For photography purposes, air or pro?

[Fultonpics]

i mostly do photo stuff on my macs. i use the 13" air to transmit from live locations to my agency and it is great--the 1.8 ghz I7 works fine for photoshop including the actions i run. however, editing a large number of photos gets pretty tiring.

if i have a bigger job, i prefer as big of a screen as i can get. for instance editing on my macbook pro 17" is WAY easier than on the 13" air. so i would strongly recommend a 15" as the minimum size and would try to get a high res screen (either glossy or matte). most of the wire agency guys i work with use 15" models with the majority preferring the matte hi-res models.

you can go for the lowest level processor since any of the new processors are plenty fast enough. get an external drive to back up the images immediately.

 

[seanmorr]

I'm a photography teacher and professional photographer and shoot with a 5dmkii, 5d and 60d. Recently switched to a mac laptop. First I tried the 13 MBA and really liked it, ran photoshop & lightroom just fine...you really can't underestimate the difference an ssd makes. Photoshop loads in about 1-2 seconds which is simply awesome for those of us that have stared at adobe load screens for hours and hours over the last 10+ years. I liked the air a lot, but wasn't impressed with the screen (colors were ok, but some highlight issues and gamut issues) or the upgradability. I also encountered the known brush bug with lightroom and photoshop cs5...as far as I know it hasn't' been fixed and would have been a deal breaker for me. So I returned it and got a 15" pro with the upgraded matte screen (I hate glossy screens).

I upgraded the hard drive with a 256 crucial m4 ssd and put 8gb of ram in it. I also calibrated the screen and it looks great. Its a beast and is so fast I can use it as my main editing machine...its much faster in lightroom than my desktop pc rig. I can have lightroom, photoshop, premiere and loads of other programs open with no problem. Love it

whatever you get, get an ssd...totally worth it

Myself, the screen was very important to me and the extra real estate of the upgraded 15" screen is perfect for me in photoshop and lightroom...I have a very hard time editing on anything under 1600 pixels wide but thats just me

 

[thekev]

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.


Only if you position the laptop badly.


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

I deal more with retouching and creating stuff in photoshop + a few other programs than photography directly (although I personally know more than a dozen photographers). My nerd comment was more regarding how technical I went with it, even if technical stuff is only really a means to an end there. When I'm analyzing photography, I keep the ambient lighting as dark as possible. If it's too bright the glossy screen becomes biased by reflections from ambient lighting, and the matte screen can tend to become washed out, although they've improved in the past few years.

Detail and Dmax are two different things. The glossy screen may give a richer looking black, but I was referring to actual shadow detail reproduced, as in separation around the shadow values. As a disclaimer, I don't do much serious work on a laptop. For anything important I've got the fully calibrated Eizo. It's entirely possible to get a really rich black without having good shadow detail. Cheap desktop displays exhibit this on a daily basis with inflated contrast ratios achieved via aggressive sharpening algorithms and other settings. Glossy displays annoy me no matter what. Even CRTs trended toward semi matte coatings toward the end.

Laptop displays have been improving massively. In a few years, it's possible they'll look excellent regardless of screen coating.

 

[Spadoinkles]

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.

I'm on anti-glare for the fact that I can actually see what I'm doing half the time when I'm working on the field. Plus aesthetics, definite win over the (quite marginal) advantage of the glossy in colour.

 

[Benbikeman]

I keep the ambient lighting as dark as possible

Agreed.

I was referring to actual shadow detail reproduced

Likewise. Blacks appearing dark grey is annoying but not critical, but with the same photo side-by-side on the matte and glossy screens, there are areas of shadow detail clearly visible on the glossy screen that are hard to discern on the matte.

Laptop displays have been improving massively.

This is true. The whole idea of us having this debate ten years ago would be laughable, as you wouldn't want to use either one.

----------

I'm on anti-glare for the fact that I can actually see what I'm doing half the time when I'm working on the field.

Yes, if you are forced to work somewhere where you literally cannot position the laptop to free it from reflections, that to me is the one reason to use a matte screen (though I would personally do so only as a very last resort).

 

[harcosparky]

My sister is about to buy her first mac computer, she wants the 13' pro but I've been trying to convince her to buy the 13' air. She will be using it mostly for storing and editing pictures.

What puts her off of the air is the little storage capacity, however, I think all laptops will have SSDs in a near future, so why not embrace the change already.

By the time ALL laptops have SSD's there will be 2 TB SSD's selling for $199.

She wants it for storing and editing photographs and you want her to pick up a device that will not serve her well in either capacity.

Are you concerned about HER NEED and YOUR DESIRE to see another SSD get sold?

Purchasing any computer should be a NEEDS based process.

If the technology cannot satisfy the need, then that technology is useless until it can.

whatever you get, get an ssd...totally worth it

What good is an SSD if it cannot hold a large image library ?

I understand the speed aspect, but I do photography on a daily basis and keep a massive active library on the HDD, because SSD's are just too tiny.

