Recommended Posts

MacOS reads and writes FAT32 fine.

 

There's a size limit to FAT 32 that's 4GB. The same for Windows as for Mac.

NTFS and Mac OS Extended (Journaled) are both read only for their adversaries.

(Unless you have an hour to spare, because in fact you can write to them, just not readily and it's not for the fainthearted.)

Then there's ExFAT that can be read and written by both, but only with newer Os-s like with Windows from Vista Sp2 and with Mac from OS-X Snow Leopard.

 

Windows or Mac?

If money is no problem let your gut feelings decide. Or your fashion sense.

If money is the deciding factor, use a good price checker like this one.  If you expand all filters, you''ll notice these would be my initial settings. It's Windows/Mac agnostic.

Then maybe check some reviews of the ones you fancy.

(There may be better price checkers for laptops. This is a UK centered one as I gather you're in the UK and not the US. )

 

Take into account that new Macs don't upgrade easily or not anymore at all. So you will want to max it out if you want to use it for some years to come.

If you want to use the laptop's own screen for photo editing, make sure the panel is an IPS or one of it's varieties.  And that it's dimmable to normal Photoshop/Lightroom levels.

 

I don't know your reason for not wanting to go beyond Win 7.1, but if it's because you want control over your files and your machine, you'll find both Windows 10 and macOS infuriating.

If you like simplicity and carefree, both are fine.

If you have a Apple Store nearby consider attending a programme as Apple calls it in the UK.

 

wim

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, wiskerke said:

 

I don't know your reason for not wanting to go beyond Win 7.1, but if it's because you want control over your files and your machine, you'll find both Windows 10 and macOS infuriating.

If you like simplicity and carefree, both are fine.

 

 

wim

 

 

I agree with just about everything you wrote there Wim but I don't know what you mean when you say control over files on MacOs is infuriating. Maybe I'm missing something but I think there is a high level of control over files even at the basic Finder level. On the surface the Mac Finder has not changed a lot since I started using Macs but there is a lot more lurking just below the surface that makes it very powerful yet easy to use. And if you are a real power user (not me) you can always use Unix which underlies the whole thing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Betty LaRue said:

The one thing I have heard repeatedly over the years is this. “I changed to a Mac and I’ll never go back to PCs.”

It seems the legions who switched must have a reason for that sentiment, in spite of the cost.

What price is  “no hassle and peace of mind” 

Betty

 

I'm one of those, Betty.  I switched in 2009 because I go totally fed up with Windows and registry errors, software conflicts with anti-virus software, etc....

 

I started with a Micron PC, moved to a Dell PC to get more computing power and within 90 days the machine was useless.  Without getting into detail I got the it's a software problem from Dell and from Microsoft I got it's a hardware problem.  No, it was my problem because the darn thing would crash about every 2-3 hours of use.  I went to HP, which was slightly better but still had issues with registry errors etc...

 

In 2009 I switched to a Mac with my fingers crossed.  I was hoping for a better result.  It was an expensive switch, costing almost twice what my last PC had run, but I just put it out to pasture on January 6th of this year!!  I got my money's worth.

 

It worked out O.K. for me but I've read a lot, lately, about how Apple is now behind the curve with innovation in their machines.  I don't know, because it's all Greek to me.  All I know is that the darn thing (now I have an iMac 27") works....always.  Having said that, I do have friends that swear by their PC and Windows 10.  I'll never know because I'm not going back.  :)

 

Rick

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ChrisC said:

Thanks all of that is great, I know my biggest problem, (possibly) is the external Hard Drives I have two 2TB back ups, which are almost full, so I need to go to 3 or 4TB, but they are USB, so any advice on how to sort that, is exactly what I need.

Ideally I think I'd buy and old Mac Book pro and then possibly a Mac Mini or I Mac as a station.

