I am looking for recommendations for a laptop good for photoprocessing. It must have a good high definition screen with faithful colour which doesn't mess up contrast and colour when tilted slightly. Also plenty of memory, preferably solid state. Hoping to keep within a budget of £500 to £600, though I suppose this might be optimistic. Any thoughts?
More like unrealistic.
I would say that you’d need to look at 1000 quids or more.
imho the two things you should look for are screen & prosessor. Unlike video, photo editing is pretty much only on the prosessor and not the GPU. So I’d guess that you’d like to have 8th or 10th gen i7 prosessor (or since you’re using windows?) you could also think about AMD.
Naturally SSD, but If the laptop has Thunderbolt3 (or USB 3.1) ports you can have your older pics on a separate external SSD (or big ass HDD). In which case you don’t need as much space. Not sure of this option suits you or no though.
The idea here is that you start using that LR you have, and keep the catalog on the internal drive, but the actual pics will be stored on the external drive. And as LR allows you to create so-called smart previews you can still edit them and see (just not export).
Besides, LR offers undestructive editing (also on JPEG) so you won’t detoriate the IQ If you edit them pics (but the con is the you will not see the changes via File Explorer as they are stored in the LR catalog).
I think the best bang for bucks might be a refurbished business laptop. They tend to be proper laptops and have at least reasonable screens. I’n now assuming that you plan on actually use it as a laptop. If it will only be stored on the home desk, then well laptops don’t really make any sense.
£1000?
£500-600 is more than enough for a decent spec refurbished (ie basically new) laptop. Laptops direct is a good place to start looking. No specific recommendations but I got my last laptop from them for similar use for £400 with 8gb ram, high spec AMD processor (i7 equivalent), graphics card and a decent screen. Didn’t have ssd so that might cost a little extra.
> I would say that you’d need to look at 1000 quids or more.
I feared as much........
Thanks, but I'm afraid the rest of your post came across as mostly gobbledygook to a technophobe such as myself! This obviously isn't going to be as easy as I hoped. God h hate technology........
Hoping for a specific recommendation from somebody who uses it so that I can just buy it with no further stress (apart, obnviously, from the inevitable nightmare of actually setting it up........ ).
I would always recommend a MacBook with a Retina display - but your budget is a problem. You could try Ebay - but be very careful. For example you can get a 2018 MacBook Air with a retina display for about £700 - but that's a basic i5 with 8GB memory & 128GB SSD.
New (thunderbolt 3) MacBook Air would be a good contender. But If a lot of the apps you use now are Windows based, then it’s more of a Mess. And external storage is needed.
to be honest, the screen is the priority one with photo editing. You’ll want to pay for that (and often it also means good SSD and prosessor).
this is What I saw from Google.
https://www.laptopmag.com/benchmarks/best-laptop-screen
and iterate from there. What your After is 100++% of sRGB color gamut. In laymans terms How accurate the color is.
As for the earlier reply about 600 being enough. Possibly, but the screen light be shite. E.g. A rather good business laptop like Lenovo Thinkpad T480 only gives out ~60% of said sRGB color gamut. Which is shite.
I got an Amazon open box return MacBook Air. Basically brand new, I paid about £500 which was £400 cheaper than from the Mac store.
No current experience of buying laptops but ... it would be worth checking any machine you consider against Adobe's minimum spec recommendations for Lightroom (https://helpx.adobe.com/uk/lightroom-cc/system-requirements.html). Just in case you see the light etc etc It would be a shame to reinforce your techno hatred with an under-specced box!
> No current experience of buying laptops but ... it would be worth checking any machine you consider against Adobe's minimum spec recommendations for Lightroom (https://helpx.adobe.com/uk/lightroom-cc/system-requirements.html). Just in case you see the light etc etc It would be a shame to reinforce your techno hatred with an under-specced box!
Thanks. That makes sense, though I am veering towards Capture Pro Express for Fuji.....
> and iterate from there. What your After is 100++% of sRGB color gamut. In laymans terms How accurate the color is.
Thanks. I'll certainly check that.
No chance. I'd spend that on the screen. I've got two GFX cards just dedicated to open-cl to do the photo processing.
> No chance. I'd spend that on the screen.
