Need Laptop Recommendation for Photo Processing
p.4 #1Need Laptop Recommendation for Photo Processing
Let’s keep in mind that the original focus of this thread was to help the OP, who was already committed to MacOS, determine which Apple laptop best fit his technical, use case, and price parameters.
The thread seems to have been helpful and successful in that regard, as the OP reported back to say that he had made a purchase. :-)
The thread seems to have been helpful and successful in that regard, as the OP reported back to say that he had made a purchase. :-)
Sep 24, 2026 at 09:22 AM
kerrymattson
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.4 #2Need Laptop Recommendation for Photo Processing
For Lightroom Classic, I’d probably stay with the MacBook Pro if you can find an M-series Pro model within your $2k budget on Apple’s refurbished store. The Air will handle Lightroom well, but the lack of a fan can become noticeable during longer exports or large batches.
If most of your editing is individual photos and you value the lighter weight, the 15" Air is a nice option. But coming from an M1 Pro, I’d personally stick with the Pro so it doesn’t feel like a downgrade in sustained performance.
If most of your editing is individual photos and you value the lighter weight, the 15" Air is a nice option. But coming from an M1 Pro, I’d personally stick with the Pro so it doesn’t feel like a downgrade in sustained performance.
Sep 24, 2026 at 02:40 PM
p.4 #3Need Laptop Recommendation for Photo Processing
Well, people who say “macOS is just different” usually don’t really have a computer science background. macOS is not just different; in many ways, it has never been fundamentally updated since it was established as Apple’s operating system. And that is the problem. Here are just a few points showing why it is terrible.
Installing an app can mean dragging it into Applications.
Open DMG → another window opens → drag icon → Applications → eject DMG → delete DMG. A basic installation turned into a little file-management exercise.
Uninstalling often means “drag it to Trash and hope.”
macOS has no universal Windows-style uninstall system that reliably removes the program and everything it installed. Apple itself says some apps provide their own uninstallers specifically to remove associated extensions, login items and data. Apple Support
Application garbage gets left all over Library.
Application Support, Preferences, Caches, Containers, Saved Application State and other leftovers can remain after the visible app disappears.
NTFS writing still isn't a normal built-in capability.
You can plug in a Windows-formatted drive and discover that the Mac can read your files but can't normally write to the disk. For two dominant desktop operating systems, that's ridiculous interoperability.
Finder is embarrassingly primitive as a serious file manager.
No proper permanent dual-pane mode, limited transfer control and very little information compared with dedicated file managers.
Cutting and moving files isn't presented like normal Cut/Paste.
Windows: Ctrl-X, Ctrl-V. Mac Finder historically uses Copy and then Option-Command-V to move. It works, but it's unnecessarily different from the obvious desktop convention.
Finder hides useful information by default.
Filename extensions, complete paths and hidden files aren't front-and-center. The machine decides the user probably doesn't need to see the filesystem they're actually using.
The Finder path bar isn't prominent by default.
In Windows Explorer, the current location is a fundamental part of the interface. Finder can make navigating the actual hierarchy feel secondary.
Creating a new empty file in Finder is bizarrely absent.
Windows: right-click → New → Text Document and other file types. Finder still doesn't provide a general-purpose New File command.
Right-click itself historically felt like an afterthought on Mac.
Apple spent years designing around one-button mice and Control-click while the rest of the PC world simply used two mouse buttons.
Closing a window doesn't necessarily close the application.
Click the red X and the window disappears — but the application may remain running. Windows users naturally expect closing the final application window to close the program.
The same red button can therefore mean different practical things depending on the app.
Close a utility and it may quit. Close Safari and Safari stays alive. The interface doesn't visually tell you which behavior you're going to get.
Maximize was turned into Full Screen.
The green button historically wasn't simply the Windows-style “maximize this window.” macOS eventually added much better window tiling, but Apple only introduced modern edge-drag tiling recently. Apple Support
macOS took absurdly long to get basic window snapping.
Windows users had drag-to-edge snapping for years while Mac owners installed utilities such as Rectangle just to get sensible window positioning. Current macOS finally has native edge/corner tiling. Apple Support
The menu for an application lives at the top of the screen instead of in its window.
Have several applications open and you're constantly checking which one currently owns the menu bar. Windows keeps application controls attached to the application.
The menu bar follows focus rather than physical window location.
Especially with multiple monitors, you can be looking at one window while relevant controls are elsewhere. That's an architectural decision dating back decades.
External drives have to be “ejected” before removal.
Modern operating systems need filesystem consistency, sure, but ordinary users still get yelled at because they pulled out a USB drive after apparently finishing with it.
Disk Utility makes ordinary formatting unnecessarily confusing.
APFS, APFS encrypted, APFS case-sensitive, Mac OS Extended, GUID Partition Map, Master Boot Record, exFAT — one wrong choice and your drive may not work where you expected it to.
A Mac can hide the actual physical disk in Disk Utility.
You may need View → Show All Devices before you can even see the device hierarchy required to properly repartition something.
Permissions can tell the owner of the computer “no.”
You bought the machine, you're an administrator, the file is sitting on your own disk — and macOS may still decide you aren't allowed to access or modify it until you visit Privacy & Security and grant another permission.
“Full Disk Access” is buried in System Settings.
When an ordinary utility genuinely needs broad filesystem access, the user may have to navigate through Privacy & Security and manually enable it. That's not an intuitive desktop workflow.
System Settings became less desktop-like instead of more desktop-like.
Apple replaced the compact old System Preferences grid with a long iPhone-style sidebar containing pages, subpages and scrolling sections. On a 27-inch monitor you're effectively navigating a giant phone-settings interface.
Basic settings can be absurdly difficult to find without Search.
Apple frequently moves settings between releases, renames categories and nests controls inside unrelated-looking pages.
There is still no proper consumer Task Scheduler.
Windows has had Task Scheduler forever: choose program, trigger, time, conditions, done. macOS has a powerful launchd system underneath — but almost no normal graphical interface for ordinary people to use it.
The operating system often favors hiding complexity instead of actually eliminating complexity.
That's probably the recurring theme. Windows often exposes the drive, path, extension, process, device and setting. macOS frequently hides those things — but the underlying complexity is still there. When something goes wrong, suddenly the user has to learn where Apple hid it.
It is amazing how Apple found those 5% that will eat anything that comes out of Apple. It is actually more sad then funny.
Cheers!
Installing an app can mean dragging it into Applications.
Open DMG → another window opens → drag icon → Applications → eject DMG → delete DMG. A basic installation turned into a little file-management exercise.
Uninstalling often means “drag it to Trash and hope.”
macOS has no universal Windows-style uninstall system that reliably removes the program and everything it installed. Apple itself says some apps provide their own uninstallers specifically to remove associated extensions, login items and data. Apple Support
Application garbage gets left all over Library.
