Does anyone use an Apple Macbook for editing photos using photoshop and lightroom . Im looking to swap over from a pc and connect two monitors to the Macbook , just seeing if anyone using one . thanks
Yeah same, I'm still on an M1 MacBook Pro and have no trouble with either photos or video - the Apple ARM processors are really solid. The battery life is phenomenal compared to older x64 laptops I owned. I tend to use DxO PhotoLab these days but I've had no trouble with that, Lightroom, or Photoshop. And for reasons I've never quite figured out, I've always found Photoshop to run slightly more reliably on MacOS compared to Windows (and that's going back 20 years for me).
I’m using a MBP M1 Max with 32Gb and use LRc an PS. Everything is working well.
As a Mac uses internal memory both for processor and gpu it’s important to have enough memory.
Memory upgrade and SSD upgrade are very expensive. For memory there’s no alternative. A 1Tb SSD is more than enough, external memory is much cheaper and fast enough (Thunderbolt 4 or 5).
At home I use my MPB with 2 monitors (28 inch and 4K).
MBP with M2 Max, 64GB, 2TB ... LR / PS ... no problems. Came over from my ThinkPad Extreme a few years back. Performance choices in the MBP lineup are not a problem
Macbook with M chip (modular, base unit at 1X)
Macbook Pro with Pro chipset (modular, 2X)
Mactbook Pro with Max chipset (modular, 4X)
My longstanding recommendation has been to be at least Pro chipset with 32GB, but a strong preference for the Max chipset ... even if still only 32GB RAM. While folks notice the obvious point about more cores when going from the Pro > Max, a lesser realized benefit is that you DOUBLE your RAM Bandwidth, also, by virtue of the 4X vs. 2X modules.
Kent's comment is spot on ^^^. MBP with the MAX chip & 32GM RAM is a minimum IMO. If you can, max out the cores and go with 48 or 64GB RAM. This will stave off any need to upgrade for a longer period of time. Internal SSD size is a personal thing but would recommend a minimum of 1TB. Regardless these will support two monitors.
schlotz wrote:
Kent's comment is spot on ^^^. MBP with the MAX chip & 32GM RAM is a minimum IMO. If you can, max out the cores and go with 48 or 64GB RAM. This will stave off any need to upgrade for a longer period of time. Internal SSD size is a personal thing but would recommend a minimum of 1TB. Regardless these will support two monitors.
Thanks, Matt.
Yeah, not only does it "stave off" the upgrade cycle ... my testing / comps between the Pro vs. Max chipset was that the Max chipset offered a "snappier", more responsive experience than the Pro chipset. For a lot of things, the difference isn't noticeable as both get the job done.
But, when you start to "push" things (i.e. heavy brushwork, etc.), I found that the "lagginess" of my torture testing revealed itself in the Pro chipset more than the Max chipset.
So, not only does the Max extend your upgrade cycle ... it offers a better user experience (imo) ... starting NOW, and lasting until that longer upgrade cycle extends. Sure, you FEEL the pain of purchase $$$, but THEN you get the JOY of using it for a really long time.
It hurts once to buy, then you have the choice of joy vs. frustration to live with everyday thereafter. Choose wisely, to meet you needs today > > > tomorrow.
Budget conscious folks, will do well with the Pro chipset, but since Mac doesn't allow for component upgrades ... jump big, if you can. It costs less to jump big today, than it does to jump twice (today & again, tomorrow).
telscossie wrote:
Does anyone use an Apple Macbook for editing photos using photoshop and lightroom . Im looking to swap over from a pc and connect two monitors to the Macbook , just seeing if anyone using one . thanks
I’ve used them (and Mac desktops and even an iPad Pro) to run Adobe applications for years and they work great. While my photographer friends use both Windows and Apple platforms, the majority of them are on Apple.
- - -
schlotz wrote:
Kent's comment is spot on ^^^. MBP with the MAX chip & 32GM RAM is a minimum IMO. If you can, max out the cores and go with 48 or 64GB RAM. This will stave off any need to upgrade for a longer period of time. Internal SSD size is a personal thing but would recommend a minimum of 1TB. Regardless these will support two monitors.