In that case I may have to settle for one as good as my current dying laptop and just make sure it doesn't look weird from a slight angle (which really bugs me).
> I've got two GFX cards just dedicated to open-cl to do the photo processing.
Absolutely no idea what that means!
> Absolutely no idea what that means!
He has bought two additional graphics cards (so external Graphics Prosessing Units eGPU, or in case he has a desktop computer, then installed the cards inside it). In principle that should take out the load from the prosessor, but for photo editing that is not often then case... for all kinds of other stuff (like visual effects, video work , 3d stuff and so on), the GFX/GPU helps.
I do a reasonable amount of editing using adobe photoshop. I use a refurb Toshiba Tecra R840 with 2.1 Ghz processor and 64bit OS which I bought for £120. I put in the max Ram and replaced the disc with an SSD. Performance is absolutely fine although I only do photos not videos. Total cost around £300. I find the monitor OK but best to calibrate your editing software to the screen. I'm happy with it and if I drop or break it, its not the end of the world. Spend you savings on a decent A3 printer
I'm currently thinking of a Dell Inspiron 17 3000 https://deals.dell.com/en-uk/productdetail/3r0g which is just about within my budget and seems to get decent reviews, including for the display (88% or 93% colour Gamut depending on review). I've looked at one in a shop, the colour and contrast hardly change when viewed from an angle (this is what really annoys me about the laptop I'm replacing.
You seem pretty clued up on all this (unlike the UK adjectival grade ), so how do you think it would be for photos. It has loads of storage for my current system. Would it work fine with LR (storing photos on an external SSD and the catalog on the internal SSD? Would I be able to choose the SSD over the HHD for this?)
Where / how do you look at these sort of deals please?
Quick reply is that ~90 sRGB is low (aim is 100 or more). But as I think you’re not doing this photog stuff commercially, it can be lived with.
RAM and the internal SSD are a bit on the small side. I’d get Atleast 256 GB worth of SSD (preferably 512), but the internal HDD is a nice bonus. Have a look If you can change the NMVe SSD at home and add another RAM module (for 16GB total).
This one might be better, unless portability is also a requirement.
https://www.asus.com/Laptops/ASUS-TUF-Gaming-FX505/
100% sRGB gamut screen.
also the one I saw sported i7 processor, 16GB Ram and 512 SSD (for around 900 eur).
Amazon Warehouse dept on their main site.
Try this link:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Amazon-Warehouse-Deals/b?ie=UTF8&node=35818660...
Its the way Amazon sells the stuff that gets returned opened/damaged
I've used it loads of times.
> This one might be better, unless portability is also a requirement.
> 100% sRGB gamut screen.
> also the one I saw sported i7 processor, 16GB Ram and 512 SSD (for around 900 eur).
Thanks! I'll look into that one.
Memory is more important than the CPU (and a GPU won't do much for most photo processing).
I edit videos on two different laptops:
A 2014 Mac Book Pro with 16 GB RAM and a 2018 Mac Book Pro with 8GB. The older one with more RAM does much better with complex Photoshop tasks, despite a slower CPU.
Also some good deals at the Amazon Outlet, like Surface Laptop 2s and so on.
Have a look here:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Amazon-Warehouse-Deals/b?ie=UTF8&node=35818660...
Obviously it just depends on what’s been retuned recently for what’s on sale, so it’s worth deciding what you need and checking regularly for something which fits the bill.
Yes. 16GB minimun for large catalogs (LR), big RAWs or lots of non-destructive edits/tweaks.
First might not be relevant for ya (or did you finally start using LR?), and from memory Neither is the latter. But 16GB is also future proofing the laptop.
If you buy a laptop that's otherwise OK but lacking in RAM it's pretty cheap to buy additional RAM and very easy to install it.
Depens. Some models are like Apple, so RAM and even SSD can be soldered on the motherboard-> can’t be upgraded.
Do you really need a laptop. You would get much more bang for your buck with a small desktop and a nice big colour accurate screen, although your budget is quite small.
> Do you really need a laptop.
Yes. I need it to be portable. And I want to be able to put it on my lap!
It seems that Dell Inspirons can be upgraded both with RAM and SSD. If confirmed, I am very tempted by the one I mentioned - I could upgrade if and when needed.
