Laptop for photo editing

boobar · 16-11-2014 11:10am #1

Folks,

I've been pondering this for far too long. I posted this in Laptops yesterday, but thought I'd get more feedback here, hope this is OK with the moderators.

So I'm down to 2 choices now

http://www.dell.com/ie/p/xps-15-9530/pd?oc=cnx9516&model_id=xps-15-9530

Or this
http://www.pcspecialist.co.uk/quotes/optimusV-17/tztfRh6HxD/

I like the dell because of the better screen and I've had dells before and found them reliable.

I like PC specialist because of the ssd, the overall spec and its 300 cheaper, I originally had a budget of €800 but don't think this was realistic. But I've no experience dealing with PC Specialist.

What would you go for?

JamJamJamJam · 16-11-2014 3:02pm

I don't know much about either of these laptops, although both obviously look great. I'd be inclined to say that they'd be more than sufficient to allow you to edit photos as best as possible. I currently have a Lenovo laptop, and I LOVE it. They have a great reputation. This is one of their highest spec laptops, for a similar amount of money: http://shop.lenovo.com/ie/en/laptops/lenovo/y-series/y70-touch/#tab-customize - I'd also consider this, myself.

But I'm wondering, does it need to be a laptop? If it does, these laptops are great (knowing little about PC Specialist or the Dell laptop, I couldn't pick one above the other). If not, you can really get more bang for your buck at that price-band with a desktop. Plus, you'll be looking at the photos on a big-ass monitor! On that note, external monitors are generally bigger and better than laptop monitors (17" vs. 27", for instance), and it might be worth considering using an external monitor (or two) even with the laptop. I feel like it makes the whole experience much more pleasant.

So, sorry that I can't help with your question, but maybe you might find those suggestions useful

Bears and Vodka · 16-11-2014 5:03pm

If you're looking at Windows based laptops that cost 1500, consider a Macbook Pro. But if your budget is 800, then I'm not sure why you are looking at that Dell to begin with.

That Dell has a better screen resolution, which is important I guess. Spec wise it's less important imo, Lightroom is not that computationally intensive. Both will do a good job.

pegasus1 · 16-11-2014 8:59pm

calibrate the screen whether its a laptop or desktop screen...

PaulieC · 17-11-2014 12:20am

Surface Pro 3 ftw

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 17-11-2014 10:53am

The ram and the CPU cache are going to be the important parts here (along with the CPU clock speed of course).

Both of these computers are overkill for photo processing.

Unless you want to go into long timelapse projects or video editing, I would look at something more mid range.

Nerro · 17-11-2014 11:45am

It would be great to hear what software you are going to use for post as some are more demanding than others for different specs of hardware.

Effects · 17-11-2014 8:01pm

Bears and Vodka wrote: »

If you're looking at Windows based laptops that cost 1500, consider a Macbook Pro.

There's probably about €800 in the difference between that Dell and a similar specced Macbook.

amdgilmore · 17-11-2014 8:18pm

Either is fine and will probably see you through the next ten versions of Adobe software. I'd go for the one with the better screen, no question.

As for this:

PaulieC wrote: »

Surface Pro 3 ftw

I'm massively biased having just bought one, but I totally agree. The touchscreen, pen and the high resolution are superb for photo editing. Portability is a major plus too.

Reoil · 19-11-2014 1:36pm

Don't worry about the SSD, you can always install one at any time when you get the laptop.

Tiriel · 19-11-2014 3:26pm

Reoil wrote: »

Don't worry about the SSD, you can always install one at any time when you get the laptop.

As someone who doesn't really know much about these things, do you need a certain spec machine to be able to do this?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 20-11-2014 2:12am

Cork_girl wrote: »

As someone who doesn't really know much about these things, do you need a certain spec machine to be able to do this?

Technically no, as there are cables (and other parts) that can convert IDE (old connetion) to SATA (new connection). Only problem here is the space within your laptop to contain the additional hardware.

