What laptop to buy (best features for photo editing)

[BeckyK]

Looking for some advice on what features to look for in a laptop specifically used for photo editing? And/or what laptop would you recommend for this that's under $1000? I'm in Canada. Thanks!!

 

[KmH]

Having an external display is a good idea. Preferably a good IPS display.
A graphics card that is Open GL capable is very handy, as is a multi-core CPU.
Check the minimum system requirements for your image editing software.

Some of the better laptops now have IPS panels, but unless the display is used with the display at the same angle and under the same ambient lighting, it would need to be re-calibrated each time it is set up to be color and gamma accurate.

Laptops don't make good image editing platforms.

 

[BeckyK]

Having an external display is a good idea. Preferably a good IPS display.
A graphics card that is Open GL capable is very handy, as is a multi-core CPU.
Check the minimum system requirements for your image editing software.

Some of the better laptops now have IPS panels, but unless the display is used with the display at the same angle and under the same ambient lighting, it would need to be re-calibrated each time it is set up to be color and gamma accurate.

Laptops don't make good image editing platforms.

So then, what in a PC would you suggest if laptops are no good?

 

[skieur]

I would look at the specs. rather than a particular PC:

1. more ram generally means more speed and more power so 8 gig of ram for example is better than 2 gig.
2. 64 bit is faster than 32 bit
3. a separate graphics card at 2 gig
4. 3 version USB port is faster than 2 version for adding peripherals
5. built in Wifi of course
6. consider touch screen for Windows 8
7. multicore processor around 3.2 mghz in speed
8. photo card slots on the computer

Hope I have not forgotten anything important.

skieur

 

[Garbz]

So then, what in a PC would you suggest if laptops are no good?

What are you trying to do? Do you have a 36mpxl DSLR? Are you into HDR, astro photography, panoramas, etc?

These are important questions as different processes effect computers in different ways.

Got a standard camera 10-20mpxl? A modern CPU with 4GB of RAM will do.
Got a massive camera like the 36mpxl D800? Software tends to grind to a halt waiting on raws to be rendered by the CPU. An intel Core i5 or i7 is highly recommended.
You like HDRs? Same thing here, the HDR process is quite CPU intensive.
Like astro photography? You need RAM and lots of it.
Like panoramas? Get 16GB of RAM at least. You'll quickly be wanting more. Also many programs which stitch panoramas will offload the processing to the GPU so get a nice fast NVIDIA video card.

So what are you trying to do?

I would look at the specs. rather than a particular PC:

1. more ram generally means more speed and more power so 8 gig of ram for example is better than 2 gig.
2. 64 bit is faster than 32 bit
3. a separate graphics card at 2 gig
4. 3 version USB port is faster than 2 version for adding peripherals
5. built in Wifi of course
6. consider touch screen for Windows 8
7. multicore processor around 3.2 mghz in speed
8. photo card slots on the computer

Hope I have not forgotten anything important.

Nope with that ridiculous over-design you haven't missed anything. But a few things to note:

1. More RAM != more speed. Computers will be identical in speed until your RAM runs out. Unless you render a panorama or start getting very creative with many photoshop layers on large images your 4GB will be no slower than a 32GB machine.
2. Other way round actually. Addressing overhead makes 64bit computers slower than 32bit computers. The only benefit is the address range allows individual processes to address more than 3.2GB of RAM. This matters in the scenarios above where RAM is of the essence (panoramas especially).
3. Yes on the graphics card, but 2GB ... seriously? It's a video editing machine. GPU offloading is not limited by memory capacity. When you're running Far Cry 3 and loading a ****load of textures into memory you need the memory speed, but so far the extent of graphics acceleration used in image editing programs won't even limit a 2 year old graphics card.
4. Yes. Fortunately USB3 is standard on all modern chipsets even on cheap machines.
5. Yes.
6. I just threw up a little.
7. Yep.
8. OH DEFINITELY! And if you don't, buy a USB3.0 memory card reader.

 

[Awiserbud]

6. consider touch screen for Windows 8

6. I just threw up a little.


Touch screen is the last thing you want for photo editing.
Its a ridiculous gimmick that is completely pointless. what were they thinking.