The screen is still shite. But if you don’t know any better .
That said, if you have the option getting a good screen at home is smart. You can do quickwork on the go. And then proper edits, if you feel the need at home.
> The screen is still shite. But if you don’t know any better .
In the sense that it is a big improvement on my current one in resolution, %sRGB, size and viewing angles without breaking the bank. And yes, I can always upgrade to a freestanding one for editing in future.
> £1000?
> £500-600 is more than enough for a decent spec refurbished (ie basically new) laptop. Laptops direct is a good place to start looking. No specific recommendations but I got my last laptop from them for similar use for £400 with 8gb ram, high spec AMD processor (i7 equivalent), graphics card and a decent screen. Didn’t have ssd so that might cost a little extra.
The screen criterion is the big issue. LCD screens simply don't do what is required - all of them change display when the screen is tilted, it is the nature of the technology. Even the excellent Apple Retina display does. He'll have to find one with an OLED screen, and that will cost.
> The screen criterion is the big issue. LCD screens simply don't do what is required - all of them change display when the screen is tilted, it is the nature of the technology.
The screen on the Dell Inspiron 17 3000, which I am tempted by gets good reviews for its screen (presumably compared with other laptops in a similar pricebracket). I looked at this laptop in a shop and was really impressed by how true colour and contrast were from even quite extreme angles. My main issue with my current laptop is that a photo can look noticeably different even moving my head just a bit. The screen on the Dell is an IPS one. The screens on similarly priced HP laptops were hopeless in comparison.
They do vary a lot, though OLED is the only way you will get no colour distortion from any angle.
It does seem the IPS type of LCD screen is better (didn't know that!), but won't be perfect.
With a requirement like that there's little substitute for seeing one "in the flesh" I guess...
OLED screen will how ever degrade a lot over time. IPS panel seem to be defacto Choice for graphics work monitors.
> OLED screen will how ever degrade a lot over time. IPS panel seem to be defacto Choice for graphics work monitors.
Works better as a fixed desktop device, though, as they don't move around then.
> ... was really impressed by how true colour and contrast were
You won't get a real idea how 'true the colour' is unless you calibrate/validate the screen (with a Spider-type colourimeter normally).
> You won't get a real idea how 'true the colour' is unless you calibrate/validate the screen (with a Spider-type colourimeter normally).
Fair enough. I was intending to mean how much the colour changed when viewed at an angle.
One thing that seems to be missing from this discussion is the question of what the OP wants/expects his output to be - i.e., if the purpose of the exercise is to produce images to share on the web with friends and family (perhaps with TN monitors) or to print 8x10 or A3 at home, then IMHO all this discussion about wide-gamut displays is largely meaningless and a potential waste of money. Why worry about colours that are going to be either clipped or shifted (if you are lucky) into a smaller gamut when view by the likely audience (people who haven't spent money on a fancy calibrated monitor like yours)?
So I would suggest to the OP: Think about your 'usage model' and your 'consumer/audience' before you spend money on the latest and greatest display technology. It might not make as much difference (at the end of the process) as you might hope. The original post called for nothing more that a better viewing angle capability - IPS may be more than enough technology to meet that requirement.
Your present machine seems to be doing a bloody good job if your gallery is anything to go by!
A worthwhile photo quality desk top monitor would take all of your budget.
Real world solution, a half decent ipad with an apple pen, copy of Affinity Photo and cloud storage
> Real world solution, a half decent ipad with an apple pen, copy of Affinity Photo and cloud storage
But I don't want an iPad - I want a laptop and I want to sit in my comfy chair with it on my lap. And I don't want cloud storage - I want access to my photos where and when I want them. When I went into PC World they just patronisingly dismissed the need for much storage because "everyone uses the cloud".
> So I would suggest to the OP: Think about your 'usage model' and your 'consumer/audience' before you spend money on the latest and greatest display technology. It might not make as much difference (at the end of the process) as you might hope. The original post called for nothing more that a better viewing angle capability - IPS may be more than enough technology to meet that requirement.
