Only if you position the laptop badly.

Edit: I am reading this back, and I really am a nerd.

Possibly. 🙂 I'm a photographer first, geek second.