Photographers: Any using 3.3Ghz, 13" tb, with Lightroom?

[RPhoto]

I am a professional photographer.
I used the Macbook 12 m3 for quite some time with Lightroom. Now I got the max out 15 inch.

To be honest, I don't feel a perfomance boost as expected. It's a bit faster exporting images, but the diffence would never be worth so much more money.

That's very surprising to hear. How heavy are your edits in Lightroom?

I tend to find most machines cope ok with simple slider adjustments in the Develop module, including my old 11" Air, but it's more when stitching large panoramic or working on images which require a lot of localised edits with the brush tool that things become slow. I've several files that must have well over a couple hundred localised brush strokes from having to carefully mask of specific awkward shaped areas across the 36mp frame. They're a nightmare to work on. Even switching between two different snapshots of the same image (with just a difference in the position of the exposure slider between them) can sometimes take 5-10 seconds on my fully loaded 2012 iMac.

Same thing with another old image that was taken with a ridiculously dusty sensor. After spot removing about 150 spots(!) the image became a nightmare to work on. Needless to say I make sure the sensor is always clean these days!

That sort of stuff is the exception rather than the rule but it's those situations which are more telling with how well machines performs (or not, as the case may be) with Lightroom.

 

[Trequartista]

That's very surprising to hear. How heavy are your edits in Lightroom?

I tend to find most machines cope ok with simple slider adjustments in the Develop module, including my old 11" Air, but it's more when stitching large panoramic or working on images which require a lot of localised edits with the brush tool that things become slow. I've several files that must have well over a couple hundred localised brush strokes from having to carefully mask of specific awkward shaped areas across the 36mp frame. They're a nightmare to work on. Even switching between two different snapshots of the same image (with just a difference in the position of the exposure slider between them) can sometimes take 5-10 seconds on my fully loaded 2012 iMac.

Same thing with another old image that was taken with a ridiculously dusty sensor. After spot removing about 150 spots(!) the image became a nightmare to work on. Needless to say I make sure the sensor is always clean these days!

That sort of stuff is the exception rather than the rule but it's those situations which are more telling with how well machines performs (or not, as the case may be) with Lightroom.

I'm working mainly in journalistic field, so I don't retouch in general. But for general things like get to next picture, zoom in and exporting images (RAW files from sony alpha 7rii and Leica Q), there isn't an ultimate difference.
Of course, when I'm exporting imaged with my 12" I can hardly do any other tasks.

 

[RPhoto]

Slight thread revival but I've just ordered the (silver) tb13" 3.3/16gb tonight. I've not even been to an Apple store to see one of these in the flesh yet, so I'm looking forward to the grand reveal when it arrives in a few weeks between 24th - 26th. Initial thoughts to follow but I'll be taking it to Africa for two weeks at the start of Feb, so I'll have a better idea of how I find it after that, once I've used it on the move.

 

[doitdada]

I'm working mainly in journalistic field, so I don't retouch in general. But for general things like get to next picture, zoom in and exporting images (RAW files from sony alpha 7rii and Leica Q), there isn't an ultimate difference.
Of course, when I'm exporting imaged with my 12" I can hardly do any other tasks.

Sharing your view. Nikon D810 was a bit hard on the MacBook 12", though it didn't bother me doing journalistic work. I didn't really feel a difference from the M5 1.2 CPU to a 2015 rMBP 13". I can understand catalog photographers with thousand of shots needing at least a 15" quad core with 16GB memory or even Mac Pro, but I guess with 50 shots a day with simple post processing, you are good to go with a 13" rMBP or a 12" MacBook.

 

[hollandog]

I shoot D800 and upgraded from 2011 13" MBP to 2016 15" tbMBP with LG 5K.
I post process with Capture One Pro 9. Everything is much faster with the 2016 while the MBP is push much higher resolution.

Especially exporting images. Used to take ~10minutes now few minutes.

