Ideal laptop for Photoshop
Fruit2O
used primarily for Photoshop. I'm waiting for USB 3 and intend to get
Windows 7. But things like the processor, RAM, screen size, color
controls, graphics card and built-in memory, etc. are going to be
important. Price is not an object as long as I get what I pay for. I
travel across the country so durability is important. I'm also
interested in recommendations for a printer and scanner (specs - not
necessarily current models).
Alan Browne
I doubt you'll see USB 3 in wide adoption before 2nd quarter, 2010,
possibly later. Intel are certainly not charging hard at it (perhaps
because of LightPeak?).
A laptop is a compromise where photoshop is concerned. Get a large
screen laptop (17") with at least 1080x1920 resolution. The graphics
card should not matter to you as much as the display itself. To that
end, fluorescent has an uneven colour and LED backlight can have small
inconsistencies in backlight density (though not really enough to notice).
Photoshop manipulates large files - there is a lot of memory fetching:
get the fastest memory available (2 to 4 GB of DDR3 1333 or 1600 MT/s) -
this is -the- bottleneck where PS is concerned when working on large files.
SATA drive. You can get 2.0 and possibly 3.0 in a laptop.
There are laptops with the i7. I'm not sure CS3/4 will take enough
advantage of that... but later updates might.
Consider a Macbook Pro as well - very nice displays - though CS4 still
runs as 32 bits under Snow Leopard - will catch up by CS5 (we expect).
Printer: to print what, how large, how often, how durable ...
Scanner: to scan what (film, paper), how large, how often, for what
purpose (archive, artwork) ....
Fruit2O
Thanks for the reply. I'll try to answer your questions tomorrow. I'm
definitely going with Windows 7 on a PC - just been using Windows for
too many years to change now. Will photoshop work with 64bit? I've
heard that eSATA is faster than SATA - have I heard right? Will more
memory than you recommend help me? I usually have a number of apps
running in the background. Do you have a particular display type you
recommend? Why? Also, what is the compromise between a laptop and a
desktop? I'll have to look up LightPeak - haven't heard of it. Since
I travel (two houses), would a separate unattached screen at each
location work? I realize I'd probably have to calibrate them
separately. Hopefully I will think of more tomorrow. Thanks for your
help.
krp
John Stafford
Fruit2O <jz13...@cox.net> wrote:
Adobe has a lot of information on this.
Begin with their Photoshop Support page.
This was interesting to me:
http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/405/kb405711.html
I found that my Mac Pro's graphics card has an issue that led Adobe to
disable two features. :(
André, PE1PQX
BULLSHIT!!!
nsbm
critical printing. If printing is your goal you will need an external
monitor. Calibration and use of consumer grade LCD panels for color managed
printing is the most misunderstood topic in digital photography,
particularly among mac users who do not comprehend how useless their
machines are for the purpose.
Simply get the fastest core duo processor, quad core is not worth the
weight/heat/power consumption for Photoshop. Most laptops are limited to
4gbs of ram, which is plenty for a 64 bit OS. The key thing is to get the
most modern graphics processor, either ATI or NVIDIA, you can as only that
will allow for any GPU accelerated processing (if enabled for laptops, a
whole other issue). USB3 is utterly irrelevant. If you can afford a solid
state drive go for it but there are better things to do with $600.
I would look into vendors like Sager and its ilk. You can get a machine with
top grade parts at a reasonable price.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
rmo...@cox.net
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 08:14:54 -0500, "krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com>
wrote:
rmo...@cox.net
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 09:41:03 -0600, John Stafford <nh...@droffats.net>
wrote:
Fruit2O
suppliers like Sager? I'm not familiar with Sager - and I DO want to
get the best. BTW, why do you say the quad core is not worth it
(besides the reasons you gave)? I would think the speed would be a
great advantage.
John Stafford
Note that Adobe suggests a single processor GPU because Photoshop will
use only one regardless of how many there are.
N
"nsbm" <fac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hhatlr$q00$1...@adenine.netfront.net...
> First realize that you cannot accurately calibrate a laptop monitor for
> critical printing. If printing is your goal you will need an external
> monitor. Calibration and use of consumer grade LCD panels for color
> managed printing is the most misunderstood topic in digital photography,
> particularly among mac users who do not comprehend how useless their
> machines are for the purpose.