 

[SCraig]

I would look at the specs. rather than a particular PC:

1. more ram generally means more speed and more power so 8 gig of ram for example is better than 2 gig.
2. 64 bit is faster than 32 bit
3. a separate graphics card at 2 gig
4. 3 version USB port is faster than 2 version for adding peripherals
5. built in Wifi of course
6. consider touch screen for Windows 8
7. multicore processor around 3.2 mghz in speed
8. photo card slots on the computer

Hope I have not forgotten anything important.

skieur

64-bit processors are not necessarily faster than 32-bit processors. In fact in many cases they can be notably slower. EVERY operation that the processor carries out in a 64-bit machine requires 8 bytes of address data be loaded to the registers, twice as much data transfer as with a 32-bit machine. When this happens millions of times per second the overhead tends to add up. Methods of decreasing this overhead have been developed, such as local 32-bit address spaces, but a blanket statement that 64-bit *IS* faster than 32-bit is not always correct.

The advantage of 64-bits over 32-bits is that the 32-bit architecture can only address 4 gigabytes of data (4,294,967,295 bytes to be exact) whereas an unsigned 64-bit number goes into exabytes of data (I don't know the exact number, a 63 bit number is 9,223,372,036,854,775,807 and 1 more bit will double it but my calculator overflows). This limits a 32-bit computer to 4 gigabytes of RAM and 4 gigabytes of disk space on a single disk partition. Windows limits the amount of RAM that can be accessed based on the version of Windows (Starter: 8GB, Home Basic: 8GB, Home Premium: 16GB, Professional: 192GB, Enterprise: 192GB, Ultimate: 192GB) but I don't know if they also impose a limit on disk space.

 

[IgsEMT]

If your system has this and more, you should be good.

Adobe Creative Suite 6 Master Collection - Tech specs

 

[JClishe]

Touch screen is the last thing you want for photo editing.
Its a ridiculous gimmick that is completely pointless. what were they thinking.

That's the exact same thing people said when the mouse was introduced.

It's clear you haven't actually used a touch screen laptop for any length of time. I have a Lenovo X1 Carbon Touch and I'll never go back to non-touch laptop. I wouldn't use it for photo editing, but calling touch a ridiculous gimmick is, well, ridiculous. It will only be a year from now when the majority of all laptops sold will be touch-enabled. Non-touch laptops are a dying breed. OEM's buy their LCD's from only a few suppliers and there will be a tipping point relatively soon when those suppliers are producing mainly touch displays that all laptop OEM's will simply stop making non touch devices.

 

[Awiserbud]

Touch screen is the last thing you want for photo editing.
Its a ridiculous gimmick that is completely pointless. what were they thinking.

That's the exact same thing people said when the mouse was introduced.

It's clear you haven't actually used a touch screen laptop for any length of time. I have a Lenovo X1 Carbon Touch and I'll never go back to non-touch laptop. I wouldn't use it for photo editing, but calling touch a ridiculous gimmick is, well, ridiculous. It will only be a year from now when the majority of all laptops sold will be touch-enabled. Non-touch laptops are a dying breed. OEM's buy their LCD's from only a few suppliers and there will be a tipping point relatively soon when those suppliers are producing mainly touch displays that all laptop OEM's will simply stop making non touch devices.

Its true that i haven't used a touch screen laptop, but i have been using touch screen smartphones ever since they were introduced, and although i don't own one i have had plenty of experience with the i-pad. I can see the point of these to a degree, lack of space to incooperate a keyboard and mousepad, the laptop doesn't have the same argument, and all your left with is a screen covered in fingerprints.
I am all for advances in technology, but this is one gimmick that honestly is pointless. whether it becomes commonplace or not does not make it any less pointless either, the consumer has no control over what the manufacturers decide to put on the shelves.

 

[JClishe]

Touch screen is the last thing you want for photo editing.
Its a ridiculous gimmick that is completely pointless. what were they thinking.

That's the exact same thing people said when the mouse was introduced.

It's clear you haven't actually used a touch screen laptop for any length of time. I have a Lenovo X1 Carbon Touch and I'll never go back to non-touch laptop. I wouldn't use it for photo editing, but calling touch a ridiculous gimmick is, well, ridiculous. It will only be a year from now when the majority of all laptops sold will be touch-enabled. Non-touch laptops are a dying breed. OEM's buy their LCD's from only a few suppliers and there will be a tipping point relatively soon when those suppliers are producing mainly touch displays that all laptop OEM's will simply stop making non touch devices.