I edit and store photos on my laptop (backup is external HD). I want the laptop to handle LR or similar well. I share photos on FB and UKC. I share sets of photos on Smugmug. I sometimes look at photos on the laptop with others (viewing angle important!). I sometimes do slideshows for friends and talks for clubs using my laptop and projector*). I get the odd print made up to about A2 size for my wall or for other people).
*Calibrating the projector so that the photos look the same as on my laptop could be a whole new thread.......
Minimal storage seems the way (non-high-end) laptops are going these days. Annoyingly. Makes you wonder what will be the point of laptops over chromebooks. Grrrr.
Personally, I was never comfortable photo-editing without a good mouse and a big screen, so I've avoided laptops (for editing). But each to their own...
> Personally, I was never comfortable photo-editing without a good mouse and a big screen, so I've avoided laptops (for editing). But each to their own...
I suppose in the long term I might get a big screen but I need a laptop anyway and my current old one is struggling.
What ram is in your current one? Is the os 32 or 64 bit?
> What ram is in your current one? Is the os 32 or 64 bit?
Not sure but I think it's 4GB and 64.
If it’s 64bit then adding more ram might transform your existing laptop. Go to https://uk.crucial.com/gbr/en/systemscanner and it should scan your system and suggest compatible upgrades. If you’ve only got 4gb of ram then that may be very worthwhile for very little dosh, replacing disc with ssd will also be helpful but nothing compared to more ram
I fact, if you have never defragmented the hard drive that would probably make an enormous difference.
> p
> If it’s 64bit then adding more ram might transform your existing laptop. Go to https://uk.crucial.com/gbr/en/systemscanner and it should scan your system and suggest compatible upgrades. If you’ve only got 4gb of ram then that may be very worthwhile for very little dosh, replacing disc with ssd will also be helpful but nothing compared to more ram.
> I fact, if you have never defragmented the hard drive that would probably make an enormous difference.
Thanks. I looked up his to do it. The main bit was 4% fragmented and it went down to 0%. There was a "systems reserved" bit on 26% but it just whirred away a bit and didn't change. I'll see if it makes any difference.
> p
> If it’s 64bit then adding more ram might transform your existing laptop. Go to https://uk.crucial.com/gbr/en/systemscanner and it should scan your system and suggest compatible upgrades. If you’ve only got 4gb of ram then that may be very worthwhile for very little dosh, replacing disc with ssd will also be helpful but nothing compared to more ram
I ran that and it says I have 4GB and could upgrade to 8 or 16.
I have seen a number of people needlessly buy a new computer when they could have improved their existing one either by regular maintenance or a memory upgrade. To be honest, 4% fragmented doesn't sound too bad - I've seen computers more than 50% fragmented.
> I have seen a number of people needlessly buy a new computer when they could have improved their existing one either by regular maintenance or a memory upgrade. To be honest, 4% fragmented doesn't sound too bad - I've seen computers more than 50% fragmented.
Any idea what the "systems reserved" thing is?
It's the files used to boot your computer.
Why does having could storage preclude getting your files when and where you want them? Almost everywhere has wifi these days, and if you know you're going to be somewhere without coverage, you can just download the appropriate files (not much more effort than needing to take an external hard drive with you).
For me, its much better knowing my files aren't on a drive which is going to break down at some point (this IS an inevitability, and I've lost data in the past from one drive which broke).
> It's the files used to boot your computer.
So is there a reason they might be unwilling to defragment?
> Why does having could storage preclude getting your files when and where you want them? Almost everywhere has wifi these days, and if you know you're going to be somewhere without coverage, you can just download the appropriate files (not much more effort than needing to take an external hard drive with you).
You may be right and that it is just my technophobic fear of change and the unknown which is the problem - I have a system which works for me.
> For me, its much better knowing my files aren't on a drive which is going to break down at some point (this IS an inevitability, and I've lost data in the past from one drive which broke).
That is a fair point, though all my photos are doubly backed up regularly.
It's not that they are unwilling - it's that if the computer somehow lost power while in the process of defragmenting them you would be completely stuffed and not be able to reboot the computer.
Ok. Thanks.
Go for 16 and you'll have a wonderful new machine! Its actually very easy to do
Also check free disk space, make sure you have at least 10% free. I usually prefer to have a minimum of 30% free.
Thanks. Plenty of free space, so I think I'll give more Ram a try.