MBP vs. iMac Display: Better for Photo Editing?

Would anyone care to give their opinion of the display pros/cons of using a MBP vs. iMac for photo editing?
I have been considering getting a new iMac, and I would like to do photo editing (somewhere in the middle between professional and iPhoto). First I thought 20", but then I learned about the relatively poorer display quality. Then I thought 24", but still had concerns about gradients. Then I waited for the new (Penryn) iMacs, but it sounds like there hasn't been an obvious improvement in iMac display quality. Perhaps a MBP would be a better bet.
Thanks in advance.

The quick answer depends upon the quality of work you intend to do:
1) Are you a general amateur photographer? As long as you perform your own color calibration of the display, and NOT use the dull color profiles Apple provide, you're fine.
2) If you are a PROFESSIONAL performing color management on your images then the answer for BOTH the MacBook and MacBook Pro are NO. You are kidding yourself if you think you will ever get full accurate colors on their LCD displays.
All of Apple's LCD laptop displays have, up to this point, been only 6 bit color capable. A professional requires full 24 bit color, which is what the human eye is capable of seeing, which requires an 8 bit color capable display.
Note: 6 bit color = 262,144 colors. (It was incorrectly listed above). 8 bit color = 16,777,216 colors. This is a drastic difference. Apple use an FRC dithering method to fake the other colors, but this by no means equals real 'millions of colors' depth.
Do not use an iMac as the same 6-bit color depth remains the case. You must use either a VERIFIED 8-bit LCD display (note- one of the Apple Cinema Displays is ONLY 6-bit, so buyer beware), or use a CRT. The CRT still provides more colors than any LCD display, AND you don't have to worry about the viewing angle problem that plagues most LCD displays. (Shift your head up or down, right or left and you will see the contrast and color quality of lower quality LCD displays change. This ruins them for professional use).
:-Derek Currie
Message was edited by: Host

Similar Messages

IMac vs. MBP Display: Better for Photo Editing?

I have been considering getting a new iMac, and I would like to do photo editing (somewhere in the middle between professional and iPhoto). First I thought 20", but then I learned about the relatively poorer display quality. Then I thought 24", but still had concerns about gradients. Then I waited for the new (Penryn) iMacs, but it sounds like there hasn't been an obvious improvement in iMac display quality.
Would a MacBook Pro be a better bet? Would anyone care to give their opinion of the display pros/cons of using a MBP vs. a current iMac.
Thanks in advance.

Well, they both have their pros and cons IMO. The MBPs usually have more even backlighting but the color representation on the iMac is much better to my eyes.
To be honest, the gradient and yellow tint on the iMac doesn't disturb me much when editing photos (but it does for most other task). The screen is a bit too bright though which can result in you pictures becoming too dark when viewed elsewhere or printed.
If you are serious about photo editing I'd suggest the 15" MBP or perhaps even a Mac Mini (depending on your harware needs) and an external display (there are some fairly cheap ones that are better than both the MBP and iMac displays when it comes to photo editing).

Mac Pro Late 2013 or iMac Late 2013 for photo editing?