Application Support, Preferences, Caches, Containers, Saved Application State and other leftovers can remain after the visible app disappears.
NTFS writing still isn't a normal built-in capability.
You can plug in a Windows-formatted drive and discover that the Mac can read your files but can't normally write to the disk. For two dominant desktop operating systems, that's ridiculous interoperability.
Finder is embarrassingly primitive as a serious file manager.
No proper permanent dual-pane mode, limited transfer control and very little information compared with dedicated file managers.
Cutting and moving files isn't presented like normal Cut/Paste.
Windows: Ctrl-X, Ctrl-V. Mac Finder historically uses Copy and then Option-Command-V to move. It works, but it's unnecessarily different from the obvious desktop convention.
Finder hides useful information by default.
Filename extensions, complete paths and hidden files aren't front-and-center. The machine decides the user probably doesn't need to see the filesystem they're actually using.
The Finder path bar isn't prominent by default.
In Windows Explorer, the current location is a fundamental part of the interface. Finder can make navigating the actual hierarchy feel secondary.
Creating a new empty file in Finder is bizarrely absent.
Windows: right-click → New → Text Document and other file types. Finder still doesn't provide a general-purpose New File command.
Right-click itself historically felt like an afterthought on Mac.
Apple spent years designing around one-button mice and Control-click while the rest of the PC world simply used two mouse buttons.
Closing a window doesn't necessarily close the application.
Click the red X and the window disappears — but the application may remain running. Windows users naturally expect closing the final application window to close the program.
The same red button can therefore mean different practical things depending on the app.
Close a utility and it may quit. Close Safari and Safari stays alive. The interface doesn't visually tell you which behavior you're going to get.
Maximize was turned into Full Screen.
The green button historically wasn't simply the Windows-style “maximize this window.” macOS eventually added much better window tiling, but Apple only introduced modern edge-drag tiling recently. Apple Support
macOS took absurdly long to get basic window snapping.
Windows users had drag-to-edge snapping for years while Mac owners installed utilities such as Rectangle just to get sensible window positioning. Current macOS finally has native edge/corner tiling. Apple Support
The menu for an application lives at the top of the screen instead of in its window.
Have several applications open and you're constantly checking which one currently owns the menu bar. Windows keeps application controls attached to the application.
The menu bar follows focus rather than physical window location.
Especially with multiple monitors, you can be looking at one window while relevant controls are elsewhere. That's an architectural decision dating back decades.
External drives have to be “ejected” before removal.
Modern operating systems need filesystem consistency, sure, but ordinary users still get yelled at because they pulled out a USB drive after apparently finishing with it.
Disk Utility makes ordinary formatting unnecessarily confusing.
APFS, APFS encrypted, APFS case-sensitive, Mac OS Extended, GUID Partition Map, Master Boot Record, exFAT — one wrong choice and your drive may not work where you expected it to.
A Mac can hide the actual physical disk in Disk Utility.
You may need View → Show All Devices before you can even see the device hierarchy required to properly repartition something.
Permissions can tell the owner of the computer “no.”
You bought the machine, you're an administrator, the file is sitting on your own disk — and macOS may still decide you aren't allowed to access or modify it until you visit Privacy & Security and grant another permission.
“Full Disk Access” is buried in System Settings.
When an ordinary utility genuinely needs broad filesystem access, the user may have to navigate through Privacy & Security and manually enable it. That's not an intuitive desktop workflow.
System Settings became less desktop-like instead of more desktop-like.
Apple replaced the compact old System Preferences grid with a long iPhone-style sidebar containing pages, subpages and scrolling sections. On a 27-inch monitor you're effectively navigating a giant phone-settings interface.
Basic settings can be absurdly difficult to find without Search.
Apple frequently moves settings between releases, renames categories and nests controls inside unrelated-looking pages.
There is still no proper consumer Task Scheduler.
Windows has had Task Scheduler forever: choose program, trigger, time, conditions, done. macOS has a powerful launchd system underneath — but almost no normal graphical interface for ordinary people to use it.
The operating system often favors hiding complexity instead of actually eliminating complexity.
That's probably the recurring theme. Windows often exposes the drive, path, extension, process, device and setting. macOS frequently hides those things — but the underlying complexity is still there. When something goes wrong, suddenly the user has to learn where Apple hid it.
It is amazing how Apple found those 5% that will eat anything that comes out of Apple. It is actually more sad then funny.
Cheers!
Sep 24, 2026 at 10:41 PM
p.4 #4Need Laptop Recommendation for Photo Processing
just get the mac it will serve you longer hold value better ,quite extensively better on lightroom performance ,and will look better,and have you heard of windows updates ,windows is always a sorry second in this race ,everything apple just works ,look at how many use it for photography .
Sep 25, 2026 at 03:51 AM
p.4 #5Need Laptop Recommendation for Photo Processing
tester_V wrote:
Well, people who say “macOS is just different” usually don’t really have a computer science background. macOS is not just different; in many ways, it has never been fundamentally updated since it was established as Apple’s operating system. And that is the problem. Here are just a few points showing why it is terrible.
...
You really don’t know when to stop, do you.
I have an undergraduate degree in computer science and two decades of software development experience, so I’m not exactly new to tech. Everything you listed is nitpicking. What I haven’t had to do in the ten years since switching to macOS is wipe and reinstall my system because it slowly became unusable. I also don’t miss patching Windows every Tuesday.
Not a single Windows laptop, including Microsoft’s own Surface line, can make it through a full day on battery. The OS and the underlying silicon are power hungry, and that ten hours they advertise turns into five on a good day. Neither macOS nor Linux has built‑in ads, and nobody is trying to sell me Copilot every ten minutes.
I’m going to take the advice of other members and hide you. I can’t tolerate the nonsense anymore. You learned one OS and convinced yourself it is the best.
Well, people who say “macOS is just different” usually don’t really have a computer science background. macOS is not just different; in many ways, it has never been fundamentally updated since it was established as Apple’s operating system. And that is the problem. Here are just a few points showing why it is terrible.
...
You really don’t know when to stop, do you.
I have an undergraduate degree in computer science and two decades of software development experience, so I’m not exactly new to tech. Everything you listed is nitpicking. What I haven’t had to do in the ten years since switching to macOS is wipe and reinstall my system because it slowly became unusable. I also don’t miss patching Windows every Tuesday.
Not a single Windows laptop, including Microsoft’s own Surface line, can make it through a full day on battery. The OS and the underlying silicon are power hungry, and that ten hours they advertise turns into five on a good day. Neither macOS nor Linux has built‑in ads, and nobody is trying to sell me Copilot every ten minutes.
I’m going to take the advice of other members and hide you. I can’t tolerate the nonsense anymore. You learned one OS and convinced yourself it is the best.