>
Please explain this in more detail and explain how a laptop LCD differs from
a desktop LCD.
krp
"Andrￜ, PE1PQX" <Andre_ge...@pe1pqx.eu> wrote in message
news:7ps7da...@mid.individual.net...
WHATEVER!
Alan Browne
I have no idea. eSATA is for external drives. SATA for internal.
Frankly, I've given you some guidelines, others have as well. That
should be enough to get you going in the right direction.
Will more
> memory than you recommend help me? I usually have a number of apps
> running in the background. Do you have a particular display type you
> recommend? Why? Also, what is the compromise between a laptop and a
> desktop? I'll have to look up LightPeak - haven't heard of it. Since
> I travel (two houses), would a separate unattached screen at each
> location work? I realize I'd probably have to calibrate them
> separately. Hopefully I will think of more tomorrow. Thanks for your
> help.
Help yourself.
Mike Russell
The main criticism of low end LCD displays, including the majority of
notebook displays, is that brightness, contrast, and hue vary with viewing
angle. At normal viewing distances, this creates a subtle vignetting
effect that makes these displays somewhat inferior for fine color work,
compared to higher end displays. Point taken, but ...
I'm an inclusive person by nature, and would certainly not support remarks,
such as those made by "nsbm", re notebook displays and those who use them.
I disagree with those who say that critical color work cannot be done on a
notebook, or any system with a lower end LCD display.
I'd even go one further and say that, while calibration can be important
(particularly in a multi person work environment), it is not a necessity
for good work. The evidence of this is the large volume of good printed
work that was produced before display calibration technology existed.
Loosely speaking, there appear to be two approaches to color correction.
One group believes that any color issue is ultimately related to poor
calibration somewhere in the work flow. Bruce Fraser was a member of this
group.
Another camp, to which I belog, starts with the assumption that calibration
is never perfect, and that it is necessary to navigate this imperfect world
by use of numeric color values. Dan Margulis is the main promoter of this
"color by the numbers" approach to color correction.
So, for example, a deep black with some shadow detail will have a color
value of about RGB(10,10,10), and a pure white with detail will be about
RGB(245,245,245). Likewise, neutral grays are recognized by having equal
RGB values in the three color channels. There are related rules for skin
tones, sky, foliage, and other common colored objects. It's amazing what
can be done using this information, to improve the appearance of the image.
It's also important to take care to calibrate and adjust your monitor, and
to train your subjective perception of color, using the numbers as
landmarks. But with color by the numbers, calibration is no longer a
central requirement for good color work. Notebook displays can be used for
critical work.
Incidentally, it stands to reason that, using color by the numbers, color
blind people, who make up a non-trivial number of color practitioners, can
learn to do excellent color corrections, going by the numbers.
Back to the OP's question about a good notebook - get a 64 bit notebook
that supports Windows 7, and can support 8G of main memory. Dual core, at
the present time, is useful for certain Photoshop operations, but quad core
is not. Display acceleration is not critical for the 2D features of
Photoshop, though it is being used increasingly by the extended features of
the product. Rather than concern yourself about the quality of the
display, invest in a dock mount and spend a few hundred on a desktop
monitor for more critical work while you are at home.
Do consider getting a calibration device, such as the i1 Display2,
particularly if your images are going to be shared with third parties for
critical work - this includes printing.
--
Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com
nospam
Stafford <nh...@droffats.net> wrote:
> Note that Adobe suggests a single processor GPU because Photoshop will
> use only one regardless of how many there are.
and where exactly do they suggest that?? photoshop will use multiple
cores/cpus as needed. not everything will benefit from it, however.
nospam
<fac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> First realize that you cannot accurately calibrate a laptop monitor for
> critical printing.
nonsense.
> If printing is your goal you will need an external
> monitor.
external monitors are generally better but not required.
> Calibration and use of consumer grade LCD panels for color managed
> printing is the most misunderstood topic in digital photography,
> particularly among mac users who do not comprehend how useless their
> machines are for the purpose.
nonsense.
> Simply get the fastest core duo processor, quad core is not worth the
> weight/heat/power consumption for Photoshop. Most laptops are limited to
> 4gbs of ram, which is plenty for a 64 bit OS.
mac laptops are not limited to 4 gig, and there's no need for a 64 bit
os with 4 gig.