Hi,
I am currently running with a Late 2009 iMac (i7, 2.8 GHz, 16GB RAM, 256GB SSD) and I am mainly doing RAW post-processing with Lightroom and some steps (auto-stitching panoramas, more complicated layered editing/sharpening/re-coloring) in Photoshop CS 5.5.
With the RAW images of my Canon EOS 60D and my Fuji X-M1 being >20MB I am increasingly seeing stuttering in the workflow when loading 1:1 zooms, exporting images and rendering previews. I am not sure where it's coming from but after 4 years with the iMac I think it's time for something new.
I am trying to decide between a fully-loaded Late 2013 iMac (i7, 16GB RAM, 512GB SSD) or a Late 2013 (although more like Early 2014 ) Mac Pro (6-core 3.5 GHz, 16GB RAM and 512GB SSD). Performance-wise for my use it seems in single-threaded situations the iMac might even be faster (based on Geekbench Single-Core 64Bit Benchmarks) but the Mac Pro offers two extra cores - also the memory speed in the Mac Pro is higher.
So for the first decision criteria I want to make sure I opt for the fastest machine in my use case described above - it's not really clear to me if the iMac would indeed be faster given the low multi-core utilization in Adobe's code.
The second criteria is the ability to use arbitrary displays/monitors with the Mac Pro versus having the panel included already inside the iMac. To what extend can the iMacs 27" panel be utilized for photo-processing? I heard they can't be calibrated properly and I rarely find information how much sRGB/AdobeRGB coverage the panel has. I am looking increasingly more into color-management enabled workflow to get a decent soft-proof of my photos before I sent them over for printing - this is for home and amateur use only but I had some bad experiences already with images coming out from professional photo studies with completely dark shadows and different teints.
On the other hand I would also like to use multiple but smaller monitors (24") to make use of multi-monitor support in Lightroom (Library view on second screen etc) and have third monitor to control/monitor the rest of my activities (iTunes, Spotify, Browser, Youtube etc )
An iMac with two additional 24"/27" displays will always look a bit crappy due to the different heights and visually iritating due to different panels/resolutions. On the other hand it's a much cheaper solution than a Mac Pro with 3 distinct monitors and I heard only good things about the sharpness and clarity of the iMacs screen due to reduced filtering and thinner construction.
The last criteria is how future-proof the solution is. 4K displays are clearly on the horizon and 2-3 years from now I expect them to be standard over ordinary HD displays. Even today you can use a Mac Pro with a 4K display in high-dpi mode and get a Retina display on your desktop - something I would really look forward to. With the iMac that would mean replacing the whole thing in 2-3 years if there will be a 4K/Retina-iMac at all.
The Mac Pro seems to bet better in solution longevity given it is still a very capable machine in 4-5 years from now with up to 3 4K displays hooked up and still room for at least 3 Thunderbolt 2 devices. Double Gigabit-Ethernet is nice but also only nice-to-have as it won't speed up point-to-point single-stream data transfers to a LACP-bound NAS.
So, given all these thoughts... what do you think? Would it be more wise to go with the iMac and replace it in 3 years or with the Mac Pro and keep it 4,5-6 years?

RAM and some serious PCIe-SSD storage will help Aperture/LR. But I am use to spreading things out, learned long ago the benefits on concurrent and never reading+writing though didn't have todays 1.2Gb SSD to play with.
Was not to move the thread, but to ask there also for first hand on how they like the 2013 iMac now. I just don't feel comfortable spending that much when I know Mac Pro is designed for heavy use, better thermals, IS upgradeable, and will last longer.
Marco seems to have changed site or the article is off line.
Try this article if you want to understand new Turbo Boost specs:
http://www.marco.org/2013/11/26/new-mac-pro-cpus
http://www.marco.org
http://www.engadget.com/2013/12/23/apple-mac-pro-review-2013/
http://www.macworld.com/article/2082568/lab-tested-new-mac-pro-is-the-speedster- weve-been-waiting-for-finally.html
(2013) Mac Pro review (verge)
2013 Mac Pro review: small, fast and in a league of its own (engadget)
Tested: New Mac Pro is the speedster we've been waiting for (finally)

Laptop monitor choice for photo editing with lightroom and photoshop

Hi,
i'm going to buy a laptop, mostly for photo editing with lightroom and photoshop use.
I'm in trouble with the display choice.
One laptop has LG LP156WF4 or AUO B156HAN01 display, that should be very similar matte ips display with 55%-60% coverage of AdobeRGB. You can find a review in the "Display" section of these link : http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Clevo-W650SJ-Schenker-M504-Barebones-Notebook.114329.0 .html
The other laptop hasAU Optronics B156HW01 V.4 Matte 95%, that is a TN matte display with 95% coverage of AdobeRGB. You can find a review in these link (the display should be the green bar): http://www.anandtech.com/show/4649/mythlogic-pollux-1400-clevos-w150hr-tested/6
My question is: which one is better for photo editing with photoshop and lightroom?
Someone says that ips is better because of the fidelity of color reproduction, view angles and contrast.
Someone, on the other side, says that the TN 95% is better because of the gamut%.
Can you help me?
Thanks,
Marco Grechi