Sep 25, 2026 at 05:03 AM
p.4 #6Need Laptop Recommendation for Photo Processing
Man, I think that the “hide me” feature has improved this thread more than just about any other thread on FM! ;-)
Sep 25, 2026 at 08:34 AM
p.4 #7Need Laptop Recommendation for Photo Processing
Why is there always at least one kook out there who rants about how bad Macs are when they have obviously never used one?
Sep 25, 2026 at 09:44 AM
p.4 #8Need Laptop Recommendation for Photo Processing
This guy does comparisons specifically for photo processing: https://www.youtube.com/@ArtIsRight if you want to go into technical depth.
Good advice re what amount of memory is the right amount, the importance of bandwidth and speed for memory connections, what chip features are going to matter depending on what software you are using, screen performance, etc. etc.
I found him very useful last year when I upgraded to an M4 Max Studio. It has been terrific, particularly with Adobe's newest 'AI' features.
Good advice re what amount of memory is the right amount, the importance of bandwidth and speed for memory connections, what chip features are going to matter depending on what software you are using, screen performance, etc. etc.
I found him very useful last year when I upgraded to an M4 Max Studio. It has been terrific, particularly with Adobe's newest 'AI' features.
Sep 25, 2026 at 11:41 AM
p.4 #9Need Laptop Recommendation for Photo Processing
rob_ww wrote:
This guy does comparisons specifically for photo processing: https://www.youtube.com/@ArtIsRight if you want to go into technical depth.
Good advice re what amount of memory is the right amount, the importance of bandwidth and speed for memory connections, what chip features are going to matter depending on what software you are using, screen performance, etc. etc.
I found him very useful last year when I upgraded to an M4 Max Studio. It has been terrific, particularly with Adobe's newest 'AI' features.
+1
Yeah, Art is a great resource. I poured over much of his stuff for extensive periods of time before embarking on my "Buy & Try" configurations journey.
The one thing that I found that Art doesn't reveal (or didn't back then) is how FLUID operations are / aren't. When I realized that the brush work could become dodgy on 24GB, that was what determined my break-point to be 32GB or more.
Illustration (not actual)
24GB RAM total
16GB OS / Application
4GB Tab Monster
2GB CPU
2GB GPU
Running on a single lane country road.
32GB RAM total
16GB OS / Application
4GB Tab Monster
2GB CPU
10GB GPU (Available)
Running on a two lane highway.
I realize the technical aspect of those numbers aren't actual, but conceptually ... the shared memory gets allocated to different things. The more "headroom" you have for your given operations, the more smoothly they can function ... to the point of constraint to outpace your interactions ... bearing in mind, future software demands typically only demand more memory, not less.
Looking ahead at OS development and Application development ... future, if I tapped out on FLUID brushwork with 24GB, then anyone looking ahead (imo) should start the conversation at 32GB. Different way of saying the same thing, but Art (dig his work) can't replicate how your work. He is testing on the race track / drag strip. You might work in heavy commuter traffic, or cruise down the highway. I don't need the fastest performance car for my commute, but it sure is nice to have "on demand" power when you need it, vs. that chug, chug thing trying to get up that hill.
Bottom line ... don't fight with your tools. Get the one's that will be a joy to use. That's something that is hard to quantify on a test chart or a checkbook.
Buy right, buy once. Buy wrong, buy twice.
This guy does comparisons specifically for photo processing: https://www.youtube.com/@ArtIsRight if you want to go into technical depth.
Good advice re what amount of memory is the right amount, the importance of bandwidth and speed for memory connections, what chip features are going to matter depending on what software you are using, screen performance, etc. etc.
I found him very useful last year when I upgraded to an M4 Max Studio. It has been terrific, particularly with Adobe's newest 'AI' features.
+1
Yeah, Art is a great resource. I poured over much of his stuff for extensive periods of time before embarking on my "Buy & Try" configurations journey.
The one thing that I found that Art doesn't reveal (or didn't back then) is how FLUID operations are / aren't. When I realized that the brush work could become dodgy on 24GB, that was what determined my break-point to be 32GB or more.
Illustration (not actual)
24GB RAM total
16GB OS / Application
4GB Tab Monster
2GB CPU
2GB GPU
Running on a single lane country road.
32GB RAM total
16GB OS / Application
4GB Tab Monster
2GB CPU
10GB GPU (Available)
Running on a two lane highway.
I realize the technical aspect of those numbers aren't actual, but conceptually ... the shared memory gets allocated to different things. The more "headroom" you have for your given operations, the more smoothly they can function ... to the point of constraint to outpace your interactions ... bearing in mind, future software demands typically only demand more memory, not less.
Looking ahead at OS development and Application development ... future, if I tapped out on FLUID brushwork with 24GB, then anyone looking ahead (imo) should start the conversation at 32GB. Different way of saying the same thing, but Art (dig his work) can't replicate how your work. He is testing on the race track / drag strip. You might work in heavy commuter traffic, or cruise down the highway. I don't need the fastest performance car for my commute, but it sure is nice to have "on demand" power when you need it, vs. that chug, chug thing trying to get up that hill.
Bottom line ... don't fight with your tools. Get the one's that will be a joy to use. That's something that is hard to quantify on a test chart or a checkbook.
Buy right, buy once. Buy wrong, buy twice.
Sep 25, 2026 at 04:39 PM
p.4 #10Need Laptop Recommendation for Photo Processing
Yes, I did find Art helpful on many of the more subtle interactions between software and hardware. I don't remember him mentioning jerky brushwork in particular, that is a good catch.
I agree with you 32Gb minimum memory is a useful requirement to know -- more important than many of the metrics trumpeted in the marketing blurb.
And, yes, buy right or buy twice! It was painful last year to dig deep into my funds but every day since then it has been worth it.
I agree with you 32Gb minimum memory is a useful requirement to know -- more important than many of the metrics trumpeted in the marketing blurb.
And, yes, buy right or buy twice! It was painful last year to dig deep into my funds but every day since then it has been worth it.
Sep 26, 2026 at 04:46 AM
|
p.4 #11Need Laptop Recommendation for Photo Processing
Get the best processor, best graphics card, and the most RAM that you can afford. Here's what I have: a laptop and an external monitor. It’s a couple of years old and has no hiccups, even with 100mp Hasselblad files in Hasselblad Phocus, Photoshop CS6, and a couple of other programs. I rely on external SSDs for my documents, pictures, etc.