 

But all the other info is great and much appreciated

Thanks

Chris

 

Format your new external drives as ExFAT and you'll be fine. If your old drives are NTFS then, after you've copied your files onto your new drives (and you're absolutely sure they have copied OK), reformat the old drives as ExFAT so you can use them on both systems. Using ExFAT will also avoid potential problems with NTFS file sharing permissions.

 

Rumour has it that a new Mac Mini is likely quite soon. This might offer an very attractive price performance ratio. But, seeing how Apple's prices have shot up in recent times, who knows....:unsure:

 

You may also want to look at Apple refurbished site here 

 

Mark

Edited by M.Chapman
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, MDM said:

However, I would strongly caution you about buying an old MacBook Pro for £500 for image processing. You will very likely be very disappointed and Lightroom and Photoshop will likely continue to chug along very slowly. It is not true as somebody said above that it is all about RAM and a good monitor although I would be the first to say that plenty of RAM and a good monitor are very important. However processor speed and drive speed are also vitally important for image processing. Put simply, older Macs are not going to have the power of newer ones and you will probably be very frustrated as what you get for that money might well run slower than what you have. It is unlikely to have much RAM in the first place and if it is pre-USB3 then external drive speeds will be very slow. 

 

You make a good point. I guess it really depends on what kind of user you are and what size your files are. I'm not really "a power user". I don't process video, but I do use LR6 (for batch RAW to PSD conversion with preset conversion settings) and PSE 8 for final editing 16MP to 20MP photos. I rarely use more than 2 layers in PSE except when making panoramas. I also don't process 1,000s of images (Alamy portfolio is now 3,700 after 7 years). But, for these activities I'm very happy with the speed of my Mid 2012 MacBook Pro with 8MB RAM. It has 2 x USB 3.0 ports but can't take more than 8GB RAM. My feeling is that Macs run more efficiently (faster, cooler and more reliably) than similarly specced Windows PCs. I love the way the cooling fan rarely comes on (except when batch processing in LR). They also don't seem to get slower and slower over time (I found that Windows tended to need reinstalling every couple of years to restore performance). Mac OS also seems to manage RAM better. I rarely have to quit apps to free up memory (even though I've left Parallels open running Windows 7 in a VM virtual machine a lot of the time). 

 

Mark

Edited by M.Chapman
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

One thing mentioned above is the screen, which on my late 2013 setup is a 27-inch (2560 x 1440). This screen, in my opinion, is the best iMac screen for processing photos. If you go for the "Retina" screen you my have problems with Alamy QC because it has a higher pixel count. I believe others are using "Retina" screens but processing probably demands you check images at 200%, instead of 100% as you probably do now, to check sharpness of your images.

 

Others will now make their comments on "Retina" screens for you to consider.

 

Allan

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
   10 hours ago,  MDM said: 

However, I would strongly caution you about buying an old MacBook Pro for £500 for image processing. You will very likely be very disappointed and Lightroom and Photoshop will likely continue to chug along very slowly. It is not true as somebody said above that it is all about RAM and a good monitor although I would be the first to say that plenty of RAM and a good monitor are very important. However processor speed and drive speed are also vitally important for image processing. Put simply, older Macs are not going to have the power of newer ones and you will probably be very frustrated as what you get for that money might well run slower than what you have. It is unlikely to have much RAM in the first place and if it is pre-USB3 then external drive speeds will be very slow. 

 

You make a good point. I guess it really depends on what kind of user you are and what size your files are. I'm not really "a power user". I don't process video, but I do use LR6 (for batch RAW to PSD conversion with preset conversion settings) and PSE 8 for final editing 16MP to 20MP photos. I rarely use more than 2 layers in PSE except when making panoramas. I also don't process 1,000s of images (Alamy portfolio is now 3,700 after 7 years). But, for these activities I'm very happy with the speed of my Mid 2012 MacBook Pro with 8MB RAM. It has 2 x USB 3.0 ports but can't take more than 8GB RAM. My feeling is that Macs run more efficiently (faster, cooler and more reliably) than similarly specced Windows PCs. I love the way the cooling fan rarely comes on (except when batch processing in LR). They also don't seem to get slower and slower over time (I found that Windows tended to need reinstalling every couple of years to restore performance). Mac OS also seems to manage RAM better. I rarely have to quit apps to free up memory (even though I've left Parallels open running Windows 7 in a VM virtual machine a lot of the time). 