 

[WiLLGT09]

Jumping on this thread, as I'm more or less in a similar situation (no need to clog the forum with another post). I'm a photographer mulling the idea of going to the 13" MPB, too (non-Touch Bar). I'm currently using a mid-2013 11" MacBook Air (Core i7, 8GB, 128SSD) as my sole machine and Lightroom as my editing software. I LOVE the size of the 11-inch, but for real-deal editing, I do connect a 27" Apple display.

I'm not a pro photographer, really, as I don't make a living producing photos, though I'm still in the photography/camera industry, so I find myself dealing with lots of different cameras. I have a fairly large LR catalog, and while the 11 MBA has been a fantastic computer, I would love better performance not only for Lightroom Developing but also light video editing with FCPX that occasionally pops up. I travel a fair bit, both personally and for work, so excellent portability is important. Also, I like the Thunderbolt 3 ports (hence the choice of the MBP vs 12" MB).

Would I notice a significant performance boost with photo editing, handling RAW files from everything from 16MP to 50+MP cameras, with even the base model 13" MacBook Pro (i5, 8GB RAM)? Should I opt for 16GB of RAM?

Thanks!

 

[RPhoto]

Would I notice a significant performance boost with photo editing, handling RAW files from everything from 16MP to 50+MP cameras, with even the base model 13" MacBook Pro (i5, 8GB RAM)? Should I opt for 16GB of RAM?

Thanks!

Although it's not going to give an entirely accurate idea, the figures here between the two suggest around 15% improvement https://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks

The biggest problem you, I, or anyone using Lightroom will face is the fact it's not the most efficient bit of software and may lead you to think the computer isn't fast enough when in fact it is. Edited images that cause massive slow down in the edit module of Lightroom for example, handle so much better when opened in Photoshop. Very frustrating.

Others will be able to answer better but if you do occasional video editing too, more RAM is probably useful. I always opt for as much as I can have, because during big edits in Lightroom and the occasional moving of several 36MP files at a time into Photoshop, I like that no matter what else I open, macOS never slows down.

You could always get it and compare the machine to your Air and see how you find the difference to be...

 

[Chancha]

I am not a photographer by trade but my work routinely involves photography & Lightroom (music recording, video shooting), but I personally shoot a lot of outdoor landscapes as a hobby.

Lightroom throughout all its versions never ask too much of a computer to be run on, not sure if it is Adobe's intention to pull down the entry for maximize sales, or just for the fact that 2D static image manipulation is not rocket science in today's tech standard. The performance gain that you may get by upgrading from an MBA to the MBP2016 is mostly on the interface responsiveness and faster loading speed, as both the system and the LR catalogue+previews sit on a much faster internal SSD.

RAM does help LR in general, but LR seems to be written in a way that the bottle neck is at sub 8GB, where 16 or even 32/64GB on iMac/Mac Pro do not see much performance gain. But depending on one's workflow, having more RAM will on the other hand help when you multi-task on top of running Lightroom sideways, such as Photoshopping or even multi-tab browsing. However on a computer that has less RAM than what your active tasks ask for, what happens is more page in/outs happen with the drive, where with a fast SSD the performance hit is minimal or unnoticeable. This is why some users simply can't tell performance gain by upgrading more RAM.

The 2016 MBP line up got its fair share of critiques, myself included I think a lot of those complaints are legit. However if there is one thing that Apple did absolutely right, it would be the ultra thinness and weight on the 13" model (15" is another story...). What this means for a user is, in a form factor close to 13" MBA, you are getting the power and I/O potential of the retina MBP 13". My case: I own multiple Macs both desktops and laptops, my previous MBP was a 2011 13" non-retina, which weights 2kg (more than the 2016 15"). I have a camera backpack that is big enough to house 1 DSLR, 3 lenses and a flash, still half the bag for other stuff, the laptop/table sleeve can fit my 13" but it is rather tight. I have since moved to a 2015 15" because I need that extra power and want a larger screen, but that machine just doesn't fit into the sleeve at all. The 2016 13" would have been perfect for this use case.