Processor Intel(R) Core (TM) Ultra 9 275HX (2.70 GHz)
Installed RAM 64.0 GB (63.4 GB usable)
Graphics card NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 Laptop GPU (24 GB)
Intel(R) Graphics (128 MB)
Storage 895 GB of 1.86 TB used (2 1 TB SSDs)
System type 64-bit operating system, x64-based processor
Processor Intel(R) Core (TM) Ultra 9 275HX (2.70 GHz)
Installed RAM 64.0 GB (63.4 GB usable)
Graphics card NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 Laptop GPU (24 GB)
Intel(R) Graphics (128 MB)
Storage 895 GB of 1.86 TB used (2 1 TB SSDs)
System type 64-bit operating system, x64-based processor
Sep 26, 2026 at 07:47 AM
p.4 #12Need Laptop Recommendation for Photo Processing
shutterbug guy wrote:
Get the best processor, best graphics card, and the most RAM that you can afford. Here's what I have: a laptop and an external monitor. It’s a couple of years old and has no hiccups, even with 100mp Hasselblad files in Hasselblad Phocus, Photoshop CS6, and a couple of other programs. I rely on external SSDs for my documents, pictures, etc.
Processor Intel(R) Core (TM) Ultra 9 275HX (2.70 GHz)
Installed RAM 64.0 GB (63.4 GB usable)
Graphics card NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 Laptop GPU (24 GB)
Intel(R) Graphics (128 MB)
Storage 895 GB of 1.86 TB used (2 1 TB SSDs)
System type 64-bit operating system, x64-based processor
That approach ends up costing a lot of people a lot of money that they could better spend elsewhere.
“The best… you can afford” is quite often more than you actually need or will benefit from. While just over-specifying your system will, I suppose, relieve buyers of the need to think carefully about their needs and what specifications satisfy them, it can be a pretty wasteful approach.
That being said, once you determine your real world needs, it is worth thinking about things like how long you expect to keep the system and what your requirements might be during that period.
For example, if X amount RAM is sufficient right now you’ll likely want to go somewhat beyond that if you will keep the system very long. (A good indicator for how long you might continue with a current system is to look at how long Apple typically continues to offer OS upgrade compatibility for their hardware.) If you determine that, say, 36GB is enough right now, you might want to go ahead and bump up to 48GB, etc.
You almost certainly do NOT need the fastest, most capable processor. For the vast majority of photographic uses (and there are some rare exceptions) the difference between the most capable (and expensive) processor options and something a bit further down the specification (and cost) list amounts to little or nothing in real world terms.
You can apply the same thinking (appropriate specs with room for expected growth) to other things such as file storage capacity.
Get the best processor, best graphics card, and the most RAM that you can afford. Here's what I have: a laptop and an external monitor. It’s a couple of years old and has no hiccups, even with 100mp Hasselblad files in Hasselblad Phocus, Photoshop CS6, and a couple of other programs. I rely on external SSDs for my documents, pictures, etc.
Processor Intel(R) Core (TM) Ultra 9 275HX (2.70 GHz)
Installed RAM 64.0 GB (63.4 GB usable)
Graphics card NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 Laptop GPU (24 GB)
Intel(R) Graphics (128 MB)
Storage 895 GB of 1.86 TB used (2 1 TB SSDs)
System type 64-bit operating system, x64-based processor
That approach ends up costing a lot of people a lot of money that they could better spend elsewhere.
“The best… you can afford” is quite often more than you actually need or will benefit from. While just over-specifying your system will, I suppose, relieve buyers of the need to think carefully about their needs and what specifications satisfy them, it can be a pretty wasteful approach.
That being said, once you determine your real world needs, it is worth thinking about things like how long you expect to keep the system and what your requirements might be during that period.
For example, if X amount RAM is sufficient right now you’ll likely want to go somewhat beyond that if you will keep the system very long. (A good indicator for how long you might continue with a current system is to look at how long Apple typically continues to offer OS upgrade compatibility for their hardware.) If you determine that, say, 36GB is enough right now, you might want to go ahead and bump up to 48GB, etc.
You almost certainly do NOT need the fastest, most capable processor. For the vast majority of photographic uses (and there are some rare exceptions) the difference between the most capable (and expensive) processor options and something a bit further down the specification (and cost) list amounts to little or nothing in real world terms.
You can apply the same thinking (appropriate specs with room for expected growth) to other things such as file storage capacity.
Sep 26, 2026 at 08:40 AM
p.4 #13Need Laptop Recommendation for Photo Processing
gdanmitchell wrote:
Processor Intel(R) Core (TM) Ultra 9 275HX (2.70 GHz)
Installed RAM 64.0 GB (63.4 GB usable)
Graphics card NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 Laptop GPU (24 GB)
Intel(R) Graphics (128 MB)
Storage 895 GB of 1.86 TB used (2 1 TB SSDs)
System type 64-bit operating system, x64-based processorThat approach ends up costing a lot of people a lot of money that they could better spend elsewhere.
“The best… you can afford” is quite often more than you actually need or will benefit from. While just over-specifying your system will, I suppose, relieve buyers of the need to think carefully about their needs and what specifications satisfy them, it can be a pretty wasteful approach.
That being said, once you determine your real world needs, it is worth thinking about things like how long you expect to keep the system and what your requirements might be during that period.
For...Show more →
It comes down to how important your post-processing is; are you looking for an inexpensive route which could and/or will slow you down and even crash on occasion? This comes from experience with less computing power and first-hand knowledge.
I respectfully disagree. While I’m certainly not a super nerd when it comes to specifications and computers tasked with post-processing, past experience tells me otherwise.
Since I have 2 laptops with nearly identical specifications, I plan to run them until they can’t anymore or no longer meet my needs.
I’m not savvy with Apple; however, at the time, 64GB of RAM was readily available and didn’t seem to cost that much additionally. I’m so glad I went with the extra RAM; all my processing with 100mp sensors has gone smoothly, with maybe a slight hesitation with huge files. Something I couldn’t possibly imagine with lesser machines.
I agree with you on this one, although I would recommend at least a capable mid-to-high-range chip.
Although I have 2TB SSDs available internally, I’ve gravitated toward using external SSDs for all my documents, photos, and backups.
shutterbug guy wrote
Get the best processor, best graphics card, and the most RAM that you can afford. Here's what I have: a laptop and an external monitor. It’s a couple of years old and has no hiccups, even with 100mp Hasselblad files in Hasselblad Phocus, Photoshop CS6, and a couple of other programs. I rely on external SSDs for my documents, pictures, etc.Processor Intel(R) Core (TM) Ultra 9 275HX (2.70 GHz)
Installed RAM 64.0 GB (63.4 GB usable)
Graphics card NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 Laptop GPU (24 GB)
Intel(R) Graphics (128 MB)
Storage 895 GB of 1.86 TB used (2 1 TB SSDs)
System type 64-bit operating system, x64-based processor
“The best… you can afford” is quite often more than you actually need or will benefit from. While just over-specifying your system will, I suppose, relieve buyers of the need to think carefully about their needs and what specifications satisfy them, it can be a pretty wasteful approach.