> The key thing is to get the
> most modern graphics processor, either ATI or NVIDIA, you can as only that
> will allow for any GPU accelerated processing (if enabled for laptops, a
> whole other issue). USB3 is utterly irrelevant. If you can afford a solid
> state drive go for it but there are better things to do with $600.
usb3 isn't out yet.
Stefan
>> Note that Adobe suggests a single processor GPU because Photoshop will
>> use only one regardless of how many there are.
> and where exactly do they suggest that?? photoshop will use multiple
> cores/cpus as needed. not everything will benefit from it, however.
Read more carefully, John talked about the GPU, not the CPU.
Stefan
> Most laptops are limited to 4gbs of ram,
Macs are not.
> which is plenty for a 64 bit OS.
This is just bullshit. While a 64 bit OS may have a minor speed
advantage, its main purpose is it's possibility to address more than 4
GB of RAM. So if you have a computer which is limited to 4 GB of RAM,
then a 64 bit OS (or a 64 bit application for that matter) has
absolutely no advantage over a 32 bit one. If however you have a
computer with more RAM, then you maust install a 64 bit OS to use it.
And depending on how "serious" you work with photoshop, 4 GB may or may
not be enough for effective work.
> The key thing is to get
> the most modern graphics processor, either ATI or NVIDIA, you can as
> only that will allow for any GPU accelerated processing
Which is of little concern for most photoshop tasks.
If you really care about performance, then forget about laptops. Thexy
are inherently slower than desktop machines.
John Stafford
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
I wrote 'GPU'.
See: http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/404/kb404898.html
"To maximize Photoshop's OpenGL features, consider a card with a fast
single GPU. Photoshop will not work with more than one GPU."
André, PE1PQX
With a decent PC (windows based) photoshop can and will run smoothly.
I have no MAC's here, and photoshop runs fine with no issue.
So 'GET A MAC' is utter BS!
krp
Have you ever worked with PS on a MAC? Have you ever looked at the
graphics business? MOST (like 90%) use MACS and the MACS can do things
better AND don't fail anywhere near as often as CS 4 does on a PC. I am
using a PC. I sometimes work with folks that have MACS. They have 1% of the
headaches that I do, especially in converting formats.
André, PE1PQX
> "Andrￜ, PE1PQX" <Andre_ge...@pe1pqx.eu> wrote in message
> news:7pujmm...@mid.individual.net...
>> Op 29-12-2009, heeft krp verondersteld :
>>> "Andrￜ, PE1PQX" <Andre_ge...@pe1pqx.eu> wrote in message
>>> news:7ps7da...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> Het is zￜ dat krp formuleerde :
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> WHATEVER!
>>
>> With a decent PC (windows based) photoshop can and will run smoothly.
>> I have no MAC's here, and photoshop runs fine with no issue.
>> So 'GET A MAC' is utter BS!
>
> Have you ever worked with PS on a MAC? Have you ever looked at the
> graphics business? MOST (like 90%) use MACS and the MACS can do things better
> AND don't fail anywhere near as often as CS 4 does on a PC. I am using a PC.
> I sometimes work with folks that have MACS. They have 1% of the headaches
> that I do, especially in converting formats.
What a MAC can do, a PC can do to...
John Stafford
Andr�, PE1PQX <Andre_ge...@pe1pqx.eu> wrote:
> With a decent PC (windows based) photoshop can and will run smoothly.
> I have no MAC's here, and photoshop runs fine with no issue.
> So 'GET A MAC' is utter BS!
I use both PC (Win-XT) and Mac Pro, each well endowed, and each are just
fine. We use Macs primarily for image processing because I like the
scripting and the underlying OS better. No big deal to most users of PS.
John Stafford
"krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> Have you ever worked with PS on a MAC? Have you ever looked at the
> graphics business? MOST (like 90%) use MACS and the MACS can do things
> better AND don't fail anywhere near as often as CS 4 does on a PC. I am
> using a PC. I sometimes work with folks that have MACS. They have 1% of the
> headaches that I do, especially in converting formats.
There is one subtle difference between the Mac and WinDoze version: on
the Mac you can show/hide the Application Frame so that Adobe products
are more Apple-Like in visual presentation. I find it a bit confusing so
I leave it off.
My wife is a pre-press expert (and designer) and they use Macs
exclusively only because they _started_ with Macs so long ago. Her
printer uses PCs. They get along just fine. (It's all color by the
numbers for them.)