Macbook pro is out of budget
Hp assistance said that in italy they don't sell laptop with dreamcolor (i'll call again tomorrow to be sure ) but i think that it would be out of budget (max 2000 euro).
They said that the best solution for me is the zbook 15 g2 (2300 euro), but they DON'T know brand and model of the display and if i can have SSD + HD inside the zbook 15 g2.
The laptop with the lg panel costs 1500 euro. the question is; "i know that the lg display is not the best, but is it almost sufficient for my use?". In this way i may save 500/800 to buy a separated display later.
I have read that dell xps 15 and dell precision m3800 have great display, but they are glossy and very reflective. Is it a big handicap?
Do you know the 3k 15,6" display Panasonic VVX16T020G00 ? It should be a 8-bit display with 72%NTSC gamut ( http://www.panelook.com/VVX16T020G00_Panasonic_15.5_LCM_parameter_22014.html )
Do you sugget me a 3k display for photo editing?
Thanks

To buy or not to buy an entry level 13in MBP? Have a 30in display I would like to connect it to for photo editing and a little video. Any advice?

In the last year the logic board in both my 17in MBP (5yrs old) and Mac Pro (4yrs old) have died. The local techies have advised due to cost and age that replacing them would not be worth it in the long run.
I am thinking to buy the most basic MBP and connecting it to my 30in cinema display would give me the best of both worlds - a desktop option when at home and a laptop for travelling. Is this a viable option? I would be using it for photo editing (photoshop) mainly and a little video editing with Final Cut Pro when connected to the cinema display and a little light internet usage, emails and such when on the go.
My other question is, do all MBP come with airport/wireless capabilities as standard? (I had to purchase airport separately when I bought the other computers.
Thanks in advance

The 13" MBP is c**p, it's a consumer MacBook quality in a silver case with a "Pro" sticker, comes with poor integrated graphics that overheat when it even looks at a web video, all shiny screens poor for video. Scores a mere 11 on Cinebench.
Like Sig said, 15" 2.0 (scores 18) or better, 2.2 (scores a decent 30) or better preferred, it has the hefty video card you need to power the external monitor.
also you get a anti-glare option, excellent for avoiding glare and reflections in portable uses.
also you may need the quad core i7 for processing video faster, dual cores are toast.
17" high res has true 1920 x 1080 (1080i) with it's 1920 x 1200 pixel screen, I've got one. Sweet.
Sad to hear you have been having such a bad run with Mac's, it used to be they lasted 5-7 years or longer easy.

Better for Video Editing? MBP 13" or 15" w/9600M GT

I am planning on purchasing a Macbook Pro for relatively extensive use of Final Cut Pro (HD video) along with possibly some light Motion work and video transcoding. In addition I will be using it for photo editing and web editing. I don't plan on using it for any high-end gaming.
I will be purchasing a $200 24" external monitor to use most of the time along with external keyboard and mouse (so MBP screen size isn't an issue), but I need the portability and don't have the funds to purchase an additional dedicated desktop yet.
I am having trouble deciding between the 13" and the 15", mainly due to conflicting opinions I've been hearing over the importance of a dedicated graphics card for video editing. Salespeople at the Apple store tell me it's important and I should get the 15". Research online yielded heated forum arguments over whether it really makes a difference or not.
The price difference is quite significant though at the configurations I picked ($765) so I am seeking advice here for whether people think the cost difference is really justified for my needs. Note that both configurations include 4GB of RAM, smallest hard drive option (i've got external drives) and AppleCare protection.
Pricing with education discount after tax:
13" 2.26GHz - $1520
15" 2.66GHz w/9600M GT 256MB - $2285
*Is there a real difference in video editing performance and if so, is it really worth an extra $765? Or is there a better option that I'm not considering?*