Chances are, your laptop might already have a SATA connection if it has been purchased in the last 3-4 years (maybe more). You can just swap out the hard drives as both are 2.5" in size.

Reoil · 20-11-2014 11:54am

Cork_girl wrote: »

As someone who doesn't really know much about these things, do you need a certain spec machine to be able to do this?

No. The connection will be standard. Open it up, unplug cables, remove hard drive, put new hard drive in, reconnect cables, put case on again. Only thing left to do after that is to re-install the OS.

Annabel Scruffy Thresher wrote: »

Only problem here is the space within your laptop to contain the additional hardware.

There is no additional hardware - you would be swapping the hard drives, not adding a second one.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 20-11-2014 12:02pm

Reoil wrote: »

No. The connection will be standard. Open it up, unplug cables, remove hard drive, put new hard drive in, reconnect cables, put case on again. Only thing left to do after that is to re-install the OS.

There is no additional hardware - you would be swapping the hard drives, not adding a second one.

As I explained in my post, it all depends on what connection your laptop has. If it is SATA then it's a straight swap. If it's anything other than SATA then you need an adapter. The adapter is an additional piece of hardware which may or may not fit in the laptop. I wouldn't think it would fit as laptops use every bit of space available.

You assume that all laptops have a SATA connection, which is incorrect.

Ben D Bus · 20-11-2014 2:12pm

Reoil wrote: »

No. The connection will be standard. Open it up, unplug cables, remove hard drive, put new hard drive in, reconnect cables, put case on again. Only thing left to do after that is to re-install the OS.

There is no additional hardware - you would be swapping the hard drives, not adding a second one.

Or clone the original HD to the SSD first. Then swap them and job done.

Depends on whether or not you want to keep everything from your original disk or not.

Reoil · 21-11-2014 1:28pm

Annabel Scruffy Thresher wrote: »

As I explained in my post, it all depends on what connection your laptop has. If it is SATA then it's a straight swap. If it's anything other than SATA then you need an adapter. The adapter is an additional piece of hardware which may or may not fit in the laptop. I wouldn't think it would fit as laptops use every bit of space available.

You assume that all laptops have a SATA connection, which is incorrect.

Practically all new laptops nowadays are SATA.
More to the point, the two laptops the OP linked to are SATA...

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 21-11-2014 3:39pm

Reoil wrote: »

Practically all new laptops nowadays are SATA.
More to the point, the two laptops the OP linked to are SATA...

Yes for sure, but my reply was aimed at CorkGirls post below. Not sure if she has a SATA or not.

Cork_girl wrote: »

As someone who doesn't really know much about these things, do you need a certain spec machine to be able to do this?

ScumLord · 21-11-2014 3:42pm

Annabel Scruffy Thresher wrote: »

You assume that all laptops have a SATA connection, which is incorrect.

I think it's safe to assume any laptop you buy today is sata.

All I'll say on the matter is that as far as I'm concerned a laptop is a dead end system when it comes to running high end software. Much more economical and future proof to go desktop. I understand people like laptops but you're paying more for less.

amdgilmore · 21-11-2014 8:26pm

ScumLord wrote: »

I think it's safe to assume any laptop you buy today is sata.

All I'll say on the matter is that as far as I'm concerned a laptop is a dead end system when it comes to running high end software. Much more economical and future proof to go desktop. I understand people like laptops but you're paying more for less.

Portability is one of the most important considerations for many people. I will probably never again buy a desktop for that reason. I'm willing to accept the trade-off on price if I can bring it to and from work / on holidays / on shoots / on the train with me.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 22-11-2014 6:36pm

ScumLord wrote: »

I think it's safe to assume any laptop you buy today is sata.