André, PE1PQX
> In article <7pujmm...@mid.individual.net>,
That's exactly what I mean... It does not matter if you use MAC or
windblows, just personal preference.
John Stafford
Andr�, PE1PQX <Andre_ge...@pe1pqx.eu> wrote:
> John Stafford beweerde :
> > In article <7pujmm...@mid.individual.net>,
> > Andr�, PE1PQX <Andre_ge...@pe1pqx.eu> wrote:
> >
> >> With a decent PC (windows based) photoshop can and will run smoothly.
> >> I have no MAC's here, and photoshop runs fine with no issue.
> >> So 'GET A MAC' is utter BS!
> >
> > I use both PC (Win-XT) and Mac Pro, each well endowed, and each are just
> > fine. We use Macs primarily for image processing because I like the
> > scripting and the underlying OS better. No big deal to most users of PS.
>
> That's exactly what I mean... It does not matter if you use MAC or
> windblows, just personal preference.
Yes, and the freedom to choose is wonderful.
(Sometimes I wish Chris Cox would drop in here with his characteristic
smashing replies and advice.)
John Stafford
One more difference between PC and Mac for PS, and it has to do with the
OS - In Windows/PC you can open an image using a url. Not so on the Mac.
Try it in Photoshop Windows. In the open dialog, type:
http://www.digoliardi.net/tmp.jpg
No big deal.
One can also use the command line in Windows/PC to execute a droplet
with arguments (the file path,filename), although I don't do that
anymore.
Kabuki
"John Stafford" <nh...@droffats.net> wrote in message
news:nhoj-B26130.1...@news.supernews.com...
That works in the system dialog----YES!! (not the Adobe dialog)
never knew that b4 ---------thanks
krp
And do HALF ASSED.
André, PE1PQX
> "Andrￜ, PE1PQX" <Andre_ge...@pe1pqx.eu> wrote in message
> news:7pultp...@mid.individual.net...
>> krp drukte met precisie uit :
>>> "Andrￜ, PE1PQX" <Andre_ge...@pe1pqx.eu> wrote in message
>>> news:7pujmm...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> Op 29-12-2009, heeft krp verondersteld :
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have no MAC's here, and photoshop runs fine with no issue.
>>>> So 'GET A MAC' is utter BS!
>>>
>>> Have you ever worked with PS on a MAC? Have you ever looked at the
>>> graphics business? MOST (like 90%) use MACS and the MACS can do things
>>> better AND don't fail anywhere near as often as CS 4 does on a PC. I am
>>> using a PC. I sometimes work with folks that have MACS. They have 1% of
>>> the headaches that I do, especially in converting formats.
>>
>> What a MAC can do, a PC can do to...
>
> And do HALF ASSED.
Ow, please SHUT UP!!
The time MAC were better for DPT is long gone!
Mike Russell
> The time MAC were better for DPT is long gone!
But not the time for arguing about it, apparently. Platform wars are like
monkeys standing on elephants, throwing coconuts at each other.
krp
"Mike Russell" <grou...@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote in message
news:17ekoxg9...@mike.curvemeister.com...
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:30:44 +0100, Andr�, PE1PQX wrote:
>
>> The time MAC were better for DPT is long gone!
Oh yes - VISTA is such a GREAT SUCCESS!
André, PE1PQX
> "Mike Russell" <grou...@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote in message
> news:17ekoxg9...@mike.curvemeister.com...
>>
>>> The time MAC were better for DPT is long gone!
>
> Oh yes - VISTA is such a GREAT SUCCESS!
You think VISTA means 'Virus Inside, Switch To Apple'?
VISTA was (and is) in the same direction as Win ME. Win 7 is much
better than Vista.
Again: KRP: SHUT UP!
krp
Oh bullshit, Widows 7 has its own set of fatal errors. Its main advantage
over Vista is that it just gets to the CRASH sooner! Not to mention the MANY
MANY MANY problems with upgrading. You ARE aware of the FATAL ERROR at 65%
aren't you? If not warned and prepared with entering a secret code, you
CRASH and lose ALL your data and software, or did you ignore the
instructions to "BACK UP EVERYTHING BEFORE STARTING THE UPGRADE?" It's
TYPICAL Bill Gates BULLSHIT, and has a host of NEW compatibility problems.
I have PC's - I stay with PC's because I have NO choice at this late date.
I' too invested after almost 20 years on PC's. I wish I had gone with Apple.