I also use the optical drive several times a week burning disks for clients so gutting that out is not an option.

Oh I guess I could hang an external unit off the side, but how professional is that?

 

[thekev]

Agreed.


Likewise. Blacks appearing dark grey is annoying but not critical, but with the same photo side-by-side on the matte and glossy screens, there are areas of shadow detail clearly visible on the glossy screen that are hard to discern on the matte.

Perhaps I need to retest. I'm definitely not a fan of the coatings used on these anyway, or most typical ones today. I'm typing on an older display at the moment. It's an antiglare, but it lacks that stupid sparkle effect, and the blacks do in fact look black. Imo they're using cheap coatings to keep costs down, but this has been the case with displays in general for the past few years.

 

[davidhunternyc]

For photography (especially if you do any editing work), color reproduction is key. The absolute best choice is the 15" with the high res matte screen, but any of the MBP models will significantly trounce any of the Air models in this regard.

Currently, I am using a glossy screen and I agree with the above comment, the matte screen is better for photo reproduction. The problem with the glossy screen is that the whites are so bright (even when turning down the brightness), when you go to print photos, most photos are under-exposed. It is a difficult curve learning how photos on an LCD screen will look like when printed on paper. Though I haven't used the matte screen for printing, I have seen it and the whites look far closer to what a photo will look like when printed on paper. I say, go for the matte screen. If there are others who have used both gloss and matte screens for printing, please, chime in here with your opinions.

 

[Benbikeman]

The problem with the glossy screen is that the whites are so bright (even when turning down the brightness), when you go to print photos, most photos are under-exposed.

You shouldn't be finding that if you've calibrated the screen and used the right print profile - which profile and which lab?

 

[Krazy Bill]

I understand the speed aspect, but I do photography on a daily basis and keep a massive active library on the HDD, because SSD's are just too tiny.

You have to deal with the logistics. Once editing is done, and clients have proofed them and the books are closed, Is there any need to keep every photo internally? Just keep your current projects on the SSD and offload them later.

I also use the optical drive several times a week burning disks for clients so gutting that out is not an option.

Not sure what kind of photography you do but 4GB USB sticks are getting popular as delivery mechanisms. (And getting cheap) I've been using these for about 2 years now.

Oh I guess I could hang an external unit off the side, but how professional is that?

But as a pro, surely you offload your digital negatives anyway (and store them out of your office?).

 

[davidhunternyc]

You shouldn't be finding that if you've calibrated the screen and used the right print profile - which profile and which lab?

My print profile matches my lab. Perhaps the other part to this equation is that my prints are printed on an Epson 7900 printer using fine art "matte" paper.

 

[Benbikeman]

My print profile matches my lab. Perhaps the other part to this equation is that my prints are printed on an Epson 7900 printer using fine art "matte" paper.

I'd discuss this with your lab. You certainly shouldn't be getting under-exposed prints back after processing on a calibrated screen with the correct print profile.

 

[davidhunternyc]

I think that the strange part of this is that a matte print on paper is obviously going to look different than the image on a glossy computer screen with back lighting. I am just trying to narrow the differences as much as possible. My printer and lab is not the problem. I am using an Epson R3000 for alot of my prints.

 

[Adamantoise]

People suggesting the Air over the Pro are obviously not Photographers.

Anyone who actually edits pictures instead of advertising their favorite laptop knows that the Pro is the way to go.

 

[seanmorr]

adamantoise,
I think thats a pretty narrow minded statement. I know pro's who use airs (as a 2nd or 3rd computer) and there are some reviews online by pros including this one
http://www.ishootshows.com/2011/09/27/review-11-13-macbook-air-mid-2011-for-photographers/

The air didn't work for me but its a great computer and perfectly capable of working for a serious hobbyist or pro as long as you realize the limitations - storage, screen size/resolution/quality

 

[maflynn]

People suggesting the Air over the Pro are obviously not Photographers.

Anyone who actually edits pictures instead of advertising their favorite laptop knows that the Pro is the way to go.

Just because you cannot see the usage of an Air for a professional Photographer doesn't mean others don't. I easily see why the MBA could be a great tool for a photographer. Clearly its not geared to them as their sole, main computer but then the Air has been marketed as a secondary ultra portable computer anyways.

For many people having the air as their main computer is a poor fit, but it works well in many ways for people's secondary computer and photography is no exception.

 

[Donka]

I just recently switched to Mac from Windows and I consider myself an enthusiast photographer. My Windows laptop was a Core 2 Duo with 4GB Ram and more importantly a 1920x1080 res screen.
I chose the Macbook Pro 13 i5 2.4Ghz & 8GB Ram for a number of reasons - portability & power were the key decisions but the DVD Drive is also a bonus for me as most often the images I produce are shared on a DVD.
The Air has great portability on it's side as well as a higher res screen but the Pro is actually more portable than an Air plus an external drive. The upgrade options for the Pro also help win it out over the Air.
If you are purely after a secondary machine that you can take with you and do some work on the go then the Air would probably get the nod.
If you are doing extended sessions and portability is not too much of a concern then a bigger screen and higher resolution are most definitely recommended - either a larger machine such as the 17" Pro or go for a high quality external monitor that you can hook up to the 13".
Do I miss the 1080p screen on my Windows laptop? For photography it would certainly be a bonus but for all the benefits the smaller machine gives me, I'm happy to give it up. If I was spending hours each week editing photographs though then I would not give up a higher res screen.