All I'll say on the matter is that as far as I'm concerned a laptop is a dead end system when it comes to running high end software. Much more economical and future proof to go desktop. I understand people like laptops but you're paying more for less.

amdgilmore wrote: »

Portability is one of the most important considerations for many people. I will probably never again buy a desktop for that reason. I'm willing to accept the trade-off on price if I can bring it to and from work / on holidays / on shoots / on the train with me.

Desktops are much better value and easier to upgrade. Laptops are essential for people on the go. I have my desktop for when I am at home and will be looking at a mac air for travelling

boobar · 22-11-2014 11:45pm

Nerro wrote: »

It would be great to hear what software you are going to use for post as some are more demanding than others for different specs of hardware.

Not too sure yet.

I was thinking of starting with Photoshop Elements

boobar · 22-11-2014 11:51pm

Annabel Scruffy Thresher wrote: »

The ram and the CPU cache are going to be the important parts here (along with the CPU clock speed of course).

Both of these computers are overkill for photo processing.

Unless you want to go into long timelapse projects or video editing, I would look at something more mid range.

Thanks Annabel Scruffy Thresher...

I'm not looking for something for video editing.

To be honest, I'm glad you suggest something mid range as I had hoped to spend just €800...I upped my budget because I thought the spec would need to be quite high for photo editing.

So in terms of just photo editing what do you think is the minimum spec I would need?

Any suggestions on laptops?

boobar · 22-11-2014 11:53pm

amdgilmore wrote: »

Either is fine and will probably see you through the next ten versions of Adobe software. I'd go for the one with the better screen, no question.

As for this:

I'm massively biased having just bought one, but I totally agree. The touchscreen, pen and the high resolution are superb for photo editing. Portability is a major plus too.

What spec did you go for with the Surface as a matter of interest?

amdgilmore · 23-11-2014 1:04pm

boobar wrote: »

What spec did you go for with the Surface as a matter of interest?

I got the i5 with 8GB RAM and 256GB HD.

Really like it. Admittedly windows 8 has its fair share of quirks but it's still the best productivity device I've owned.

boobar · 23-11-2014 3:38pm

amdgilmore wrote: »

I got the i5 with 8GB RAM and 256GB HD.

Really like it. Admittedly windows 8 has its fair share of quirks but it's still the best productivity device I've owned.

Thanks amdgilmore...

Sorry more questions...

So i5 and 8gb Ram would be sufficient for photo editing?

I'm thinking of dropping back to a mid range Dell now...

Would this one be sufficient?

http://www.dell.com/ie/p/inspiron-15-5547-laptop/pd?oc=cn54716&model_id=inspiron-15-5547-laptop

amdgilmore · 23-11-2014 3:42pm

boobar wrote: »

Thanks amdgilmore...

Sorry more questions...

So i5 and 8gb Ram would be sufficient for photo editing?

I'm thinking of dropping back to a mid range Dell now...

Would this one be sufficient?

http://www.dell.com/ie/p/inspiron-15-5547-laptop/pd?oc=cn54716&model_id=inspiron-15-5547-laptop

Yeah, the Surface is fine for editing. Haven't noticed any lag or problems opening files.

I can't really comment on the other laptop as I don't know enough about the various generations of CPUs and GPUs but I would imagine it's fine. Somebody else might be able to give you more expert advice.

ScumLord · 25-11-2014 9:26pm

amdgilmore wrote: »

Portability is one of the most important considerations for many people.

I hear people saying that but quite often I see people only move the laptop from the kitchen table to the couch and it never leaves the house.

If you're actually going to leave the house with it then it's justified, but there seems to be a lot of people that buy laptops because it's a neater package and a desktop seems like a scary option.

Effects · 26-11-2014 12:31pm

amdgilmore wrote: »

I got the i5 with 8GB RAM and 256GB HD.

Really like it. Admittedly windows 8 has its fair share of quirks but it's still the best productivity device I've owned.

Can you put windows 7 on a Surface?

amdgilmore · 26-11-2014 3:32pm

Effects wrote: »

Can you put windows 7 on a Surface?