While you can certainly do light post-processing work today with less memory, I agree that more is better. We’re useing 48GB RAM machines and they work well for fairly serious Photoshop, ACR. Bridge, and Lightroom work.
I also agree with the suggestion that 1TB is a reasonable minimum for photographic work. 512GB may be adequate for some uses right now, but over the life of the computer it is likely to end up feeling constrained. If you plan on generating a lot of files and storing them on the SSD you may want more, though the cost of adding more, especially on a laptop, can be pretty steep. It can be a better idea to augment with external storage.
- - -
Do you need the best-equipped configuration of a Mac? Most likely, no. While there can be some test-bench measurable increases in system speed (e.g. “snappiness”) if you spend a ton more money on the highest spec alternatives, unless you are doing truly high end work that stresses the system well beyond what typical photographers might do… you are not going to notice a difference that is worth the cost.
It took me years (decades, actually) of having access to a range of Apple systems to finally get this through my thick skull. It is easy to either believe that you must have the very highest spec machines (“I must have the BEST THING!”) or to worry that your computer might be a micro-second slower at some obscure operation, but the reality is that I could sit you in front of that super expensive, maximally equipped system and one that is a bit more modest and you would not even perceive a difference.
Another truth: Photographers using LR and PS and related software almost never stress a system to the same extent as folks who really need the highest capability machines, e.g. those doing heavy duty video work, etc.
Well said Dan. If it weren't for the on field sports work I do that is on a timeline, a Pro chip machine would be fine. In my case even the MBP M1 Max 32GB struggles. Processing takes more time than I wish it did and with the fan that comes on for a fair portion of it. Currently waiting for the M5 MAX to be announced. Thinking of going with the maximum amount of cores and 48 or 64GB of ram.
You want a macbook pro. You want 48 or 64 gb ram depending on configuration you buy. Some good deals on refurbished, but the M4 is the current and more efficient than the M3. Also, I agree with the 1tb internal drive comments. 14” or 16” is really up to you. I like the 14 for its easy transportation, but then I also have an Apple Studio desktop with large monitor. Finally a 14 or 16 inch M4 MBP is capable of being a one and only photo editing machine.
I seem to be in a similar situation. Been running the same Windows PC and Laptops for about a dozen years now. Neither upgradable to Windows 11.
So I'm considering making the jump to a MacBook and am trying to sort out all of this. Want this change to last me a long, long time. I've got around 6 TB of digital images I want to still be able to access and have always used Photoshop. I don't do a lot of heavy post processing but am retired now and want to take my work to the next level now.
Still trying to wrap my old mind about how to exactly spec which Macbook to buy. I was thinking a Pro would be fine until reading some of the comments above. Now I have more research to do.
In the past the biggest processing bog down I've run into was when I merged a lot of images into one huge file. I've been doing work like that for years now since walking away from the medium format stuff. My current PC struggles with 20 smaller image files from my older DSLRs. I don't even try it with images from my 5DSr but would sure love to.
I see no need to run both a desktop and laptop anymore.
I may also be having to figure out a new post processing software. The idea of paying for a subscription to photoshop just sits wrong with me. For the same reason I don't rent a place to live, lease a car, pay for spotify, etc. Yeah I'm old school
Yup, old school here as well. At the end of the day and IMO the subscription is still the best solution since it's basically equal to 2 coffees from Starbucks a month. If you are wanting something that will last a long time (relative term given how fast things change) then it would be best to max out the machine you will be purchasing. As of today that would be a MBP with a M4 Max chip, max cores CPU & GPU, minimum of 1TB SSD and 64GB ram. The mini is cool but does not offer the MAX chip. The other option would be the Mac Studio. The Studio is an M3 Ultra (2 MAX chips combined) with 60 core GPU which is a beast of a desktop. Keep in mind with either the MBP or Studio there will be the need of a display, trackpad and keyboard.
If it weren't for the on field sports work I do that is on a timeline, a Pro chip machine would be fine. In my case even the MBP M1 Max 32GB struggles. Processing takes more time than I wish it did and with the fan that comes on for a fair portion of it. Currently waiting for the M5 MAX to be announced. Thinking of going with the maximum amount of cores and 48 or 64GB of ram.