 

Mark

Edited 36 minutes ago by M.Chapman

 

 

My late 2013 machine has 8GB ram and is still fast but having updated all software recently have noted the dreaded beachball on a few occasions, which I never used to do.

 

This is probably the new software causing this as I always keep all files on separate hard drives and the system uses an SSD with the OS and software only.

 

Not a problem at this stage but will consider adding another 8GB ram in the not too distant future, which is something I can do myself on this setup.

 

Allan

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

 

You make a good point. I guess it really depends on what kind of user you are and what size your files are. I'm not really "a power user". I don't process video, but I do use LR6 (for batch RAW to PSD conversion with preset conversion settings) and PSE 8 for final editing 16MP to 20MP photos. I rarely use more than 2 layers in PSE except when making panoramas. I also don't process 1,000s of images (Alamy portfolio is now 3,700 after 7 years). But, for these activities I'm very happy with the speed of my Mid 2012 MacBook Pro with 8MB RAM. It has 2 x USB 3.0 ports but can't take more than 8GB RAM. My feeling is that Macs run more efficiently (faster, cooler and more reliably) than similarly specced Windows PCs. I love the way the cooling fan rarely comes on (except when batch processing in LR). They also don't seem to get slower and slower over time (I found that Windows tended to need reinstalling every couple of years to restore performance). Mac OS also seems to manage RAM better. I rarely have to quit apps to free up memory (even though I've left Parallels open running Windows 7 in a VM virtual machine a lot of the time). 

 

Mark

 

I think if Chris is investing he will want something that is still working well in 5 years time so buying a 2012 machine with max 8GB RAM is not really advisable I would say.  Full Photoshop is probably more demanding than Elements in any case, moreover a very old version as you are using. If it comes down to time spent watching a beachball on a machine that can't be upgraded, then I would think that is not a good investment. People talk about machines paying for themselves but that has to be balanced with time spent waiting for things to happen rather than getting on with the work. Really what I am saying is you want to build in a bit of comfort if investing in a machine that you want to last for at least 5 years as a workhorse and I think that 8GB now is really too little for any comfort with updates in the OS, Photoshop and Lightroom.

 

I had a look at the refurb prices at the link you posted above and I am wondering what Chris has been offered for £500 - certainly nothing apart from  MacBook AIr below £1000 and they are just not built for everyday image processing (processor far too slow). I have not used the new MacBooks but looking at the processor speeds I am guessing that they would not be adequate for image processing.  The MacBook Pro at £1049 refurbed with 16GB of RAM is the first one on the price list that I would even consider for image procdssing. And that is 13 inch and only has 128GB SSD drive so would require external drive and monitor. A 13 inch screen is way too small for everyday image processing. I would recommend a monitor anyway as processing on a laptop is far from ideal. In fact there is nothing with a 15inch screen until over £1800. 

 

Come to think of it I would advise him to stay with Windows unless he is thinking of buying something like the refurbed 13 inch with 16GB and 256 SSD for £1279 and using that with a fast USB3 external drive when at home. Anything less and there is pain involved.

 

Your point about not needing to reinstall the OS is very true. I used to do that annually with Windows. I never have to do it with Macs even after numerous in place upgrades.