Possibly... but I don't really know why you'd want to. Even with the quirks, Windows 8.1 is better than 7 for touch screens.

And they are just 'quirks' btw. No show-stoppers. I'd imagine much of the negative press pre-dates 8.1, and is possibly also related to people using non-touchscreen devices. The metro UI is a pointless irritation for a mouse and keyboard user.

Zillah · 26-11-2014 3:50pm

boobar wrote: »

Thanks amdgilmore...

Sorry more questions...

So i5 and 8gb Ram would be sufficient for photo editing?

I'm thinking of dropping back to a mid range Dell now...

Would this one be sufficient?

http://www.dell.com/ie/p/inspiron-15-5547-laptop/pd?oc=cn54716&model_id=inspiron-15-5547-laptop

People were editing photos on laptops ten years ago. You would be hard pressed to find a new laptop these days that couldn't run photoshop and allow you to edit photos perfectly well. Hell, people were editing video on machines less powerful than modern laptops. The spec really doesn't matter a huge amount unless you're going to be processing large batches of photos. i5 and 8GB of RAM is massive overkill to be honest. You can't go wrong with it, it will be faster and easier than something cheaper, but the minimum requirements are gone with the dinosaurs.

I am currently typing on my old HP laptop, which is five years old, has a crap AMD processor and 4GB of RAM and I can edit photos on Photshop CS5 no problem. I have a monster of a desktop at home for editing video, but that's only because HD+ video is orders of magnitude more system heavy.

candytog · 26-11-2014 9:05pm

boobar wrote: »

Thanks amdgilmore...

Sorry more questions...

So i5 and 8gb Ram would be sufficient for photo editing?

I'm thinking of dropping back to a mid range Dell now...

Would this one be sufficient?

http://www.dell.com/ie/p/inspiron-15-5547-laptop/pd?oc=cn54716&model_id=inspiron-15-5547-laptop

Sorry to throw another thing in here but if it were me I would look for a faster hard drive. That one is only 5400rpm, I would go for 7200rpm.

Your hard drive speed is one of the things that makes your laptop faster all round and especially for editing photographs. Much more so than the processor or the ram.

This seems to be an area where laptop manufacturers are skimping because nobody know about it and thinks more ram or bigger i number makes a difference.

The laptop above is like a Ferrari with wooden tyres. Lots of power but wasted because the hard drive (tyres) are too slow.

Reoil · 27-11-2014 11:45am

Annabel Scruffy Thresher wrote: »

Yes for sure, but my reply was aimed at CorkGirls post below. Not sure if she has a SATA or not.

But she's looking buy to a laptop, so she hasn't chosen yet...

Tiriel · 27-11-2014 11:47am

Reoil wrote: »

But she's looking buy to a laptop, so she hasn't chosen yet...

I was actually curious because of a laptop at home that we could potentially upgrade

For myself, I actually have a dinosaur desktop which I need to upgrade. I've run the RAM check on it to see what I could do in terms of trying extra RAM, but I think it's probably time to buy new. PC is circa 2005

Reoil · 27-11-2014 11:48am

candytog wrote: »

Your hard drive speed is one of the things that makes your laptop faster all round and especially for editing photographs. Much more so than the processor or the ram.

The laptop above is like a Ferrari with wooden tyres. Lots of power but wasted because the hard drive (tyres) are too slow.

Absolute rubbish. Once the photo is loaded into RAM, the hard drive is out of the equation. The more RAM you have, the less the hard drive is needed. The faster the processor, the faster photos are edited.

The laptop above is more like Herbie with a turbo engine.
(Turbo is a bit of an exaggeration, but I haven't had my coffee yet...)

Reoil · 27-11-2014 11:50am

Cork_girl wrote: »

I was actually curious because of a laptop at home that we could potentially upgrade

For myself, I actually have a dinosaur desktop which I need to upgrade. I've run the RAM check on it to see what I could do in terms of trying extra RAM, but I think it's probably time to buy new. PC is circa 2005

Sorry, got you confused with the OP!
Read the last sentence in my last post.

