Check out Black and White Photography section of our forum.
Help with specs of MacBook Pro
Oct 22, 2014 12:06:29 #
wtompkins wrote:
Thank you for all your replies.
So.....should I switch to the Mac for photo editing??
Decisions, decisions...
So.....should I switch to the Mac for photo editing??
Decisions, decisions...
This is like the Canon vs Nikon debate. There are zealots on both sides. I've used both. You can do the same post processing with either OS. If you are basically a PC user thinking about getting a used 5 year old Mac laptop just for photo post processing, a system that will need upgrading the day you buy it, I'd revisit the decision. I'm not a Mac hater or detractor, but I'm not sure this would make all that much sense in the long term.
Oct 22, 2014 12:34:54 #
iFixit.com can show you, step by step, how to change the RAM modules in that Mac. So can OWC's videos.
With the right adapter, you can connect just about any third party monitor to that MacBook Pro. Look for a monitor that can display over 80% of the Adobe RGB (1998) color space. (But with few exceptions, if you use a photo lab, work in sRGB).
Before evaluating and adjusting color and brightness of ANY digital images, Invest in a great monitor calibration and profiling solution if you don't already have one. XRITE makes the best; DataColor's Spyder4 line is probably easier to use.
Regarding Mac vs Windows: It boils down to personal choice of SOFTWARE in many cases. Some apps (such as Adobe) are cross-platform, with different installers for Mac and Windows. Others are limited to one or the other platform. ProShow Gold, for instance, an excellent slide show program, is Windows only. With sufficient RAM and hard drive speed, and a few tweaks, it can run on a Mac in Windows.
I can tell you, after using both Macs and PCs very extensively since the mid-1980s, that Macs are much easier to use, more intuitive in use, and generally let you think about what you are doing, rather than thinking about how to use the tool!
Once you go Macwards, you never go backwards... But you might have to go sideways. So I do run Windows on my Mac, using Parallels Desktop so I can switch back and forth between apps on both platforms. It takes a little getting used to, but the main differences are simple: the Mac's Command Key becomes the Control Key in Windows, and Windows' right mouse button is a Control-Click on the Mac (although third-party rodents let you use the right mouse button as you are accustomed). Command+Tab is the application switcher on the Mac, just like Alt+Tab on the PC. The Command Key on the Mac keyboard becomes the Windows key when running Windows on a Mac.
Other than that, Microsoft has done a fair job of copying Apple's functions, except that they are not as intuitive and deeply elegant. You will find the switch to Mac goes quickly after the first week, and that you use the Mac apps more easily and more often than you did Windows apps.
If you do switch, search the web for "windows to mac guide" switcher sites that help you do it easier. TONS of work has been done to make your life easier during the transition.
With the right adapter, you can connect just about any third party monitor to that MacBook Pro. Look for a monitor that can display over 80% of the Adobe RGB (1998) color space. (But with few exceptions, if you use a photo lab, work in sRGB).
Before evaluating and adjusting color and brightness of ANY digital images, Invest in a great monitor calibration and profiling solution if you don't already have one. XRITE makes the best; DataColor's Spyder4 line is probably easier to use.
Regarding Mac vs Windows: It boils down to personal choice of SOFTWARE in many cases. Some apps (such as Adobe) are cross-platform, with different installers for Mac and Windows. Others are limited to one or the other platform. ProShow Gold, for instance, an excellent slide show program, is Windows only. With sufficient RAM and hard drive speed, and a few tweaks, it can run on a Mac in Windows.
I can tell you, after using both Macs and PCs very extensively since the mid-1980s, that Macs are much easier to use, more intuitive in use, and generally let you think about what you are doing, rather than thinking about how to use the tool!
Once you go Macwards, you never go backwards... But you might have to go sideways. So I do run Windows on my Mac, using Parallels Desktop so I can switch back and forth between apps on both platforms. It takes a little getting used to, but the main differences are simple: the Mac's Command Key becomes the Control Key in Windows, and Windows' right mouse button is a Control-Click on the Mac (although third-party rodents let you use the right mouse button as you are accustomed). Command+Tab is the application switcher on the Mac, just like Alt+Tab on the PC. The Command Key on the Mac keyboard becomes the Windows key when running Windows on a Mac.