BUT way back then Apple had few business applications. They didn't have a
good word processor. Nothing like Word Perfect. The MAC word processor that
was decent came along later. But for images Apple had it WAY over the PC.
André, PE1PQX
Yup.. you said it: HAD... (last sentence)
Mike Russell
interesting to discuss.
Happy new year.
John Stafford
Mike Russell <grou...@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote:
> Mac vs PC is an argument that everyone loses. Find something more
> interesting to discuss.
>
> Happy new year.
The same to you, Saint Mike. Thanks for being here for the rest of us
for all these years.
--
John in the Tropics of MinneSnowta
krp
Well I agree, the MAC lacks something that sets the PC's apart. LOTS of
BLUE SCREENS!
André, PE1PQX
> Mac vs PC is an argument that everyone loses. Find something more
> interesting to discuss.
>
> Happy new year.
Same to you: best wishes for 2010
I think I'll killfile 'krp'... he's an idiot.
Alan Browne
>
> "André, PE1PQX" <Andre_ge...@pe1pqx.eu> wrote in message
> news:7q27c...@mid.individual.net...
>> krp schreef op 30-12-2009 :
>>> news:7q1ig3...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> krp stelde dit idée voor :
>>>>> "Mike Russell" <grou...@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:17ekoxg9...@mike.curvemeister.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh yes - VISTA is such a GREAT SUCCESS!
>>>>
>>>> You think VISTA means 'Virus Inside, Switch To Apple'?
>>>>
>>>> VISTA was (and is) in the same direction as Win ME. Win 7 is much
>>>> better than Vista.
>>>
>>> Oh bullshit, Widows 7 has its own set of fatal errors. Its main
>>> advantage over Vista is that it just gets to the CRASH sooner! Not to
>>> mention the MANY MANY MANY problems with upgrading. You ARE aware of
>>> the FATAL ERROR at 65% aren't you? If not warned and prepared with
>>> entering a secret code, you CRASH and lose ALL your data and
>>> software, or did you ignore the instructions to "BACK UP EVERYTHING
>>> BEFORE STARTING THE UPGRADE?" It's TYPICAL Bill Gates BULLSHIT, and
>>> has a host of NEW compatibility problems.
>>>
>>> I have PC's - I stay with PC's because I have NO choice at this late
>>> date. I' too invested after almost 20 years on PC's. I wish I had
>>> gone with Apple. BUT way back then Apple had few business
>>> applications. They didn't have a good word processor. Nothing like
>>> Word Perfect. The MAC word processor that was decent came along
>>> later. But for images Apple had it WAY over the PC.
>>
>> Yup.. you said it: HAD... (last sentence)
>
> Well I agree, the MAC lacks something that sets the PC's apart. LOTS of
> BLUE SCREENS!
I haven't seen a blue screen in home use since WinXP - and I use my
machine pretty hard. At work (a h/w & s/w engineering environment) blue
screens do happen, but that is usually due to the application work in
process.
My Mac on occasion goes into a funk where everything seems to run like
molasses or the beach ball reigns supreme. I don't reboot often, for
that matter it's usually forced by OS or apps patches from Apple, but
when the Mac gets slow it needs a clean reboot.
While I believe the Mac OS X is a more solid and properly designed and
evolved platform than Windblows, in practical use, I don't see very much
difference other than I re-boot less often to freshen up the system.
Where OS X _may_ begin to really distance itself from Windohs is when
applications are written to take advantage of both GCD and OpenCL. On
machines with 4 and more cores and 2 (or more) GPU's, this could really
make apps perform at screaming rates. More of interest perhaps to the
HD video crowd than plain image work. But the apps have to catch up to
the OS. I don't know where MS are with OpenCL or OS controlled
poly-threaded task dispatching.
Mike Russell
> I'm looking for opinions on what to look for in a laptop that will be
> used primarily for Photoshop.
Interesting reading here re displays:
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-9320-9876
Talker
<grou...@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:30:44 +0100, Andr�, PE1PQX wrote:
>
>> The time MAC were better for DPT is long gone!
>
>But not the time for arguing about it, apparently. Platform wars are like
>monkeys standing on elephants, throwing coconuts at each other.
I agree Mike, there is no "one is better than the other" here.