Thanks everyone for the feedback!
Studio X wrote:
Are you planning on making any money at this or are you only in it for fun? Have you ever edited before? Have you ever edited with FCS before? What of the 44 billion HD formats are you planning on editing? Do you have a camera? What format does it record? If it's a flash media based device, what's your back up strategy? How are you planning to externally monitor the HD material ? What are you planning to use as media drives as the system drive should not be used for media capture or playback?
Still, I guess I come down on the side of "it doesn't matter as neither one is a serious editing machine". If I was in the market for a laptop and was limited to the current apple lineup, the only machine of interest is the 17" MacBookPro. The other two MacBookPros you are considering have no expresscard slot and come only with glossy screens - both are serious deficiencies in my world.
I do plan on using this computer professionally. I am a recent college graduate but do have professional FCS editing experience under my belt. However my work was done using both school and employer resources. I do have an archive of work in Mini DV(HDV) and AVCHD formats. I don't currently own an HD camera, however will likely be purchasing one in the near future. As far as externally monitoring HD material, what else would I need other than the 24" external monitor (perfectly capable of full HD) or a separate HDTV? In addition to several older usb2 external drives for backup I do have a 1TB 7200rpm external capable of FW800 and eSATA that I would use as a media drive.
I currently have an old 17" dell notebook with a glossy screen. The screen hasn't really bothered me, but the size and weight of the notebook has. And while the 17" MBP is a little lighter and smaller than my old dell, I would still prefer a 13" or 15". But from the opinions I've been hearing I'm steering away from the 13" and fully realize the downsides to the lack of ExpressCard slot in the current 15" as well. Still wondering while Apple decided to remove it.
MartinR wrote:
If budget is a primary constraint, then consider a refurbished 15" or 17" MBP from Apple, or a used MBP from a reputable supplier.
I hadn't checked into the refurbished options, but now that I did, I found a nice 15" (late 2008 unibody) configuration that would provide a lot more value for the buck. For about $550 more than the new 13" config I would get a faster processor, 2" bigger screen, 9600M 512mb GPU, double the internal storage, removable battery as well as the ExpressCard slot (even though its not listed in specs, it's there). The only trade off I can see is battery life.
http://store.apple.com/us/product/FC026LL/A?mco=MjE0NjE5MA

IMac config for Photo Editing

I currently use a Win7 i5/8g ram desktop and Windows Photo Gallery as my program. Editing is limited to auto correction and crops, file sizes are 3-10M per pic. I also occasionally use Netflix. MS Outlook is always running minimized and I browse the Internet 6-8 tabs open. Am not a gamer.
Bearing in mind that I am completely new to the Mac ecosystem, have the following questions re: iMac 27
1) How much RAM would you recommend?
2) Which graphics card
3) ATA, Fusion Drive or Flash?
4) i5 or i7?
5) Magic mouse or Trackpad ?
Home use only i.e. I won't be a making a living off it. Nevertheless seeking a pleasant experience without unecessary costs.
Look forward to your comments.

1. The 27-inch iMac comes with 8 GB of RAM, which should be enough for most users. I recommend you to get the Mac with 8 GB of RAM, and if you need more, buy it at OWC or Crucial.
2. Any GPU included with a 27-inch iMac will work, so the basic GPU should work correctly. If you want more performance, go for the high-end iMac.
3. If read and write speed is important, consider Fusion Drive or flash storage. If not, save money and go for the HDD, and store your data onto an external disk. Fusion Drive and flash storage will improve read and write speed a lot.
4. Any of them will work, but the i7 processor will provide you better performance with heavy apps.
5. If you want the iMac for photo editing, get the Magic Mouse. The Magic Trackpad is designed for Mac OS X gestures, and you may not like it

HELp! Best laptop for photo editing.. or would a PC be better?

I'm looking to buy a new computer. Would love for it to be a laptop but a PC would be ok too.. Any information on which is best for photo editing.. hopefully a large volume of photo editing.. which ones already have photo programs installed on them? help!

