Which Macbook for Photography?

[alust2013]

Photo editing is VERY cpu intensive ... try some surface blur on photoshop and you'll see.

My point was more of less that the difference would be worth less than the $300 it costs. I imagine it would be much more noticeable with a lot of video transcoding, rendering, etc. Where the CPU is running at 100% for many minutes to hours constantly.

In my fairly basic experience with PS, I haven't come across anything that challenged my computer, so I didn't realize it could be that heavy on a machine.

 

[moosaur]

I have the base model 13in, and it's been fine with Lightroom 3. I imagine it would be slightly faster with the i7, but I'm happy with mine.

 

[namethisfile]

that is a tough one. i think the i5 is fast enough. even though 2.3ghz for dual core is sooo 2008. of course, the architecture differences of the new sandy bridge chips negates that.

i think the price difference is high enough ($300) to sway people off of the i7 if they don't REALLY need the extra crunching power and they're on a budget but still want a macbook pro.

the people who can afford the extra $300 will just buy the i7 because they want that extra oomph.

but, honestly, i think the i5 can handle aperture and is fast enough for photo editing.

the only reason why i would fork for the i7 is tthat i can't afford the quadcores. so, the 13" i7 is the fastest macbook pro that i can afford.

hope this helps.

 

[kahkityoong]

i5 will be fast enough. I would rather spend the extra few hundred dollars on 8GB RAM than i7 for photo editing.

 

[M Powered]

I'm a pro photographer, I use the 13" MBP 2011. I use it for lightroom and cs5. Definitely upgrade your ram to 8GB, I just did, big difference. Especially if you shoot tether which I do a lot for clients.

I don't edit a hole lot using the laptop, mostly color/ photo adjustments in Lightroom so the clients can see which tone options they like. i5 does the job really well, since I do a lot of raw > jpg conversions.

 

[stockscalper]

If you're really stuck on doing editing on a 13" screen then you should get the Air. It has a much better graphics card than the 13" MBP, plus it has higher screen resolution. You'll have the same amount of real estate to work with as a typical 15" model. Plus the screen is so much nicer and the SSD helps with the photo editors too. Having said that, your best overall bet is to get a 15" MBP as it's going to have a lot more horsepower, comparable to the current desktop machines.

 

[stonegammage]

Guys,

I think I want to go with the 13" MBP i7. I already have my 20" iMac to work with at home on the big screen. Macs are built to last, and this one runs fantastic.

I just need a road tool for photography and design on the go at ranches and stuff. My iPad is great for everyday, but I need something with a bit more power.

My logic: for a 13" MBA, I could get an even nicer MBP, so why not go for that? I want the i7, because as applications go farther....well, I know my iMac will last through 2015 and beyond that without concern, so therefore my new MBP should last through....damn, 2018.....? Mac is great, but do you understand my logic here?

EDIT: Guys, I also want to run Aperture on both machines....and be able to display on the iPad.
Thanks.

If you're really stuck on doing editing on a 13" screen then you should get the Air. It has a much better graphics card than the 13" MBP, plus it has higher screen resolution. You'll have the same amount of real estate to work with as a typical 15" model. Plus the screen is so much nicer and the SSD helps with the photo editors too. Having said that, your best overall bet is to get a 15" MBP as it's going to have a lot more horsepower, comparable to the current desktop machines.

Since I already have my 20" iMac, I am going to go with a 11" MacBook Air with an added 4GB of RAM.

[mod note - post merge]

I am now going to go with an 11" MacBook Air with 4GB of RAM. It can handle Aperture 3 just fine. I've still got my 20" iMac for serious editing.

 

[coachingguy]

I think a MBA would be a mistake. For one reason only, and as has been mentioned multiple time here, storage. If your really into photography, you now how quickly the HD fills up.

I've got a 15" MB with a 250 HD, I thought that would be plenty. I was wrong. I've got nearly 100gigs of pictures on it, and that's not even my full portfolio...

I've got an 500 gig external HD, just for photo's. And it's a 273 gigs...

SSD is fast, exciting, but limited in size and since photo apps are processor intensive, it's not going to be a great benefit.

But, good luck with whatever you decide to do.

Coachingguy

 

[stonegammage]

I think a MBA would be a mistake. For one reason only, and as has been mentioned multiple time here, storage. If your really into photography, you now how quickly the HD fills up.

I've got a 15" MB with a 250 HD, I thought that would be plenty. I was wrong. I've got nearly 100gigs of pictures on it, and that's not even my full portfolio...

I've got an 500 gig external HD, just for photo's. And it's a 273 gigs...

SSD is fast, exciting, but limited in size and since photo apps are processor intensive, it's not going to be a great benefit.

But, good luck with whatever you decide to do.

Coachingguy

But I will be storing my Aperture library on an external hard drive anyway to transfer between my my MBA and iMac.....just hold down option key while starting aperture.

 

[legreve]

I'd just go with the i5. Photo editing isn't all that CPU intensive, so you wouldn't really see a difference.

Say what? I admit that in the case of the OP, this might be true... but for someone who makes a living doing photography (like me...), it is VERY intensive.
Doing non-destructive editing with 10-15+ layers and even sometimes in 16 bit, you really want a computer that can pull some horses.
So one might as well get that extra power from 2.0 to 2.2 (or 2.3) if you have the money available for it.
Apart from that, max it out in ram and then when the 8gb blocks get cheaper max it out again. I promise you, you will eat that speed up...

But I will be storing my Aperture library on an external hard drive anyway to transfer between my my MBA and iMac.....just hold down option key while starting aperture.

That might be... but you'd be happier to be working on the main drive while editing. Never work across drives, it's prone to human mistakes.

Set up a specific workflow that minimizes errors the most, ie; work on main drive, move to storage drive when done, and delete the file on the main drive. Otherwise in 2 months, you'll be sitting with 2-4 copies of an image across 3 drives wondering which one is the "right" one...
Never ever work on files directly on the storage drive...

 

[flynz4]

But I will be storing my Aperture library on an external hard drive anyway to transfer between my my MBA and iMac.....just hold down option key while starting aperture.

I find it better to keep my entire Aperture 3 library safely at home on my 2TB iMac. With all my photos on that one machine... it is easily backed up to dual destinations. 1) Time Machine in the house to a Time Capsule... and 2) Crashplan+ to the cloud. This makes it nearly impossible to lose my work.

When I am traveling (ex: last 2 weeks I was in Ireland)... I will create new Aperture 3 projects on my 11" MBA as I travel. I generally import new photos into A3 each evening. Then when I get home, I will export all of the projects from the MBA, and import them into my iMAC for permanent storage. Aperture 3 is explicitly set up to accommodate this type of photo management.

Using this type of photo management directly addresses the excellent advice that legreve gives above. Your photos are immediately inputed into A3 projects... and then you move the entire projects into your "master library" at home once you return. You will never be in a position to wonder which photos are the "right" ones... because you will only have the one set (plus your backup sets).

/Jim