ScumLord · 27-11-2014 3:30pm

Reoil wrote: »

Absolute rubbish. Once the photo is loaded into RAM, the hard drive is out of the equation. The more RAM you have, the less the hard drive is needed. The faster the processor, the faster photos are edited.

I can tell you from having a SSd at home and a spiny drive at work that an SSD makes a pretty fundamental difference to the whole windows experience. My home PC and work PC aren't really directly comparable (home PC is much more powerful) but simple things like right clicking to bring up a menu, is noticeably faster under SSD, photoshop on an SSD is much faster in every way too.

Reoil · 27-11-2014 3:42pm

ScumLord wrote: »

I can tell you from having a SSd at home and a spiny drive at work that an SSD makes a pretty fundamental difference to the whole windows experience. My home PC and work PC aren't really directly comparable (home PC is much more powerful) but simple things like right clicking to bring up a menu, is noticeably faster under SSD, photoshop on an SSD is much faster in every way too.

Oh I'm aware of the difference, I took the HD out of my Macbook Pro and replaced it with an SSD. The read time is vastly improved. My point is, once the photo is in RAM, the processor and RAM are more important.

The more RAM, the less page-swapping is required. The faster the processor, the faster RAW files are processed and filters etc are applied.

ScumLord · 27-11-2014 4:26pm

Reoil wrote: »

Oh I'm aware of the difference, I took the HD out of my Macbook Pro and replaced it with an SSD. The read time is vastly improved. My point is, once the photo is in RAM, the processor and RAM are more important.

The more RAM, the less page-swapping is required. The faster the processor, the faster RAW files are processed and filters etc are applied.

It's the little things that get me. Just right clicking to bring up menus drives me crazy on the work PC because it takes a split second longer, but it feels like seconds when I'm used to it being instant at home. An SSD PC is just much snappier. It doesn't really help with the grunt work the CPU and ram has to do but it just makes the entire experience instant, where as ram and cpu just make processing things faster.

Zillah · 27-11-2014 5:02pm

ScumLord wrote: »

It's the little things that get me. Just right clicking to bring up menus drives me crazy on the work PC because it takes a split second longer, but it feels like seconds when I'm used to it being instant at home. An SSD PC is just much snappier. It doesn't really help with the grunt work the CPU and ram has to do but it just makes the entire experience instant, where as ram and cpu just make processing things faster.

SSDs ruin you for other computers.

Reoil · 27-11-2014 5:29pm

Zillah wrote: »

SSDs ruin you for other computers.

Tell me about it! My Macbook Pro boots up in seconds.

candytog · 27-11-2014 10:42pm

Reoil wrote: »

Absolute rubbish. Once the photo is loaded into RAM, the hard drive is out of the equation. The more RAM you have, the less the hard drive is needed. The faster the processor, the faster photos are edited.

The laptop above is more like Herbie with a turbo engine.
(Turbo is a bit of an exaggeration, but I haven't had my coffee yet...)

When you are editing a batch of images it is that delay in waiting for the next photograph to load which slows you down. Trust me I know I edit thousands of photographs every week and have done so across a range of different machines.

Also, a big part of editing is selecting and reviewing images, and the hard drive speed is massively import here.

Even editing a single photograph can fill up your ram in a non destructive image editor and then it's down to your hard drive.

You workflow is much faster with a faster hard drive, a 5400rpm drive was slow years ago and still is.

not to mention the increased speed opening programs, and start-up and shut down times.

So yea, not rubbish at all.

flyingsnail · 28-11-2014 12:07am

candytog wrote: »

When you are editing a batch of images it is that delay in waiting for the next photograph to load which slows you down. Trust me I know I edit thousands of photographs every week and have done so across a range of different machines.