They both have their pluses and minuses. They only difference between
a MAC and a PC are the operating systems. The ideal thing would be to
buy a PC, wipe the hard drive, and install the latest MAC OS if you
think that's better. The problem is, Apple won't allow you to do that
because if they did, no one would buy a MAC. It's a lot cheaper to
buy a PC than it is to buy a MAC. I mean, look at the laptops....you
can't buy a MAC laptop for under $1000, but you can buy a PC for $400.
If you could put the MAC OS on this laptop, you'd have a MAC laptop
for $400, and save $600.
I don't care for MACs....that's just a personal preference and is
in no way meant to put down a MAC. Over the years, I have downloaded
hundreds of small programs that I use on my PC. I have found that a
lot (not all) of these programs are not designed for the MAC. It
seems that there is a lot more software designed for the PC than there
is for the MAC. The thing is, do you need this software? Maybe not,
so if you had a MAC, it wouldn't affect you. I will add that there is
software designed just for the MAC,
It's just that I don't want to be limited in any software that I
might want, so I stick with a PC. There is just more software.
As far as the PC vs MAC wars go, there is no winner, so why argue
over which is better? If it does what you need it to do, then you
have the right computer for you.
Talker
dvus
news:7phrj5h83ed832j8i...@4ax.com...
Agreed, besides, neither of those can hold a candle to the Amiga's Deluxe Paint
and its animated brushes!
--
dvus
Fruit2O
the other BS above. Any more suggestions? What about the graphics
card?
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 23:38:40 -0800, Mike Russell
<grou...@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 10:06:24 +1100, N wrote:
>
>> "nsbm" <fac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:hhatlr$q00$1...@adenine.netfront.net...
>>> First realize that you cannot accurately calibrate a laptop monitor for
>>> critical printing. If printing is your goal you will need an external
>>> monitor. Calibration and use of consumer grade LCD panels for color
>>> managed printing is the most misunderstood topic in digital photography,
>>> particularly among mac users who do not comprehend how useless their
>>> machines are for the purpose.
>>>
>>
>> Please explain this in more detail and explain how a laptop LCD differs from
>> a desktop LCD.
>
>The main criticism of low end LCD displays, including the majority of
>notebook displays, is that brightness, contrast, and hue vary with viewing
>angle. At normal viewing distances, this creates a subtle vignetting
>effect that makes these displays somewhat inferior for fine color work,
>compared to higher end displays. Point taken, but ...
>
>I'm an inclusive person by nature, and would certainly not support remarks,
>such as those made by "nsbm", re notebook displays and those who use them.
>I disagree with those who say that critical color work cannot be done on a
>notebook, or any system with a lower end LCD display.
>
>I'd even go one further and say that, while calibration can be important
>(particularly in a multi person work environment), it is not a necessity
>for good work. The evidence of this is the large volume of good printed
>work that was produced before display calibration technology existed.
>
>Loosely speaking, there appear to be two approaches to color correction.
>One group believes that any color issue is ultimately related to poor
>calibration somewhere in the work flow. Bruce Fraser was a member of this
>group.
>
>Another camp, to which I belog, starts with the assumption that calibration
>is never perfect, and that it is necessary to navigate this imperfect world
>by use of numeric color values. Dan Margulis is the main promoter of this
>"color by the numbers" approach to color correction.
>
>So, for example, a deep black with some shadow detail will have a color
>value of about RGB(10,10,10), and a pure white with detail will be about
>RGB(245,245,245). Likewise, neutral grays are recognized by having equal
>RGB values in the three color channels. There are related rules for skin
>tones, sky, foliage, and other common colored objects. It's amazing what
>can be done using this information, to improve the appearance of the image.
>
>It's also important to take care to calibrate and adjust your monitor, and
>to train your subjective perception of color, using the numbers as
>landmarks. But with color by the numbers, calibration is no longer a
>central requirement for good color work. Notebook displays can be used for
>critical work.
>
>Incidentally, it stands to reason that, using color by the numbers, color
>blind people, who make up a non-trivial number of color practitioners, can
>learn to do excellent color corrections, going by the numbers.
>
>Back to the OP's question about a good notebook - get a 64 bit notebook
>that supports Windows 7, and can support 8G of main memory. Dual core, at
>the present time, is useful for certain Photoshop operations, but quad core
>is not. Display acceleration is not critical for the 2D features of
>Photoshop, though it is being used increasingly by the extended features of
>the product. Rather than concern yourself about the quality of the
>display, invest in a dock mount and spend a few hundred on a desktop
>monitor for more critical work while you are at home.