That being said, once you determine your real world needs, it is worth thinking about things like how long you expect to keep the system and what your requirements might be during that period.
For...Show more →
It comes down to how important your post-processing is; are you looking for an inexpensive route which could and/or will slow you down and even crash on occasion? This comes from experience with less computing power and first-hand knowledge.
I respectfully disagree. While I’m certainly not a super nerd when it comes to specifications and computers tasked with post-processing, past experience tells me otherwise.
Since I have 2 laptops with nearly identical specifications, I plan to run them until they can’t anymore or no longer meet my needs.
I’m not savvy with Apple; however, at the time, 64GB of RAM was readily available and didn’t seem to cost that much additionally. I’m so glad I went with the extra RAM; all my processing with 100mp sensors has gone smoothly, with maybe a slight hesitation with huge files. Something I couldn’t possibly imagine with lesser machines.
I agree with you on this one, although I would recommend at least a capable mid-to-high-range chip.
Although I have 2TB SSDs available internally, I’ve gravitated toward using external SSDs for all my documents, photos, and backups.
Sep 27, 2026 at 03:20 AM
p.4 #14Need Laptop Recommendation for Photo Processing
shutterbug guy wrote:
Processor Intel(R) Core (TM) Ultra 9 275HX (2.70 GHz)
Installed RAM 64.0 GB (63.4 GB usable)
Graphics card NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 Laptop GPU (24 GB)
Intel(R) Graphics (128 MB)
Storage 895 GB of 1.86 TB used (2 1 TB SSDs)
System type 64-bit operating system, x64-based processorThat approach ends up costing a lot of people a lot of money that they could better spend elsewhere.
“The best… you can afford” is quite often more than you actually need or will benefit from. While just over-specifying your system will, I suppose, relieve buyers of the need to think carefully about their needs and what specifications satisfy them, it can be a pretty wasteful approach.
That being said, once you determine your real world needs, it is worth thinking about things like how long you expect to keep the system and what your requirements might be during that period.
For example, if X amount RAM is sufficient right now you’ll likely want to go somewhat beyond that if you will keep the system very long. (A good indicator for how long you might continue with a current system is to look at how long Apple typically continues to offer OS upgrade compatibility for their hardware.) If you determine that, say, 36GB is enough right now, you might want to go ahead and bump up to 48GB, etc.
You almost certainly do NOT need the fastest, most capable processor. For the vast majority of photographic uses (and there are some rare exceptions) the difference between the most capable (and expensive) processor options and something a bit further down the specification (and cost) list amounts to little or nothing in real world terms.
You can apply the same thinking (appropriate specs with room for expected growth) to other things such as file storage capacity.It comes down to how important your post-processing is; are you looking for an inexpensive route which could and/or will slow you down and even crash on occasion? This comes from experience with less computing power and first-hand knowledge.
I respectfully disagree. While I’m certainly not a super nerd when it comes to specifications and computers tasked with post-processing, past experience tells me otherwise.
Since I have 2 laptops with nearly identical specifications, I plan to run them until they can’t anymore or no longer meet my needs.
I’m not savvy with Apple; however, at the time, 64GB of RAM...Show more →
FWIW, I’m not talking about choosing an option that “will slow you down and even crash on occasion” over the most powerful, expensive, and up-spec’ed machine on the market.
My point is that some people are simply recommending “the most powerful computer available” where the latter provides little or no (more likely) real advantage over an appropriately spec’ed model chosen on the basis of the users actual use case.
I see a fair number of photographers, for example, lusting after the highest end model of the excellent Apple Studio model, outfitted with the maximum processor upgrades, maxed out memory and SSDs, and so on.
There’s no question that this will run Lightroom just fine… but so will something at a lower (but not the lowest) level of specifications.
The hard truth is that photography is rarely the highest demand use of computers. Now if you are doing very sophisticated video production or AI research or similar, maybe you need these highest end machines. But hardly anyone actually benefits from that stuff for doing typical Photoshop/Lightroom and similar work.
I’m not remotely suggesting that people should get under-performing models that will not meet their real needs, now and over the likely lifespan of the product. But I am suggesting that they spend a bit of time thinking through what their real needs are, what the real benefits of different options are (and are not) before throwing money that The Very Best And Most Expensive Thing.
YMMV.
gdanmitchell wrote
shutterbug guy wrote
Get the best processor, best graphics card, and the most RAM that you can afford. Here's what I have: a laptop and an external monitor. It’s a couple of years old and has no hiccups, even with 100mp Hasselblad files in Hasselblad Phocus, Photoshop CS6, and a couple of other programs. I rely on external SSDs for my documents, pictures, etc.Processor Intel(R) Core (TM) Ultra 9 275HX (2.70 GHz)
Installed RAM 64.0 GB (63.4 GB usable)
Graphics card NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 Laptop GPU (24 GB)
Intel(R) Graphics (128 MB)
Storage 895 GB of 1.86 TB used (2 1 TB SSDs)
System type 64-bit operating system, x64-based processor
“The best… you can afford” is quite often more than you actually need or will benefit from. While just over-specifying your system will, I suppose, relieve buyers of the need to think carefully about their needs and what specifications satisfy them, it can be a pretty wasteful approach.
That being said, once you determine your real world needs, it is worth thinking about things like how long you expect to keep the system and what your requirements might be during that period.
For example, if X amount RAM is sufficient right now you’ll likely want to go somewhat beyond that if you will keep the system very long. (A good indicator for how long you might continue with a current system is to look at how long Apple typically continues to offer OS upgrade compatibility for their hardware.) If you determine that, say, 36GB is enough right now, you might want to go ahead and bump up to 48GB, etc.
You almost certainly do NOT need the fastest, most capable processor. For the vast majority of photographic uses (and there are some rare exceptions) the difference between the most capable (and expensive) processor options and something a bit further down the specification (and cost) list amounts to little or nothing in real world terms.
You can apply the same thinking (appropriate specs with room for expected growth) to other things such as file storage capacity.
I respectfully disagree. While I’m certainly not a super nerd when it comes to specifications and computers tasked with post-processing, past experience tells me otherwise.
Since I have 2 laptops with nearly identical specifications, I plan to run them until they can’t anymore or no longer meet my needs.
I’m not savvy with Apple; however, at the time, 64GB of RAM...Show more →
FWIW, I’m not talking about choosing an option that “will slow you down and even crash on occasion” over the most powerful, expensive, and up-spec’ed machine on the market.
My point is that some people are simply recommending “the most powerful computer available” where the latter provides little or no (more likely) real advantage over an appropriately spec’ed model chosen on the basis of the users actual use case.
I see a fair number of photographers, for example, lusting after the highest end model of the excellent Apple Studio model, outfitted with the maximum processor upgrades, maxed out memory and SSDs, and so on.