Also, a big part of editing is selecting and reviewing images, and the hard drive speed is massively import here.

Even editing a single photograph can fill up your ram in a non destructive image editor and then it's down to your hard drive.

You workflow is much faster with a faster hard drive, a 5400rpm drive was slow years ago and still is.

not to mention the increased speed opening programs, and start-up and shut down times.

So yea, not rubbish at all.

I have to agree with candytog, I have a pretty good editing system, i5 processor, 12GB of ram but the single best upgrade I ever made was the change from mechanical hard drive to SSD. Very rarely do I find myself working on a single image, there is a process to editing and the first step for most will be viewing and selecting their images which makes slow hard drive read speeds a pain.

Effects · 02-12-2014 6:55pm

amdgilmore wrote: »

Possibly... but I don't really know why you'd want to. Even with the quirks, Windows 8.1 is better than 7 for touch screens.
I'd imagine much of the negative press pre-dates 8.1, and is possibly also related to people using non-touchscreen devices. The metro UI is a pointless irritation for a mouse and keyboard user.

I'd hate to use a touchscreen to edit photos, that's my main issue.

amdgilmore · 02-12-2014 11:04pm

Effects wrote: »

I'd hate to use a touchscreen to edit photos, that's my main issue.

Really? I find the stylus is perfect for photo editing. I was using a Wacom tablet with my last laptop because I found a mouse too awkward for retouching.

candytog · 02-12-2014 11:34pm

amdgilmore wrote: »

Really? I find the stylus is perfect for photo editing. I was using a Wacom tablet with my last laptop because I found a mouse too awkward for retouching.

Yea but there is a world of difference between a wacom and a touch screen laptop, not to mention the ergonomics.

amdgilmore · 03-12-2014 12:11am

Well, yeah. And having used the surface, I will never go back to the laptop and wacom.

I'm not a heavy-duty photo editor, though. I prefer to work on getting the photo right on-shoot (with admittedly variable results!) so mileage may vary in individual cases.

Effects · 04-12-2014 11:25am

amdgilmore wrote: »

Really? I find the stylus is perfect for photo editing. I was using a Wacom tablet with my last laptop because I found a mouse too awkward for retouching.

I'm talking about a touchscreen monitor, not a wacom.

amdgilmore wrote: »

I prefer to work on getting the photo right on-shoot (with admittedly variable results!) so mileage may vary in individual cases.

That's just not a reality for me, I often have to retouch stuff using a number of images that can't be done in a single shoot. Having finger smudges all over the screen would drive me mental.

amdgilmore · 04-12-2014 1:01pm

Effects wrote: »

I'm talking about a touchscreen monitor, not a wacom.

That's just not a reality for me, I often have to retouch stuff using a number of images that can't be done in a single shoot. Having finger smudges all over the screen would drive me mental.

You get both a touchscreen and a pretty precise stylus with the surface - that was the only reason I brought it up. Haven't had much issues with smudges while editing (though I do keep a microfibre cloth on hand).

As I said, mileage varies, but for anybody like me whose editing is mostly limited to dodging/burning and minor cloning, I would recommend trying it out.

Gehad_JoyRider · 07-12-2014 2:54pm

I'd go with something like this, I like the specs its got a bit of grunt to and its not 17 inchs if you want to work on a lap top then treat your self to a decent monitor Asus make a greta one in there pro art range.

candytog · 08-12-2014 1:37pm

Gehad_JoyRider wrote: »

I'd go with something like this, I like the specs its got a bit of grunt to and its not 17 inchs if you want to work on a lap top then treat your self to a decent monitor Asus make a greta one in there pro art range.

And it's a 1080p matt screen too which is nice for editing.

Gehad_JoyRider · 10-12-2014 2:33am

candytog wrote: »

And it's a 1080p matt screen too which is nice for editing.

I think there really really good lap tops it could be considered a little ott in some respects but I think its a little more future proof

Laptop for photo editing

Comments