Other than that, Microsoft has done a fair job of copying Apple's functions, except that they are not as intuitive and deeply elegant. You will find the switch to Mac goes quickly after the first week, and that you use the Mac apps more easily and more often than you did Windows apps.
If you do switch, search the web for "windows to mac guide" switcher sites that help you do it easier. TONS of work has been done to make your life easier during the transition.
Oct 23, 2014 05:21:11 #
The processor is three or four generations old. But it is adequate for basic post processing.
Consider using an external monitor which you can connect with a DVI adapter/connector, about $30.00 from Apple.
Consider using an external monitor which you can connect with a DVI adapter/connector, about $30.00 from Apple.
Check out Photo Critique Section section of our forum.
Oct 23, 2014 05:57:01 #
wtompkins wrote:
These are the specs for a mac that's for sale near me.
Is it good for photography and editing?
Is it good for photography and editing?
no.
Oct 23, 2014 06:44:59 #
burkphoto wrote:
It's decent. br br A few years ago, at the then ... (show quote)
This evaluation is straight from someone who knows Macs. The suggestions presented are sound and very beneficial. Running Lightroom on only 4 gig of RAM is like trying to make water run uphill. 8 or 16 gig will vastly improve PP processing speeds and the addition or replacement of the boot HDD to an SSD will make boot up as well as swap file usage almost as fast as using RAM.
And Burkphoto is right about the new MACs not being able to be upgraded in RAM amount due to the elimination of RAM sockets.
Oct 23, 2014 06:59:02 #
As others have said RAM too small and hard disc also too small, especially if you have a lot of photos taken in RAW
Oct 23, 2014 07:05:01 #
sueyeisert
Loc: New Jersey
If you're going to increase the Ram increase to 16GB. That's what I did with my 17" macbook pro from 2011. The people from the Apple store told me to get the memory form crucial..
haroldross wrote:
The MacBookPro5,2 is a 17" MacBook Pro that came out in early 2009. The only thing I would do is increase the RAM to 8GB.
Check out Professional and Advanced Portraiture section of our forum.
Oct 23, 2014 07:33:54 #
I am curious . Although I have never owned a Mac . I build my own desktops . My latest build has a 4+ ghz processor with 8 cores . 7 Hardrives , with the main one being a Samsung 840 pro SS drive . A very good graphic card . Although I installed 16gb of ram . I never come close to using half of that . I have opened Photoshop CC , loaded 30 raw photos or more ranging from 25 to 30mb each . And I may use 4 to 5gbs . It sounds to me that a Mac must use a lot more memory than my windows 7 or 8 does . Can anyone confirm that , does Mac use more than windows ,tommy
Oct 23, 2014 07:44:58 #
kubota king wrote:
I am curious . Although I have never owned a Mac .... (show quote)
No...MACs do not use more than WINDOWS machines, but there are programs, like Lightroom and some layering routines that use massive amounts or RAM for storage and a lot more cores for calculations and processing. I agree though that for simple photo work, only 8 gig of RAM would be sufficient but remember that without a video card with 1 or 2 gig of dedicated video RAM, the integrated MOBO video will steal up to 3 gig or more of the system RAM for video processing and display. Even the new APUs will do this.
Oct 23, 2014 07:45:58 #
dentlfly
Loc: charlotte, nc
i have been a mac user for years both desktop and laptop. the newest laptops are much faster and the prices keep coming down for much more technology. the newer retina displays are amazing as are the regular non retina displays. if you want to make the switch(you will never go back) then bite the bullet and get a new unit. if u have an apple store or best buy near you go check them out. happy shopping.
Oct 23, 2014 07:49:53 #
kubota king wrote:
I am curious . Although I have never owned a Mac .... (show quote)
Turn off your virtual memory on a Windows machine and then see how much of that 16 GB you have left after those big programs are running ;)
Oct 23, 2014 08:15:56 #
Historically, I've found the Mac to be generally MORE efficient at memory management than Windows PCs.
On either platform, additional RAM keeps more of your files and programs in fast, active memory, rather than in virtual memory or "swap files" on the hard drive. So the more RAM you have, the more files and apps you can keep open and running quickly FROM RAM, all at the same time!