Anyway you seem to be well informed enough to pull the trigger already. My own advice is to consider maximizing the SSD space under your budget. The extra speed of an 1TB and the room free for storage will help workflows significantly.

 

[v0lume4]

Learn something new everyday! Thanks Phil!

I just checked out your website (saw the link in your sig!). You're very very good at what you do. Excellent work.

 

[RPhoto]

Lightroom throughout all its versions never ask too much of a computer to be run on, not sure if it is Adobe's intention to pull down the entry for maximize sales, or just for the fact that 2D static image manipulation is not rocket science in today's tech standard. The performance gain that you may get by upgrading from an MBA to the MBP2016 is mostly on the interface responsiveness and faster loading speed, as both the system and the LR catalogue+previews sit on a much faster internal SSD.

Very true, it'll run on almost anything quite happily. The problem comes when you are doing heavier edits than just adjusting the exposure sliders etc. During big editing sessions on my SSD iMac (working on large edits that require a lot of localised adjustment brush strokes, sometimes well over 100-200 if I'm masking off intricate areas for colour correction across a 36MP frame) I routinely have Lightroom become so slow that even adding a single keyword to an image afterwards can take 10+ seconds for it to update. When it becomes that slow, Photoshop etc is still blisteringly fast. The only way to speed Lightroom back up when that happens is to reboot the computer. Lightroom is known to be a resource hog because it's just not optimised enough. However...if you're a light user doing simple edits then you'd likely never encounter this problem.

I am hopeful that the speed improvements with the new SSD's etc will all add up to help alleviate this problem, especially when the new iMac eventually arrives. Although Adobe improving the software would be more welcome!

I just checked out your website (saw the link in your sig!). You're very very good at what you do. Excellent work.

Very kind of you to say, thank you

 

[maflynn]

am hopeful that the speed improvements with the new SSD's etc will all add up to help alleviate this problem,

The SSD performance is one major area that Apple continues to shine and excel in, so that should be the case.

 

[Chancha]

Very true, it'll run on almost anything quite happily. The problem comes when you are doing heavier edits than just adjusting the exposure sliders etc. During big editing sessions on my SSD iMac (working on large edits that require a lot of localised adjustment brush strokes, sometimes well over 100-200 if I'm masking off intricate areas for colour correction across a 36MP frame) I routinely have Lightroom become so slow that even adding a single keyword to an image afterwards can take 10+ seconds for it to update. When it becomes that slow, Photoshop etc is still blisteringly fast. The only way to speed Lightroom back up when that happens is to reboot the computer. Lightroom is known to be a resource hog because it's just not optimised enough. However...if you're a light user doing simple edits then you'd likely never encounter this problem.

I am hopeful that the speed improvements with the new SSD's etc will all add up to help alleviate this problem, especially when the new iMac eventually arrives. Although Adobe improving the software would be more welcome!

I do maintain a fairly large library for our kind of in-house recording sessions, with a mixture of RAWs from D800, D4, and even a Pentax 645. So yes I have seen where Lightroom would hit a performance brick wall when it is stretched to its limits. Our studio do not use iMacs as we don't fancy AOI machines, but I have read there are users of even the maxed out 2015 5K iMac having issues with Lightroom random slowness. It is speculated to do with the 5K retina screen requiring too much pixel rendering to be handled at the same time, while apps like Apple's native Photos are optimized for retina but Adobe has yet to done so for LR.

And LR in general has shown its age in other areas as well, the UI has gotten quite cluttered with more and more features being added especially concerning the cloud, while newer versions don't seem to improve brute processing performances much if at all. This is starting to feel like the pre-Macromedia acquisition Adobe Suite days, Photoshop looked and felt behind the machines that it was installed on.

I have a feeling that Adobe's direction, or its lack of effort on optimizing LR locally has to do with the cloud prospects. They probably have some sort of cloud based computing / rendering service on its sleeves. I can see Premier and related apps from the suite benefiting the most from this transition, but can also see some merit in doing this for Lightroom. If all your RAWs are stored on their server, all the rendering and image processing can be done on super computer cluster where only a low res proxy needs to be downloaded and updated to your client app. They have already done half of that with Smart Previews. This also obviously benefits on-location photographers with multiple devices or even multiple persons maintaining a catalogue.