 

 

 

 

Edited by MDM
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, MDM said:

I agree with just about everything you wrote there Wim but I don't know what you mean when you say control over files on MacOs is infuriating. Maybe I'm missing something but I think there is a high level of control over files even at the basic Finder level. On the surface the Mac Finder has not changed a lot since I started using Macs but there is a lot more lurking just below the surface that makes it very powerful yet easy to use. And if you are a real power user (not me) you can always use Unix which underlies the whole thing

 

Let me just say that it may all work fine if you have a certain routine and nothing goes wrong. But sometimes things do go wrong, usually through user error ;-).

Or you have to cooperate with someone else e.g. to print your show. Then the fun starts. Try version control of your edited images when they're stored in 6 places, some of which of course may be just placeholders (both on Macs and PC's).

 

For more control and transparency on a Mac try PathFinder or Double Commander.

On PC's I use Total Commander. I cannot praise that one enough.

Finder is very much like the Windows Explorer.

A surprisingly good overview of file managers, including cross platform ones, is this wiki.

 

wim

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wiskerke said:

 

Let me just say that it may all work fine if you have a certain routine and nothing goes wrong. But sometimes things do go wrong, usually through user error ;-).

Or you have to cooperate with someone else e.g. to print your show. Then the fun starts. Try version control of your edited images when they're stored in 6 places, some of which of course may be just placeholders (both on Macs and PC's).

 

For more control and transparency on a Mac try PathFinder or Double Commander.

On PC's I use Total Commander. I cannot praise that one enough.

Finder is very much like the Windows Explorer.

A surprisingly good overview of file managers, including cross platform ones, is this wiki.

 

wim

 

My needs are simple :). I took a vow not to spend time on unnecessary (for me) power use some years back and to devote myself to photography. I learnt AppleScript years ago but I spent far more time learning it than any time I ever saved using it. Similarly with learning to program - I really enjoyed it but it was a major diversion from the main purposes of whatever I was doing at the time. I was tempted to teach myself to program apps for Apple stuff when the fad for programming apps took off but I know I would have diverted my energies so I resisted and remain that way.

 

As far as learning computery things go, I tend to stick with advancing my knowledge of Lightroom and Photoshop as they are my tools of the trade and I like to keep up to date. I understand why some refuse to update/upgrade and insist on sticking with old versions but this can be very counterproductive especially if time is of importance which it usually is if one is trying to make money and retain sanity. As an example, the latest version of Photoshop (recent CC update) has this amazing Select Subject command which together with the Select Focus Area command introduced a few years ago make for some very time-saving selection tools. These two commands are worth the upgrade from CS6 for anyone who is wavering I think.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MDM said:

 

My needs are simple :). I took a vow not to spend time on unnecessary (for me) power use some years back and to devote myself to photography. I learnt AppleScript years ago but I spent far more time learning it than any time I ever saved using it. Similarly with learning to program - I really enjoyed it but it was a major diversion from the main purposes of whatever I was doing at the time. I was tempted to teach myself to program apps for Apple stuff when the fad for programming apps took off but I know I would have diverted my energies so I resisted and remain that way.

 

As far as learning computery things go, I tend to stick with advancing my knowledge of Lightroom and Photoshop as they are my tools of the trade and I like to keep up to date. I understand why some refuse to update/upgrade and insist on sticking with old versions but this can be very counterproductive especially if time is of importance which it usually is if one is trying to make money and retain sanity. As an example, the latest version of Photoshop (recent CC update) has this amazing Select Subject command which together with the Select Focus Area command introduced a few years ago make for some very time-saving selection tools. These two commands are worth the upgrade from CS6 for anyone who is wavering I think.

 

I agree, however using belts and braces, I usually keep an old machine running just in case. And I tend to have some serious tools for serious work on new machines as well. But until I have complete understanding of a new machine or a new environment, I rather keep my old shoes machine.

My experience goes back to SGI Indigo and Indy and Beige PowerMacs and of course my Bondi Blue iMac, which I must convert into a bedside lamp one of these days. On the PC side, I have rolled my own since 1992. My first Photoshop was V2.5 - I was hopeless with it.