Its true that i haven't used a touch screen laptop, but i have been using touch screen smartphones ever since they were introduced, and although i don't own one i have had plenty of experience with the i-pad. I can see the point of these to a degree, lack of space to incooperate a keyboard and mousepad, the laptop doesn't have the same argument, and all your left with is a screen covered in fingerprints.
I am all for advances in technology, but this is one gimmick that honestly is pointless. whether it becomes commonplace or not does not make it any less pointless either, the consumer has no control over what the manufacturers decide to put on the shelves.

Again, you're saying something is pointless which you haven't used. And again, that's what people said when they first saw the mouse.

After using a touch screen laptop on a plane and in various other situations where it's literally on my lap and using a mouse isn't practical, like watching TV on the couch, a touch screen laptop is *significantly* more convenient and easier to use than a non touch laptop. I'm sitting on the couch right now and have been for the past hour. I haven't touched the trackpad once. Navigating web pages in a browser and switching between apps via touch gestures is simply faster and easier than the trackpad, period.

If you think its a pointless gimmick then don't buy one. Meanwhile, everyone else with touch laptops will be enjoying the convenience they offer and laughing at your silly point of view. The first time you sit next to someone on an airplane that's using a touch screen laptop, you'll see the light. You'll think "oh, wow, yeah I guess that would be cool".

 

[Awiserbud]

That's the exact same thing people said when the mouse was introduced.

It's clear you haven't actually used a touch screen laptop for any length of time. I have a Lenovo X1 Carbon Touch and I'll never go back to non-touch laptop. I wouldn't use it for photo editing, but calling touch a ridiculous gimmick is, well, ridiculous. It will only be a year from now when the majority of all laptops sold will be touch-enabled. Non-touch laptops are a dying breed. OEM's buy their LCD's from only a few suppliers and there will be a tipping point relatively soon when those suppliers are producing mainly touch displays that all laptop OEM's will simply stop making non touch devices.

Its true that i haven't used a touch screen laptop, but i have been using touch screen smartphones ever since they were introduced, and although i don't own one i have had plenty of experience with the i-pad. I can see the point of these to a degree, lack of space to incooperate a keyboard and mousepad, the laptop doesn't have the same argument, and all your left with is a screen covered in fingerprints.
I am all for advances in technology, but this is one gimmick that honestly is pointless. whether it becomes commonplace or not does not make it any less pointless either, the consumer has no control over what the manufacturers decide to put on the shelves.

Again, you're saying something is pointless which you haven't used. And again, that's what people said when they first saw the mouse.

After using a touch screen laptop on a plane and in various other situations where it's literally on my lap and using a mouse isn't practical, like watching TV on the couch, a touch screen laptop is *significantly* more convenient and easier to use than a non touch laptop. I'm sitting on the couch right now and have been for the past hour. I haven't touched the trackpad once. Navigating web pages in a browser and switching between apps via touch gestures is simply faster and easier than the trackpad, period.

If you think its a pointless gimmick then don't buy one. Meanwhile, everyone else with touch laptops will be enjoying the convenience they offer and laughing at your silly point of view. The first time you sit next to someone on an airplane that's using a touch screen laptop, you'll see the light. You'll think "oh, wow, yeah I guess that would be cool".

The mouse had a purpose, it was invented with the advent of the cursor, without it we wouldn't be able to navigate the new windows designs. it didn't actually replace anything and there was no downside to using it.
My primary use for the PC or laptop is photo editing or viewing, You have already stated that you wouldn't use touchscreen for this purpose so think about where your posting. I am reasonably sure most people on this site would agree.
As far as i can see the windows touch screen phenomenon is nothing more than jumping on the i-pad bandwagon, I agree it is all a matter of personal opinion but if like me you like a nice shiny screen then touchscreen is definatly not the way forward.
On a plane or anywhere confined yes there may be advantages, but i wouldn't buy one just for that purpose, we already have our smartphones and i-pads for that.

 

[JClishe]

Its true that i haven't used a touch screen laptop, but i have been using touch screen smartphones ever since they were introduced, and although i don't own one i have had plenty of experience with the i-pad. I can see the point of these to a degree, lack of space to incooperate a keyboard and mousepad, the laptop doesn't have the same argument, and all your left with is a screen covered in fingerprints.
I am all for advances in technology, but this is one gimmick that honestly is pointless. whether it becomes commonplace or not does not make it any less pointless either, the consumer has no control over what the manufacturers decide to put on the shelves.