There’s no question that this will run Lightroom just fine… but so will something at a lower (but not the lowest) level of specifications.
The hard truth is that photography is rarely the highest demand use of computers. Now if you are doing very sophisticated video production or AI research or similar, maybe you need these highest end machines. But hardly anyone actually benefits from that stuff for doing typical Photoshop/Lightroom and similar work.
I’m not remotely suggesting that people should get under-performing models that will not meet their real needs, now and over the likely lifespan of the product. But I am suggesting that they spend a bit of time thinking through what their real needs are, what the real benefits of different options are (and are not) before throwing money that The Very Best And Most Expensive Thing.
YMMV.
Sep 27, 2026 at 07:46 AM
p.4 #15Need Laptop Recommendation for Photo Processing
gdanmitchell wrote:
Processor Intel(R) Core (TM) Ultra 9 275HX (2.70 GHz)
Installed RAM 64.0 GB (63.4 GB usable)
Graphics card NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 Laptop GPU (24 GB)
Intel(R) Graphics (128 MB)
Storage 895 GB of 1.86 TB used (2 1 TB SSDs)
System type 64-bit operating system, x64-based processorThat approach ends up costing a lot of people a lot of money that they could better spend elsewhere.
“The best… you can afford” is quite often more than you actually need or will benefit from. While just over-specifying your system will, I suppose, relieve buyers of the need to think carefully about their needs and what specifications satisfy them, it can be a pretty wasteful approach.
That being said, once you determine your real world needs, it is worth thinking about things like how long you expect to keep the system and what your requirements might be during that period.
For example, if X amount RAM is sufficient right now you’ll likely want to go somewhat beyond that if you will keep the system very long. (A good indicator for how long you might continue with a current system is to look at how long Apple typically continues to offer OS upgrade compatibility for their hardware.) If you determine that, say, 36GB is enough right now, you might want to go ahead and bump up to 48GB, etc.
You almost certainly do NOT need the fastest, most capable processor. For the vast majority of photographic uses (and there are some rare exceptions) the difference between the most capable (and expensive) processor options and something a bit further down the specification (and cost) list amounts to little or nothing in real world terms.
You can apply the same thinking (appropriate specs with room for expected growth) to other things such as file storage capacity.It comes down to how important your post-processing is; are you looking for an inexpensive route which could and/or will slow you down and even crash on occasion? This comes from experience with less computing power and first-hand knowledge.
I respectfully disagree. While I’m certainly not a super nerd when it comes to specifications and computers tasked with post-processing, past experience tells me otherwise.
Since I have 2 laptops with nearly identical specifications, I plan to run them until they can’t anymore or no longer meet my needs.
I’m not savvy with Apple; however, at the time, 64GB of RAM was readily available and didn’t seem to cost that much additionally. I’m so glad I went with the extra RAM; all my processing with 100mp sensors has gone smoothly, with maybe a slight hesitation with huge files. Something I couldn’t possibly imagine with lesser machines.
I agree with you on this one, although I would recommend at least a capable mid-to-high-range chip.
Although I have 2TB SSDs available internally, I’ve gravitated toward using external SSDs for all my documents, photos, and backups.FWIW, I’m not talking about choosing an option that “will slow you down and even crash on occasion” over the most powerful, expensive, and up-spec’ed machine on the market.
My point is that some people are simply recommending “the most powerful computer available” where the latter provides little or no (more likely) real advantage over an appropriately spec’ed model chosen on the basis of the users actual use case.
I see a fair number of photographers, for example, lusting after the highest end model of the excellent Apple Studio model, outfitted with the maximum processor upgrades, maxed out memory and SSDs,...Show more →
+1
Horses for Courses. Know your course, pick your horse.
I bought my ThinkPad Extreme with one stick of 32GB installed. Used it in that configuration for about a year, then finally got around to adding the second stick of 32GB, to total up to 64GB. Alright, let's rock ... nope. Nothing, nada, no diff "felt or timed".
Ran with my TP for a while, then the M series of MBP's came out caught my attention. Similarly, my testing of 32 > 64 wasn't experienced as a game changer. However, the downgrade from 32 > 24 did experience a diff, both in laggy brush work and testing times, etc.
While some things can simply mean being a bit more patient, or going to get a cup of coffee, or whatever as part of time management ... the interruptions to direct workflow ... that was where it was clear division of refusal to live a life of mojo flow disruptions (imo).
I spent about a year trying to learn / understand what the whole "Mac thing" was supposed to be about. Without getting into the Mac vs. PC thing, the point (which can be horses for courses) of the Mac thing is supposed to be (my eventual understanding) of mojo buzzkill reduction ... to allow for greater continuity of process. Depending on the task (keyboarding vs. photo editing vs. applications, etc.), different folks may find their mojo flow interrupted in different ways. Which then explained a bit to me about how / why Mac wasn't always hierarchal the same way as PC, but that's not my real point.
My real point is "don't fight with your tools" ... in that, understanding if a knife needs to be resharpened every day vs. once a year, what that means to your workflow. The cost of a great blade vs. a mediocre blade vs. a cheap blade ... they can all be sharpened to cut. But, the edge retention, balance and handling factors can render one an absolutely joy to use every time you pick it up, another an insufferable exercise in perpetuity.
Match your tools to your needs (present / foreseeable future), in a way that your workflow retains the best it can derive from you. A craftsman with a chisel that is making soap or Balsa carvings is different from one who is carving in Oak or Bubinga. The resharpen rate demands will be variable to the application. So, yes "horses for courses" comes in to play. That said, MOST people that are ASKING the question, it means they are NOT playing in a space that warrants the maximum endpoint ... or else, they would already KNOW the answer that their demands are on the max end of the spectrum.
For those folks ... the question isn't how fast can it go, but when will how slow it goes will bog me down. Imo, 24GB puts you into "bog you down" territory risk for earnest photo editing endeavors, be that as may be. Sure, not for every thing every time, but simply stated, 24GB (intermittently) bogged down my brushwork. It's not like ALL brushwork was ALWAYS laggy, but it would rear up its ugly head ... and always at the "worst time" (which also meant, when it was being stressed / worked the hardest) to disrupt my workflow. Thus, the limits were exposed / revealed.
32GB did not.