 

wim

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, wiskerke said:

 

I agree, however using belts and braces, I usually keep an old machine running just in case. And I tend to have some serious tools for serious work on new machines as well. But until I have complete understanding of a new machine or a new environment, I rather keep my old shoes machine.

My experience goes back to SGI Indigo and Indy and Beige PowerMacs and of course my Bondi Blue iMac, which I must convert into a bedside lamp one of these days. On the PC side, I have rolled my own since 1992. My first Photoshop was V2.5 - I was hopeless with it.

 

wim

 

I have stayed with PC and Windows because I incrementally upgrade my desktop PC. I build my own desktop workstations so I stay with Windows for my laptops for consistency. I have occasionally been tempted by Mac but the closed architecture, and the cost,  always puts me off. But not everyone has my technical background.

I am amazed some people need to reinstall Windows annually, I can't remember when I last did a reinstall (apart from version upgrades) since XP and even then it would have been for a boot drive failure. I have used all versions since XP, I do a bit of regular maintenance, deleting old versions of programs, disabling redundant services and the like. I am very fussy about not installing apps or obscure software unless I have a clear purpose for it so I keep my build as clean as possible.

Edited by Martin P Wilson
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Allan Bell said:

 

One thing mentioned above is the screen, which on my late 2013 setup is a 27-inch (2560 x 1440). This screen, in my opinion, is the best iMac screen for processing photos. If you go for the "Retina" screen you my have problems with Alamy QC because it has a higher pixel count. I believe others are using "Retina" screens but processing probably demands you check images at 200%, instead of 100% as you probably do now, to check sharpness of your images.

 

Others will now make their comments on "Retina" screens for you to consider.

 

Allan

 

 

 

Allan, can you explain why one may have problems with QC if using a "Retina" display?  I have a new iMac with the 27" 5k display (5120x2880 I believe), and have had no problems with QC and I don't want any.  :-)   What should I be looking out for?   I know very little about computers so any input will help.

 

Rick

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, wiskerke said:

 

I agree, however using belts and braces, I usually keep an old machine running just in case. And I tend to have some serious tools for serious work on new machines as well. But until I have complete understanding of a new machine or a new environment, I rather keep my old shoes machine.

My experience goes back to SGI Indigo and Indy and Beige PowerMacs and of course my Bondi Blue iMac, which I must convert into a bedside lamp one of these days. On the PC side, I have rolled my own since 1992. My first Photoshop was V2.5 - I was hopeless with it.

 

wim

 

I started on v3 (I still have a big thick book on it) but not seriously until v4 (on which I also have a big thick book) which was the first version I purchased with a slide scanner. The good thing about these old versions is that, although they are missing a lot of the bells and whistles as they say of the new versions, they were also very advanced in some ways. That is where I first learnt about layer masks which are still as useful for intricate retouching as they were back in the 90s.

 

11 hours ago, Martin P Wilson said:

 

I have stayed with PC and Windows because I incrementally upgrade my desktop PC. I build my own desktop workstations so I stay with Windows for my laptops for consistency. I have occasionally been tempted by Mac but the closed architecture, and the cost,  always puts me off. But not everyone has my technical background.

I am amazed some people need to reinstall Windows annually, I can't remember when I last did a reinstall (apart from version upgrades) since XP and even then it would have been for a boot drive failure. I have used all versions since XP, I do a bit of regular maintenance, deleting old versions of programs, disabling redundant services and the like. I am very fussy about not installing apps or obscure software unless I have a clear purpose for it so I keep my build as clean as possible.

 

The last version of Windows I used was XP and I also was very careful about what I would install but I used to enjoy doing a clean install as it would definitely speed things up and give an overall feeling of newness. It would be interesting to do a self-build but it requires extra knowledge that I don't possess as well as a good helping of manual dexterity. If I had your level of knowledge then I would probably do the same and who knows - maybe down the line if Apple keep on increasing prices and paying little attention to the professional photography market.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Rick Lewis said:

 

Allan, can you explain why one may have problems with QC if using a "Retina" display?  I have a new iMac with the 27" 5k display (5120x2880 I believe), and have had no problems with QC and I don't want any.  :-)   What should I be looking out for?   I know very little about computers so any input will help.