>
>Do consider getting a calibration device, such as the i1 Display2,
>particularly if your images are going to be shared with third parties for
>critical work - this includes printing.
S. Fishpaste
> If you really care about performance, then forget about laptops. Thexy
> are inherently slower than desktop machines.
This is NOT true anymore. Some laptops like the Dell XPS line are made
for CAD, 3D and graphics work. Laptops at the high end are just as
powerful as desktop PCs these days. The downside is expandability. The
LCDs on these high end laptops are very good.
John Stafford
"S. Fishpaste" <S...@Deer-in-the-headlights.ca.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:19:01 +0100, Stefan in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop
> wrote:
> > If you really care about performance, then forget about laptops. Thexy
> > are inherently slower than desktop machines.
>
> This is NOT true anymore. Some laptops like the Dell XPS line are made
> for CAD, 3D and graphics work.
They are marketed as such, but they are not such.
Mike Russell
> Thanks - thi sis the type of information I was looking for - not all
> the other BS above.
Hey, everything comes to he who waits, LOL.
> Any more suggestions? What about the graphics
> card?
Graphics card performance is not really an issue if you will be doing
normal 2D image work. If you will be using the 3D features of Photoshop
Extended, that might be a different story, but even so, Photoshop is not a
gaming app where you need to render images at 60 fps or more.
Depending on your budget, I'd go with a 64 bit system that will take at
least 8 gigs of memory - this will allow you to handle larger images such
as panoramas and mosaics, and use the raw converter more efficiently.
Alan Browne
Our mech engineer does most of his work on a laptop, and this includes
3D prep for manufacturing work and the usual assortment of mechanical
engineering drawing packages. Generates renderings from the drawings as
a BG task while he works on other parts or other projects. This way he
can go visit suppliers and parts makers and work with them on his actual
project. All he has to do is backup the work overnight.
Are there desktops that are more powerful? Sure. Would such allow him
to work faster? I doubt it very much.
S. Fishpaste
And how do you know this? I've been using high end laptops in
demanding 3D applications without any problem. My current laptop is as
powerful as the any workstation. The only drawback is expandability
and the only reason to use a workstation these days.
John Stafford
"S. Fishpaste" <S...@Deer-in-the-headlights.ca.invalid> wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 19:18:39 -0600, John Stafford in
> comp.graphics.apps.photoshop wrote:
> > In article <slrnhjvnr...@laptop.sweetpig.dyndns.org>,
> > "S. Fishpaste" <S...@Deer-in-the-headlights.ca.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:19:01 +0100, Stefan in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop
> >> wrote:
> >> > If you really care about performance, then forget about laptops. Thexy
> >> > are inherently slower than desktop machines.
> >>
> >> This is NOT true anymore. Some laptops like the Dell XPS line are made
> >> for CAD, 3D and graphics work.
> >
> > They are marketed as such, but they are not such.
>
> And how do you know this? I've been using high end laptops in
> demanding 3D applications without any problem. My current laptop is as
> powerful as the any workstation.
Thanks for the reply. I do not mind the correction, if your assertion is
true. May I ask what laptop and configuration you are using?
S. Fishpaste
Well, OK I'll answer your question even if you didn't answer mine. ;-D
Lenovo Elite ThinkPad W700ds w/8 GB Ram, Quad core high end NVIDA
video card. This will be upgraded soon to an i7 or equivalent AMD
powered laptop.
kee...@yahoo.com.invalid
<S...@Deer-in-the-headlights.ca.invalid> wrote:
>Lenovo Elite ThinkPad W700ds w/8 GB Ram, Quad core high end NVIDA
>video card. This will be upgraded soon to an i7 or equivalent AMD
>powered laptop.
And just exactly how long does something like that last before over heating
makes it too painful to hold ? I'm assuming it's not battery operated when
using it for graphics. The video card is the meat of a graphics machine.. Just
exactly what is a Quad core high end NVIDA video card ? I use an Nvidia 8500 GT
with 1 gig ram.
I myself have 5 fans running continuously on my desktop, And I don't have
nearly the horsepower I'd like to have..
There's no way a laptop can be considered a useful graphics machine.
S. Fishpaste
Old ideas die hard, but this is a very good laptop as one would expect
for over $7k. Does not overheat either if on a proper surface. I'm not
trying to convince you; simply stating fact rather than opinion.