YMMV
shutterbug guy wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
shutterbug guy wrote
Get the best processor, best graphics card, and the most RAM that you can afford. Here's what I have: a laptop and an external monitor. It’s a couple of years old and has no hiccups, even with 100mp Hasselblad files in Hasselblad Phocus, Photoshop CS6, and a couple of other programs. I rely on external SSDs for my documents, pictures, etc.Processor Intel(R) Core (TM) Ultra 9 275HX (2.70 GHz)
Installed RAM 64.0 GB (63.4 GB usable)
Graphics card NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 Laptop GPU (24 GB)
Intel(R) Graphics (128 MB)
Storage 895 GB of 1.86 TB used (2 1 TB SSDs)
System type 64-bit operating system, x64-based processor
“The best… you can afford” is quite often more than you actually need or will benefit from. While just over-specifying your system will, I suppose, relieve buyers of the need to think carefully about their needs and what specifications satisfy them, it can be a pretty wasteful approach.
That being said, once you determine your real world needs, it is worth thinking about things like how long you expect to keep the system and what your requirements might be during that period.
For example, if X amount RAM is sufficient right now you’ll likely want to go somewhat beyond that if you will keep the system very long. (A good indicator for how long you might continue with a current system is to look at how long Apple typically continues to offer OS upgrade compatibility for their hardware.) If you determine that, say, 36GB is enough right now, you might want to go ahead and bump up to 48GB, etc.
You almost certainly do NOT need the fastest, most capable processor. For the vast majority of photographic uses (and there are some rare exceptions) the difference between the most capable (and expensive) processor options and something a bit further down the specification (and cost) list amounts to little or nothing in real world terms.
You can apply the same thinking (appropriate specs with room for expected growth) to other things such as file storage capacity.
I respectfully disagree. While I’m certainly not a super nerd when it comes to specifications and computers tasked with post-processing, past experience tells me otherwise.
Since I have 2 laptops with nearly identical specifications, I plan to run them until they can’t anymore or no longer meet my needs.
I’m not savvy with Apple; however, at the time, 64GB of RAM was readily available and didn’t seem to cost that much additionally. I’m so glad I went with the extra RAM; all my processing with 100mp sensors has gone smoothly, with maybe a slight hesitation with huge files. Something I couldn’t possibly imagine with lesser machines.
I agree with you on this one, although I would recommend at least a capable mid-to-high-range chip.
Although I have 2TB SSDs available internally, I’ve gravitated toward using external SSDs for all my documents, photos, and backups.
My point is that some people are simply recommending “the most powerful computer available” where the latter provides little or no (more likely) real advantage over an appropriately spec’ed model chosen on the basis of the users actual use case.
I see a fair number of photographers, for example, lusting after the highest end model of the excellent Apple Studio model, outfitted with the maximum processor upgrades, maxed out memory and SSDs,...Show more →
+1
Horses for Courses. Know your course, pick your horse.
I bought my ThinkPad Extreme with one stick of 32GB installed. Used it in that configuration for about a year, then finally got around to adding the second stick of 32GB, to total up to 64GB. Alright, let's rock ... nope. Nothing, nada, no diff "felt or timed".
Ran with my TP for a while, then the M series of MBP's came out caught my attention. Similarly, my testing of 32 > 64 wasn't experienced as a game changer. However, the downgrade from 32 > 24 did experience a diff, both in laggy brush work and testing times, etc.
While some things can simply mean being a bit more patient, or going to get a cup of coffee, or whatever as part of time management ... the interruptions to direct workflow ... that was where it was clear division of refusal to live a life of mojo flow disruptions (imo).
I spent about a year trying to learn / understand what the whole "Mac thing" was supposed to be about. Without getting into the Mac vs. PC thing, the point (which can be horses for courses) of the Mac thing is supposed to be (my eventual understanding) of mojo buzzkill reduction ... to allow for greater continuity of process. Depending on the task (keyboarding vs. photo editing vs. applications, etc.), different folks may find their mojo flow interrupted in different ways. Which then explained a bit to me about how / why Mac wasn't always hierarchal the same way as PC, but that's not my real point.
My real point is "don't fight with your tools" ... in that, understanding if a knife needs to be resharpened every day vs. once a year, what that means to your workflow. The cost of a great blade vs. a mediocre blade vs. a cheap blade ... they can all be sharpened to cut. But, the edge retention, balance and handling factors can render one an absolutely joy to use every time you pick it up, another an insufferable exercise in perpetuity.
Match your tools to your needs (present / foreseeable future), in a way that your workflow retains the best it can derive from you. A craftsman with a chisel that is making soap or Balsa carvings is different from one who is carving in Oak or Bubinga. The resharpen rate demands will be variable to the application. So, yes "horses for courses" comes in to play. That said, MOST people that are ASKING the question, it means they are NOT playing in a space that warrants the maximum endpoint ... or else, they would already KNOW the answer that their demands are on the max end of the spectrum.
For those folks ... the question isn't how fast can it go, but when will how slow it goes will bog me down. Imo, 24GB puts you into "bog you down" territory risk for earnest photo editing endeavors, be that as may be. Sure, not for every thing every time, but simply stated, 24GB (intermittently) bogged down my brushwork. It's not like ALL brushwork was ALWAYS laggy, but it would rear up its ugly head ... and always at the "worst time" (which also meant, when it was being stressed / worked the hardest) to disrupt my workflow. Thus, the limits were exposed / revealed.
32GB did not.
YMMV
Sep 27, 2026 at 08:27 AM
p.4 #16Need Laptop Recommendation for Photo Processing
I do not recommend 24 GB in a contemporary MacOS machine for doing photography work. It might be barely adequate now for modest uses, but it is likely to not be adequate even for that a short time in the future.
36 GB may be adequate for many Lightroom users who are doing basic stuff and not likely working heavily with it daily. Generally, I think that 48 GB is a reasonable minimum though I can see 64GB to be on the safe side.
I’m also positive that a lot of people buying those fine and expensive Studio machines would be shocked to see how capable a well-equipped Mac Mini is. I looked at both when I upgraded a year or so ago and I ended up with a top-spec’ed M4 Pro mini and it works very well for my Bridge/ACR/Photoshop workflow. I’m attached to multiple external drives, including one that holds about 13 TB of photographs and its backup. I’m using a pair of Apple Studio monitors and driving an Epson P9000 printer.
While I can envision photography users who could benefit from more power (those batch processing huge quantities of raw files, folks doing pretty sophisticated video, etc.), I think it is fair to say that my use case represents at least an upper 10% level among FM readers. I work with large raw files, do extensive post-processing in ACR and Photoshop, and often work with a significant number of layers in PS and sometimes do focus and/or exposure blending and the occasional stitched image.
YMMV.
36 GB may be adequate for many Lightroom users who are doing basic stuff and not likely working heavily with it daily. Generally, I think that 48 GB is a reasonable minimum though I can see 64GB to be on the safe side.
I’m also positive that a lot of people buying those fine and expensive Studio machines would be shocked to see how capable a well-equipped Mac Mini is. I looked at both when I upgraded a year or so ago and I ended up with a top-spec’ed M4 Pro mini and it works very well for my Bridge/ACR/Photoshop workflow. I’m attached to multiple external drives, including one that holds about 13 TB of photographs and its backup. I’m using a pair of Apple Studio monitors and driving an Epson P9000 printer.