 

Rick

 

It's all to do with whether the individual pixels on your screen are so small that, from your normal viewing distance, you can't see them. On some (e.g. retina) displays the pixels are so small that images viewed at 100% will look sharper than when viewed on a normal monitor. This can lead the viewer into the belief that the image is sharper than it really is. This grey patch may help. Do you see a uniform grey patch below or alternating vertical light and dark grey bars 1 pixel wide? NB. Make sure your browser is set to view at 100% size (check the zoom control).

Greypatch.png

If you can't see the vertical bars you may need to reduce your viewing distance, try reading glasses or inspect at 200% size.

 

Mark

 

 

Edited by M.Chapman
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

 

It's all to do with whether the individual pixels on your screen are so small that, from your normal viewing distance, you can't see them. On some (e.g. retina) displays the pixels are so small that images viewed at 100% will look sharper than when viewed on a normal monitor. This can lead the viewer into the belief that the image is sharper than it really is. This grey patch may help. Do you see a uniform grey patch below or alternating vertical light and dark grey bars 1 pixel wide? NB. Make sure your browser is set to view at 100% size (check the zoom control).

Greypatch.png

If you can't see the vertical bars you may need to reduce your viewing distance, try reading glasses or inspect at 200% size.

 

Mark

 

 

 

Sorry I was late back to this thread and thank you Mark for the explanation.

 

Allan

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Rick Lewis said:

 

Allan, can you explain why one may have problems with QC if using a "Retina" display?  I have a new iMac with the 27" 5k display (5120x2880 I believe), and have had no problems with QC and I don't want any.  :-)   What should I be looking out for?   I know very little about computers so any input will help.

 

Rick

 

Mark beat me to the reply and what he says is correct.

 

The display size on my 27" iMac is (2560 x 1440) which is ideal for viewing images at 100% at normal viewing distances.

 

Screen size on your 27" iMac is (5120x2880) which has twice as many pixels in the same area which means you need to view images at 200% at normal viewing distance.

 

My normal viewing distance is about 29" (74cm) from eye to screen.

 

If you wish to see some more information about your iMac click on the little Apple symbol at the top left of your screenthen click on "About this Mac" in the drop down list. this will bring up a display with a list of clickable boxes along the top, "Overview, Displays, Storage, Memory, Support, Service" where you can find out about the things you may need to know sometime.

 

Allan

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Allan Bell said:

 

Mark beat me to the reply and what he says is correct.

 

The display size on my 27" iMac is (2560 x 1440) which is ideal for viewing images at 100% at normal viewing distances.

 

Screen size on your 27" iMac is (5120x2880) which has twice as many pixels in the same area which means you need to view images at 200% at normal viewing distance.

 

Allan

 

 

 

Sorry to be picky, but 2 x more pixels in unit width and height = 4 x more pixels in same area.

Viewing at 200% doubles width and height, so 200% is the recommended setting to use. 

 

Mark

Edited by M.Chapman
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

 

Sorry to be picky, but 2 x more pixels in unit width and height = 4 x more pixels in same area.

Viewing at 200% doubles width and height, so 200% is the recommended setting to use. 

 

Mark

 

I stand corrected at 4 x pixels. Silly me.:wacko:

 

Got the 200% correct though.:)

 

Allan

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Allan Bell said:

 

Sorry I was late back to this thread and thank you Mark for the explanation.

 

Allan

 

 

 

 

 

O.K., now I see what you mean.  I had no idea.  My images are extremely sharp at 100% in Capture One and PS CC, and I do see vertical lines in that small grey patch.

 

Thank you Allan and @M.Chapman !!