Well.... the biggest limiter will be how much you can spend...
But, you need to look for a higher end processor and a fairly decent graphics card.
No new computers come with any decent graphics program.
If you like my post, or solution to your issue/question, go ahead and click on the little star by my name and/or accept the post as the Solution. It makes me happy.
I'm NOT an employee of Best Buy, or Geek Squad, though I did work as an Agent for a year 5 years ago. None of my posts are to be taken as the official stance that Best Buy will take on your situation. My advice is just that, advice.
Unfortunately, that's the bad luck of any electronic, there's going to be bad Apples... wait that's a horrible pun.

Using and rec on external monitor for photo editing

ON another forum someone said that the MBP has only a 6 bit output for color on it's laptop screen.
Now what about running an external monitor, 6 or 8 bit for the MBP?
I have to admit even though I use a monitor calibration for editing my pictures on the MBP I find I always get varying results. I sometimes use my old external crt a 20" mitsubishi for photo editing.
What is a good external monitor to use with the MBP for Pro photos and will I get 8 bit color?

I hate to shuffle you around but this forum area:
http://discussions.apple.com/forum.jspa?forumID=1150
The MacBook Pro Display
might be the best place to post.

Best Mac Pro (2013) configuration for photo editing/processing?

Hi all,
I couldn't find a reliable answer to this in my searching here or on google, hence I'm posting it here.
I'm going to buy and upgrade to the new mac pro when it's announced this month (Dec 2013). My primary use will be photo processing in photoshop.
Configuring it with 64gb RAM is the no-brainer part. And probably a 512gb or 1TB flash drive too.
The bit I'm unsure about is whether to opt for the 6 core processor option over the quad core? For photo editing (adding layers, filters, brushing in, multiple files open at times, running batch edits etc), does anyone have an opinion on whether the performance increase (if there is in fact any increase for photo work?) of the 6 core 3.5ghz would justify paying the extra AU$1300 difference over the quad core 3.7ghz option?
And from my earlier research paying the huge prices for 8 or 12 cores would simply be a waste for photo processing.
Thanks for the advice...

Mozzzaaa
I have the exact same requirements, here are my findings based on some observations from Activity Monitor and research based on how the hardware works.
Photoshop does not utilize multiple cores well for many standard editing ativities - therefore one core will be busy while the rest remain idle, however I have noticed over time that upgrades to Photoshop seem to take more advantage of multiple cores as Adobe updates the code. For example, appling filters utilize all of the cores while the filters are computing changes (smart sharpen for example). Try running CPU monitoring in Activity Monitor (double click the CPU graph to display all cores).
Lightroom utilizes all of the cores for Import, export and other activities that process multiple files. Being more modern code, it beter utilizes muti cores.
Keep in mind that each core handles two code threads, therefore a four core system is capable of processing 8 "streams" of code, the 6 core can manage 12 threads, etc.
Here is a screen shot of Mac Book Pro running PS CC Smart Sharpen:
All the new Mac Pro run at 3.9Hz Turbo Boost - they are all the same in that respect. This means that when the processers are not hot, at least one core will run at 3.9Hz - therefore on a relativly idle machine (just editing in PS for example) you would likley be running at 3.9Hz on all the Mac Pro 2013.
There are also the GPUs to consider. Apple as usual has not made enough information available to easly determine the cost benefits of the more powerful GPUs and I don't know if PS would utiliize the AMD GPUs well now, or perhaps better utilize them for the future. Perhaps someone could comment on that. Here is an interesting article: http://architosh.com/2013/10/the-mac-pro-so-whats-a-d300-d500-and-d700-anyway-we -have-answers/
Clearly the D500 that is standard with the 6 core seems a major bump over the 4 core D300 (therefore the costs of the 6 core reflect that). I don't know how much the D700 would cost - it would be helpful if this were published so I could consider my order.
There are two GPU in the new Mac Pros - but the purpose of the second one is not toally clear (thanks again to Apples's communication). It likley will be utilized for all sorts of things that don't really exist now and FCP X is scheduled for a new release better utilize the GPU for video (as nwaphoto mentioned video processing will be a major use of this equipment).
I was interested in your comment regarding 64 Meg ram. Yes that would be a hudge boost to PS performance, but would it be better to purchase from Apple or wait for OWC who offer RAM at major discounts over Apple. Once again, no info yet that I am aware of.
I believe the flash drive is upgradable but rumor has it that it uses a proprietary connecter. Makes me want to go with the largest size but once again OWC might be the way to go for an upgrade in a year or two.
In the past, the 6 core 2012 Mac Pro's were somewhat of a sweat spot in terms of horsepower vs cost. I will be considering that in my decession to upgrade. So I am considering a 6 core, will check out the Ram and Flash diIsk based on price - which is the infor I don't have. If you have anything please post
Thanks

Dedicated video card important for photo editing?