If the bulk of your work is batch processing 100 or 1000s of images through something like Lightroom or Photoshop though then an SSD drive and the most powerful cpu you can afford should be high on your agenda provided you have already maxxed out your RAM.

 

[Adamantoise]

Just because you cannot see the usage of an Air for a professional Photographer doesn't mean others don't. I easily see why the MBA could be a great tool for a photographer. Clearly its not geared to them as their sole, main computer but then the Air has been marketed as a secondary ultra portable computer anyways.

For many people having the air as their main computer is a poor fit, but it works well in many ways for people's secondary computer and photography is no exception.

Excuse me but OP clearly stated that it will be his sister's primary computer.

As far as I am concerned, the only talking point you have is "Well it's ultraportable and it would make a nice secondary computer for some people" ... No one is saying the Air is a bad computer, but the better computer for OP's sister is the Pro.

I mean, not that it matters now (he has already bought a computer), but how can you recommend an Air as a sole computer for the purpose of photography? I am a photographer, and I barely get by on a 13" Pro, and here you are talking about using an Air.

Also, you people talking about portability ... I must have missed the memo, when did the 13" Pro stop being portable?

 

[silver8ack]

Im in the same boat as OP was.

I really like the smallness of the Air.

However, I don't like the no upgrade RAM feature. I think I'm going with the 13" Base MBP, and getting an aftermarket SSD(128) and 8GB or Ram. Best bang for the buck, plus i get an extra 500GB HDD out of it

 

[heisenberg123]

You have to deal with the logistics. Once editing is done, and clients have proofed them and the books are closed, Is there any need to keep every photo internally? Just keep your current projects on the SSD and offload them later.

Not sure what kind of photography you do but 4GB USB sticks are getting popular as delivery mechanisms. (And getting cheap) I've been using these for about 2 years now.

But as a pro, surely you offload your digital negatives anyway (and store them out of your office?).

you right right cheap compared to what USB sticks use to be but you can still get about 50 DVDs for the price of 1 4GB USB Stick

 

[Adamantoise]

You have to deal with the logistics. Once editing is done, and clients have proofed them and the books are closed, Is there any need to keep every photo internally? Just keep your current projects on the SSD and offload them later.

Not sure what kind of photography you do but 4GB USB sticks are getting popular as delivery mechanisms. (And getting cheap) I've been using these for about 2 years now.

But as a pro, surely you offload your digital negatives anyway (and store them out of your office?).

Lol, clearly you don't know much about professional photography.

We aren't talking about those 100KB JPEG files that you put up on Facebook. We're talking about hundred(s) of RAW photos each 25 to 35MB in file size.

Convert them to 16 bit aRGB TIFFs for printing and you're looking at 100MB per picture.

4GB is a joke. Professional photographers distribute their content on optical media.

You do have a point about being able to offload your digital negatives to an external hard drive, but the absence of an optical drive is an issue for anyone who deals with clientele on a regular basis.

 

[robbieduncan]

I would get a Pro. Whilst I don't have the biggest files in the world (25Mb or so RAWs or tiffs depending on the camera I'm using) I can easily push the 8Gb RAM in my Pro. And storing all those master files in Aperture means I've recently had to upgrade from a 512Gb drive to a 1Tb one.

I should point out I'm not a pro, just a keen amateur.

 

[heisenberg123]

Like others of said the Pro is more user upgradeable for RAM and Hard Drive so it sounds like an easy pick, the Air to me looks great but if its a primary computer than I would not like being limited to the RAM and HardDrive

 

[maflynn]

Excuse me but OP clearly stated that it will be his sister's primary computer.

I was responding to your statement that "People suggesting the Air over the Pro are obviously not Photographers."

My point is that photographers are using it while I personally think that the MBP is a better choice, there are photographers that are using the MBA

 

[Adamantoise]

I was responding to your statement that "People suggesting the Air over the Pro are obviously not Photographers."

My point is that photographers are using it while I personally think that the MBP is a better choice, there are photographers that are using the MBA

Fine I'll adjust my statement to say ...

"People suggesting the Air over the Pro are obviously not serious Photographers."

Taking a self portrait in the mirror with an iPhone and applying a sepia filter in iPhoto isn't what I consider photography, but I know that some girls in middle school think so.

Anyway, just because some people edit pictures on a Macbook Air doesn't mean it should ever be suggested over the Pro for the purpose of serious photography.