In my world, I run both Mac OS X and Windows 7 on the same Mac, at the same time, using Parallels Desktop. So having sufficient RAM for TWO different operating systems and their applications is important!
I typically run Mail, Safari, Word, TextEdit, SnapzProX (screen recording software), PowerPoint (Mac), PLUS FileMaker Pro database (Windows) and Outlook (Windows), and I did so in 4GB for years. However, it all runs MUCH faster in 8GB... despite a slower processor on my Mini!
One other note: The larger MacBook Pros all include dedicated graphics adapters with dedicated memory on them, so comments seen here regarding the OS eating RAM for graphics memory are irrelevant. On some MacBook Pros, you can turn off the dedicated graphics adapter and use the motherboard's built-in adapter, but the only reason to do that is to save battery power. If you're plugged into AC, that's pointless.
Yes, the original poster is looking at an older machine, but Macs do last a long time (with reasonable care), and they are very robust to start with. A 17-inch MBP was originally a $2500 to $2700 purchase, at minimum, and it's built like it.
On either platform, additional RAM keeps more of your files and programs in fast, active memory, rather than in virtual memory or "swap files" on the hard drive. So the more RAM you have, the more files and apps you can keep open and running quickly FROM RAM, all at the same time!
In my world, I run both Mac OS X and Windows 7 on the same Mac, at the same time, using Parallels Desktop. So having sufficient RAM for TWO different operating systems and their applications is important!
I typically run Mail, Safari, Word, TextEdit, SnapzProX (screen recording software), PowerPoint (Mac), PLUS FileMaker Pro database (Windows) and Outlook (Windows), and I did so in 4GB for years. However, it all runs MUCH faster in 8GB... despite a slower processor on my Mini!
One other note: The larger MacBook Pros all include dedicated graphics adapters with dedicated memory on them, so comments seen here regarding the OS eating RAM for graphics memory are irrelevant. On some MacBook Pros, you can turn off the dedicated graphics adapter and use the motherboard's built-in adapter, but the only reason to do that is to save battery power. If you're plugged into AC, that's pointless.
Yes, the original poster is looking at an older machine, but Macs do last a long time (with reasonable care), and they are very robust to start with. A 17-inch MBP was originally a $2500 to $2700 purchase, at minimum, and it's built like it.
Oct 23, 2014 08:46:50 #
Dngallagher wrote:
Turn off your virtual memory on a Windows machine and then see how much of that 16 GB you have left after those big programs are running ;)
I did as you asked .And then I opened 25 raw files in PS CC . Avg mb was 25mb each . I brought up ram usage using task manager and took a photo so you could see for yourself . Ram usage was still only around 27 % of 16gb while other programs were running in the back ground
Oct 23, 2014 10:00:39 #
@ Kubota King:
Photoshop has settings in Preferences that allow you to control how much memory it consumes, and where it puts swap (or scratch) files. The default settings are pretty conservative, and they assume minimal system resources. If you have lots of RAM and a dedicated drive for scratch files, you can change those settings and get much smoother, faster performance.
When working with a bunch of reasonably small files, it's probably not necessary, because PS will store inactive files on disk in scratch memory. But if you are working with extremely large files (>200 MB) for wall size or billboard size output, it becomes a necessity.
Try scaling those 25 files to 250 MB TIFFs and see what happens when you allow PS to use the maximum allowable RAM...
Photoshop has settings in Preferences that allow you to control how much memory it consumes, and where it puts swap (or scratch) files. The default settings are pretty conservative, and they assume minimal system resources. If you have lots of RAM and a dedicated drive for scratch files, you can change those settings and get much smoother, faster performance.
When working with a bunch of reasonably small files, it's probably not necessary, because PS will store inactive files on disk in scratch memory. But if you are working with extremely large files (>200 MB) for wall size or billboard size output, it becomes a necessity.
Try scaling those 25 files to 250 MB TIFFs and see what happens when you allow PS to use the maximum allowable RAM...
Oct 23, 2014 10:10:44 #
It will work fine, but isn't ideal. Not enough memory, and does not have the Retina display, which is really nice to have.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Software and Computer Support for Photographers section of our forum.