Again, you're saying something is pointless which you haven't used. And again, that's what people said when they first saw the mouse.

After using a touch screen laptop on a plane and in various other situations where it's literally on my lap and using a mouse isn't practical, like watching TV on the couch, a touch screen laptop is *significantly* more convenient and easier to use than a non touch laptop. I'm sitting on the couch right now and have been for the past hour. I haven't touched the trackpad once. Navigating web pages in a browser and switching between apps via touch gestures is simply faster and easier than the trackpad, period.

If you think its a pointless gimmick then don't buy one. Meanwhile, everyone else with touch laptops will be enjoying the convenience they offer and laughing at your silly point of view. The first time you sit next to someone on an airplane that's using a touch screen laptop, you'll see the light. You'll think "oh, wow, yeah I guess that would be cool".

The mouse had a purpose, it was invented with the advent of the cursor, without it we wouldn't be able to navigate the new windows designs. it didn't actually replace anything and there was no downside to using it.
My primary use for the PC or laptop is photo editing or viewing, You have already stated that you wouldn't use touchscreen for this purpose so think about where your posting. I am reasonably sure most people on this site would agree.

Of course they'd agree. Most on this site, myself included, feel that laptops in general are not ideal for photo editing, whether or not it has a touch screen. That has nothing to do with this discussion. This discussion is about whether or not touch screens on a laptop are a pointless gimmick, as you've said. Your opinion, based on zero personal experience, is that they're pointless. My opinion, based on actually using one, is that it's incredibly handy to have. As I've said, once you use a touch screen laptop for awhile, a light bulb goes off and you think "hey, this is actually pretty handy". I'm completely certain that one year from now you'd be laughed at for saying touch screens are a pointless gimmick.

 

[Awiserbud]

Actually..getting back on topic, This discussion was about this: Looking for some advice on what features to look for in a laptop specifically used for photo editing.
I made the point in answer to someones suggestion about looking for a laptop with touch screen.
I did say they were a pointless gimmick, and i still feel the same way, no point trying to convert me, I never said the whole world would agree with me, but i did say the majority of photographers would think the same way, particularly if this was the main device the person was going to be using.
If you actually read my earlier posts you would also notice that i do not have "zero personal experience", I use a touch screen smartphone every day, I use an i-pad frequently, Touch screen is touch screen and while i can navigate anywhere on my laptop with the slightest of hand movements on my mouse i believe constant pinching, flicking and swiping would annoy the heck out of me after a while. but each to his own.

 

[Drew1992]

Hi BeckyK
I realize that you are asking about laptop features and which one that one would recommend, but I thought that my experience with a laptop may be helpful to you.
I started out editing on a laptop and I realized within a few weeks that it was a HUGE mistake! Not only do you sacrifice having hard drive storage, but the viewing angle(s) stink. I could NEVER get my screen at the correct angle to edit properly and was CONSTANTLY messing with it. Not to mention if you are sitting too close or too far away from the screen. My screen is 18 inches and I still found myself leaning in to see details, etc. It also has bad screen glare. I paid a pretty penny for that laptop, thus, I could not afford to go right back out and buy a desktop. So, I bought a separate external monitor, a 24 inch NEC MultiSync LCD 2490WUXi2 monitor and plugged it into my laptop. I still use this setup, but plan to upgrade to a desktop as soon as I can get some extra cash saved up. My laptop ALWAYS runs too hot(even sitting on a cooling base with a fan) and I find myself transferring files too often to free up space. Also, you should ALWAYS have 2 back-up's of your files/images on external drives, etc as insurance against losing all of your hard work. Like you, I thought I wanted a laptop so that I could be portable and edit where I wanted. In reality, it's quite impossible to do. Here's why: If you are serious about editing, you will have calibrated your monitor with hardware and calibration software. If you have calibrated, you will most likely be working in the same room/same lighting/same viewing environment, therefore, there really is no need for portability unless you are just doing some real basic edits and then doing your more serious editing on a separate monitor when you get to your workspace at home. Just some thoughts from my experience with working with a laptop for serious photo editing. Hopefully this has been helpful to you!