I am in the market for a new mbp, for photo editting (Lightroom, and photoshop occationally), debating between the 13" with an external monitor or 15". I am sure the cpu power of the 13" should be enough. What about the video card. Is the integrated video card on the 13"s good enough? I don;t play video games.
Thanks!

I would actually be more concerned with the CPU power on the 13''. Though it will run CS6, the dual core processor will limit performance more than the integrated graphics. The integrated Iris on the 13'' is good enough, but processing speed may be an issue if you are doing heavy editing/ running concurrent processes. You may want to go with the baseline 15'' without the discrete GPU, with even better integrated graphics (Crystalwell), and, most importantly, with the quad core i7 configuration.
Comparison of the multicore 64bit benchmark test scores from Geeksquad show that CPU performance between the mid 2013 Air and Late 2013 13'' MB Pro are almost identical:
Macbook Pro Retina (13'' Late 2013): 6206
Macbook Air (13'' Mid 2013): 6140
Compare with....
Macbook Pro Retina (15'' Late 2013): 13429
http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks

Good Monitor for Photo Editing in Photoshop?

I hope this question isn't too OT for this forum, but I would think that it's an important concern for Photoshop users.
I'm looking for a good monitor for photo editing in Photoshop -- photos that will be printed to 16"x20" and above. I have a limited budget, having invested most of my money in an Epson 7900 printer -- so I'm looking for the best monitor available for under $1000 US. I already have a 19" Samsung flat panel that I will use as my palette monitor in a two-monitor setup.
I have heard of a few good models by Dell in this price range. Any other suggestions on size and brand? Thanks.

I haven't seen it myself, but I've read good test reports about the Dell Ultrasharp 2209WA. An IPS display which apparently pretty good colour stabiliy over the whole panel. No hardware calibration, though, but you can't expect this for less than 1000 bucks.

I need help to decide which macbook pro is best for photo editing, editing movies and doing all the rest too like excel, word etc. 13"

I need help to decide which macbook pro is best for photo editing, editing movies and doing all the rest too like microsoft office products ...excel, word etc. I am new to the apple world and have liked the idea of the MAC Book Pro 13" but really dont know if this is good enough or if the computer will soon crash?
13-inch: 2.6GHz
with Retina display
Specifications
2.6GHz dual-core Intel Core i5
Turbo Boost up to 3.1GHz
8GB 1600MHz memory
512GB PCIe-based flash storage1
Intel Iris Graphics
Built-in battery (9 hours)2

That's a fine machine and, with 8GB of RAM and 512GB flash storage should serve you well for light video/photo editing as well as for 'normal' usage. And it should last you for years to come.
Good luck in making your decision!!
Clinton

I am looking to upgrade my white iBook to a mac book pro, it will be used for photo editing up of som 50k photos or more for the family. iPhoto stoked on external HD

What type of mac book pro should I look at with 8 or 16gb ram?.

8 GB RAM will be sufficient for photo editing. The 15" display would be superior in both size and resolution when compared to the 13". The best approach is to test both in an Apple store.
Ciao.

Computer harwarde for photo edition

I have to buy now computer for edition video and photo with adobe software.
I need support to information abiout computer hardware fot this tasks: what grafic card. will be better GTX 680 or Quadro 4000

Besides obviously using Photoshop for photo editting, are you going to use Premiere for video editting? It might be helpful to check the supported graphics cards for GPU acceleration:
http://www.adobe.com/products/premiere/tech-specs.html

MBP vs. iMac Display: Better for Photo Editing?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for