John Stafford
"S. Fishpaste" <S...@Deer-in-the-headlights.ca.invalid> wrote:
I just checked them out. I think I'll get one for work.
S. Fishpaste
Just for the record this isn't the principal workstation that I use;
It's for meeting with clients outside. We needed a powerhouse portable
for that.
kee...@yahoo.com.invalid
<S...@Deer-in-the-headlights.ca.invalid> wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 08:25:54 -0500, kee...@yahoo.com.invalid in alt.graphics.photoshop wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 19:14:21 -0500, "S. Fishpaste"
>><S...@Deer-in-the-headlights.ca.invalid> wrote:
>>>Lenovo Elite ThinkPad W700ds w/8 GB Ram, Quad core high end NVIDA
>>>video card. This will be upgraded soon to an i7 or equivalent AMD
>>>powered laptop.
>>
>> And just exactly how long does something like that last before over heating
>> makes it too painful to hold ? I'm assuming it's not battery operated when
>> using it for graphics. The video card is the meat of a graphics machine.. Just
>> exactly what is a Quad core high end NVIDA video card ? I use an Nvidia 8500 GT
>> with 1 gig ram.
>> I myself have 5 fans running continuously on my desktop, And I don't have
>> nearly the horsepower I'd like to have..
>> There's no way a laptop can be considered a useful graphics machine.
>
>Old ideas die hard, but this is a very good laptop as one would expect
>for over $7k. Does not overheat either if on a proper surface. I'm not
>trying to convince you; simply stating fact rather than opinion.
As an example of the graphics I wish I could do, there's the HP workstation at
American Chopper. $7000.00 wouldn't touch it. And it's already extinct. There's
little way a laptop could have more than 1 person at a time with HIRES gfx,
manipulating the same 3d images. Photoshop isn't even mentioned as their
drawing program. IOW: PS doesn't have the horsepower either.
I like PS, and my machine. Just wish it had more horsepower, and there's no
laptop I'd consider for graphics that could match a work station.
I'm just saying a laptop would be a bad move for a dedicated graphics machine.
Selling a used machine is a waste of time and money, when they find out it
doesn't do what's necessary.
Out of curiosity, I used the HP build your dream machine. I gave up when it hit
$23,000.00. And this wasn't even considering a monitor.
Needs to DEFINE just exactly what sort of graphics usage he requires. A $60.00
windup laptop should do, if all you want to do is display small jpg's.
But chances are money is the defining limit to needing a laptop.
the_niner_nation
"Fruit2O" <jz13...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ncrfj5pha9qivacsf...@4ax.com...
> I'm looking for opinions on what to look for in a laptop that will be
> Windows 7. But things like the processor, RAM, screen size, color
> controls, graphics card and built-in memory, etc. are going to be
> important. Price is not an object as long as I get what I pay for. I
> travel across the country so durability is important. I'm also
> interested in recommendations for a printer and scanner (specs - not
> necessarily current models).
if you want one that wont crash after a system update or lock your account,
or take 2 minutes to load a RAW image on a 4gb RAM machine, I suggest you
get a mac...
Alan Browne
BS. For a recent trip I bought a cheap WinXP Netbook with 1 GB ram and
a single core intel atom @1.6 GHz. With 24.6 Mpixel raws, it would load
a DNG into PS Elements/raw import in about 10-15 seconds and thence into
PS in another 10 or 15 seconds.
24.6 Megapixels per raw, mind you ... It also processed all the raws
into DNG's at a rate of about 4 per minute using DNG converter.
Sold the netbook on return for about the same price I paid for it, minus
sales tax... pretty good rental rate.
Myths about Windows just show you to be a brainless Mac fanboi.
Mike Russell
There are many good reasons to get a Mac. It is not necessary to exaggerate
to do so.
The Learner
<S...@Deer-in-the-headlights.ca.invalid> wrote:
If you're still following this thread, perhaps you could tell me a little
more about your W700 Thinkpad. I want to purchase a high end notebook
such as this one. One thing I noticed in the options is that the drives
only go to 320GB. I was hoping for 500GB. Also, the type of RAID is not
mentioned. Do you know if they are RAID 1 or RAID 0 - or is there an
option? Another thing that's not clear is: does this model have two or
three hard drives? Are there any disappointments or wishes you have? How
do I find out what will change in the W700's successor? Thanks.......