 

[BlueGoldAce]

I didn't read all the post that followed the OPs.

I have the baseline 13in MBPtb, and it does all the adobe work i need, and more. I have yet to see a slow down or stutter. It's perfectly up to the task.

I have an way wore powerful desktop at home, and the speed difference isn't apparent. Honestly, I've enjoy the MacBook enough that the desktop has been used more for gaming recently than work.

 

[RPhoto]

I have a feeling that Adobe's direction, or its lack of effort on optimizing LR locally has to do with the cloud prospects. They probably have some sort of cloud based computing / rendering service on its sleeves. I can see Premier and related apps from the suite benefiting the most from this transition, but can also see some merit in doing this for Lightroom. If all your RAWs are stored on their server, all the rendering and image processing can be done on super computer cluster where only a low res proxy needs to be downloaded and updated to your client app. They have already done half of that with Smart Previews. This also obviously benefits on-location photographers with multiple devices or even multiple persons maintaining a catalogue.

Great reply and thoughts there!

I'm still on a pre-retina and held off on those because I figured if I was getting slow down without it, it'd be a nightmare with it. General use is fine, it's just those big images with big edits that are the killer.

I suspect you might be on to something there but the idea of having to upload anywhere from 80 to 250gb worth of files after several weeks away fills me with dread (at camp in Africa, just uploading a low res to social media can be frustrating at times), let alone the idea of trusting my files to be located elsewhere, and the associated costs they'd happily charge.

The potential speed of edits and the ability to easily access my library to send files to clients from anywhere would be great though, I can't deny that!

 

[Chancha]

Great reply and thoughts there!

I'm still on a pre-retina and held off on those because I figured if I was getting slow down without it, it'd be a nightmare with it. General use is fine, it's just those big images with big edits that are the killer.

I suspect you might be on to something there but the idea of having to upload anywhere from 80 to 250gb worth of files after several weeks away fills me with dread (at camp in Africa, just uploading a low res to social media can be frustrating at times), let alone the idea of trusting my files to be located elsewhere, and the associated costs they'd happily charge.

The potential speed of edits and the ability to easily access my library to send files to clients from anywhere would be great though, I can't deny that!

I myself also don't fancy the industry-wide transition to the clouds, but it is happening. The CC apps requiring internet connection once in a while is already killing offshore outdoor use-cases. I remember cloning an entire OS X system to an external and just run the Adobe apps off from it for another Mac without being asked the serial number. Today we hear stories of photographers being blocked from launching CC apps in the middle of a jungle after a month being offline. This sort of professionals-centric, tool belt utility direction for production PC's is long gone, as we can see from both Apple and some times Adobe. Today these technologies are designed to face the masses, people who wouldn't hesitate to offload the burden of maintaining their own machines and software. But with Adobe at least I can see them trying to implement tools to actually help professional workflows, like the Lightroom Mobile app.

The idea of retina is quite profound for close distance displays, it started on smart phones and tablets which made the most sense, then laptops which are nice to have, but on desktop there is a diminishing return. A 27" screen if placed 3 feet or further from your eyes, the pixels of a regular ~100dpi monitor already becomes undistinguishable. For real work, screen estate is always the number one resource to utilize, not just for the imageries but more importantly palettes and tools interfaces. The pixels that drive a retina 27" can be divided into 4 regular 27", which can be dramatically more efficient for most workflows than a single high density screen. The fact that current GPUs and software are struggling to run it smoothly does not help either.

 

[inmotionnow]

I found LR to run well on my maxed out TB 13" MBP, even when connected to the 5K UltraFine screen in clamshell mode. I shoot in RAW on a Leica D-Lux (Typ 109). Photography is just a hobby though, I'm far from being a pro.