 

Rick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@M.Chapman & @Allan Bell, will it make a difference if I go into those display preferences and change the text size one step up?  I makes a huge difference in ease of reading on the screen.  It could be my eyes but it does look like when I go to 200% in PS (with a little larger text size) it is a little more degraded than when in the default text size.  (the default text size seems tiny to me)  :-)

 

Rick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rick Lewis said:

@M.Chapman & @Allan Bell, will it make a difference if I go into those display preferences and change the text size one step up?  I makes a huge difference in ease of reading on the screen.  It could be my eyes but it does look like when I go to 200% in PS (with a little larger text size) it is a little more degraded than when in the default text size.  (the default text size seems tiny to me)  :-)

 

Rick

It's not the same viewing text or images at 200% on a 5K monitor as viewing at 100% on a 27 inch monitor with resolution around 2700 pixels or so. That is why I said in the first place when you posted about buying  a new iMac that an additonal monitor is highly desirable. Ideally the exernal monitor would be a wide gamut 27 inch designed for photography. I have the same problem when using my 13 inch MacBookPro. It gives me eye strain as well if I use it for too long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MDM said:

It's not the same viewing images at 200% on a 5K monitor as viewing at 100% on a 27 inch monitor with resolution around 2700 pixels or so. 

 

Talking about the image (not the text) why don't you see these as pretty much equivalent?  Assuming both are 27" displays? In the first case each image pixel is displayed using 4 pixels on the screen. In the second case each image pixel is displayed using a single pixel that's 4x larger giving a very similar sharpness/appearance.

 

Image editing on a 13" MacBook Pro display is never going to be easy, especially a 100% view on the 13" retina version... but we were talking about the 27" retina versus non-retina displays.

Edited by M.Chapman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

 

Talking about the image (not the text) why don't you see these as pretty much equivalent?  Assuming both are 27" displays? In the first case each image pixel is displayed using 4 pixels on the screen. In the second case each image pixel is displayed using a single pixel that's 4x larger giving a very similar sharpness/appearance.

 

Image editing on a 13" MacBook Pro display is never going to be easy, especially a 100% view on the 13" retina version... but we were talking about the 27" retina versus non-retina displays.

 

We've had this conversation before and we will probably have it again but it's fine because it is absolutely amiable :). I don't have any quantitative arguments at the ready although they may exist but I am going purely on visuals as well as memory so it is subjective and I don't have a non-retina Mac to compare. I use a 27" wide gamut monitor which is what I am using for comparison. In fact I don't have access to an iMac at all now as my son has a 5K iMac but has taken it off to uni with him so I am going on memory as well as having the 13" Retina screen at the same native resolution more or less as a 27" 5K iMac. I actually don't like the Retina screens at all for editing or anything else as they really tire my eyes because of the ultra high resolution. I also find it much more difficult to see noise and image details on the glossy Retina screens either at 100% or 200%. I much prefer a matte screen.

 

FInally I recall when we had this conversation before Duncan Andison who is certainly a knowledgeable power user also joined in with the same opinion as myself - 100% at 2560 is better than 200% at 5K. But I can't currently prove it. Maybe if Duncan is around he can give a more quantitative argument.

Edited by MDM
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, @M.Chapman, @MDM, I don't know what I can do about it.  I can't afford a second display and my old one is just not up to snuff any longer.  I'll just do my best.

 

I do have to laugh at myself though.  Within a week of getting the new iMac I also purchased a new Olympus E-M1 MkII with a 24-80mm (equiv) lens.  (I really needed the IBIS in that camera and it is so small I can take it anywhere.)  I was processing some images in Capture One Pro a couple of days ago and was just marveling at how sharp and crisp the images were coming from my new camera.  :P  Jokes on me!!  :D    Thanks to you guys and @Allan Bell for pointing this out to me.  Maybe I'll save my pennies for a new display for next year.

 

Rick

Edited by Rick Lewis
spelling....ugh
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now