While I can envision photography users who could benefit from more power (those batch processing huge quantities of raw files, folks doing pretty sophisticated video, etc.), I think it is fair to say that my use case represents at least an upper 10% level among FM readers. I work with large raw files, do extensive post-processing in ACR and Photoshop, and often work with a significant number of layers in PS and sometimes do focus and/or exposure blending and the occasional stitched image.
YMMV.
Sep 27, 2026 at 09:07 AM
p.4 #17Need Laptop Recommendation for Photo Processing
gdanmitchell wrote:
I do not recommend 24 GB in a contemporary MacOS machine for doing photography work. It might be barely adequate now for modest uses, but it is likely to not be adequate even for that a short time in the future.
36 GB may be adequate for many Lightroom users who are doing basic stuff and not likely working heavily with it daily. Generally, I think that 48 GB is a reasonable minimum though I can see 64GB to be on the safe side.
I’m also positive that a lot of people buying those fine and expensive Studio machines would be...Show more →
+1
If you're a weddding event shooter cranking out 2000 - 5000 captures and bulk processing, etc and doing video production work, in combination ... you already know, where you want / need to be. Especially if you're doing multiple events in a single day / weekend, etc.
For regular folks, that "max out" thing is not likely something they going to feel the difference vs. something in the middle ground (i.e. MBP Pro / Max / Mini) vs. Ultra / Studio territory vs. Base / Air. Imo, Base / Air will tap out in the foreseeable future, but if your needs are "light", it could serve a person reasonably well.
Case in point, I traveled with a family member's base M1 / 16GB, and it was fine enough while away. But, it wasn't where I wanted to live on a day to day, year after year basis.
I do not recommend 24 GB in a contemporary MacOS machine for doing photography work. It might be barely adequate now for modest uses, but it is likely to not be adequate even for that a short time in the future.
36 GB may be adequate for many Lightroom users who are doing basic stuff and not likely working heavily with it daily. Generally, I think that 48 GB is a reasonable minimum though I can see 64GB to be on the safe side.
I’m also positive that a lot of people buying those fine and expensive Studio machines would be...Show more →
+1
If you're a weddding event shooter cranking out 2000 - 5000 captures and bulk processing, etc and doing video production work, in combination ... you already know, where you want / need to be. Especially if you're doing multiple events in a single day / weekend, etc.
For regular folks, that "max out" thing is not likely something they going to feel the difference vs. something in the middle ground (i.e. MBP Pro / Max / Mini) vs. Ultra / Studio territory vs. Base / Air. Imo, Base / Air will tap out in the foreseeable future, but if your needs are "light", it could serve a person reasonably well.
Case in point, I traveled with a family member's base M1 / 16GB, and it was fine enough while away. But, it wasn't where I wanted to live on a day to day, year after year basis.
Sep 27, 2026 at 11:35 AM
p.4 #18Need Laptop Recommendation for Photo Processing
When buying Macbook Pro's, I tend to shoot a bit higher than I think I "need". When I bought my M1 MBP at release, I opted for the M1 Max with 32 GB of memory. At the time the Max might have seemed like overkill, but since then, more software is using GPU and neural engine for processing. I am also now shooting a GFX100S II along with my Sony's. I feel that laptop still does pretty well given its age, and I'm glad I didn't skimp too much.
If I were to buy a new one now, I'd probably again go for the Max and a minimum of 48 GB memory. I tend to try to get 5+ years out of a laptop if I can.
YMMV of course.
If I were to buy a new one now, I'd probably again go for the Max and a minimum of 48 GB memory. I tend to try to get 5+ years out of a laptop if I can.
YMMV of course.
Sep 27, 2026 at 11:46 AM
p.4 #19Need Laptop Recommendation for Photo Processing
gdanmitchell wrote:
I’m also positive that a lot of people buying those fine and expensive Studio machines would be shocked to see how capable a well-equipped Mac Mini is.
My new Mac mini M5 Pro arrived last week, and is very fast and quiet. I’d originally planned to get a Studio because I don’t like fan noise, and the Mac minis I’ve had previously were pretty bad for this when pushed, as indeed is my 2019 iMac. So far the most demanding thing I’ve asked the new machine to do is install Apple’s Xcode development environment. This involves calculating cryptographic hashes over 11GB (the old version on the iMac) or 4GB (the new Silicon-only version) of data. The iMac would take over half an hour with the fan going full blast. The new machine took a couple of minutes and I couldn’t hear the fan in a quiet room; I could see it distributing the task over all 15 cores in Activity Monitor and none of them went above 60% or so.
I got put off the Studio not only by the price, but by its bulk and peak 480W power consumption. I would rather not have that on my desk.
My new Mac mini has 48GB memory and only 1TB storage. I’ll add external storage as required, but for the moment I can’t because my backup media can’t fit more than 1TB. 32GB of memory should be enough for Capture One, Affinity and Final Cut Pro, but, like the OP, there are other things I want to do with the machine, in my case software development, that will need more.
Normally I do a soft migration to a new machine, different things at different times, but because I don’t have enough external SSDs to do full rotation backups of both the new and old machines, I can’t back up the new one. So it has to be a “big bang”, everything at once. And because there is a third party program which doesn’t play well with Golden Gate, and I have to recompile and test all my own software too, that isn’t happening yet, and I continue to use the old machine for photo processing.
So I have nothing definite to say about its performance with Capture One and Affinity. However, except for Capture One’s advanced noise reduction the iMac found those much easier than an Xcode installation, and my M5 MacBook Air is pretty good with Capture One, so I expect this new machine to be adequate.
I’m also positive that a lot of people buying those fine and expensive Studio machines would be shocked to see how capable a well-equipped Mac Mini is.
My new Mac mini M5 Pro arrived last week, and is very fast and quiet. I’d originally planned to get a Studio because I don’t like fan noise, and the Mac minis I’ve had previously were pretty bad for this when pushed, as indeed is my 2019 iMac. So far the most demanding thing I’ve asked the new machine to do is install Apple’s Xcode development environment. This involves calculating cryptographic hashes over 11GB (the old version on the iMac) or 4GB (the new Silicon-only version) of data. The iMac would take over half an hour with the fan going full blast. The new machine took a couple of minutes and I couldn’t hear the fan in a quiet room; I could see it distributing the task over all 15 cores in Activity Monitor and none of them went above 60% or so.
I got put off the Studio not only by the price, but by its bulk and peak 480W power consumption. I would rather not have that on my desk.
My new Mac mini has 48GB memory and only 1TB storage. I’ll add external storage as required, but for the moment I can’t because my backup media can’t fit more than 1TB. 32GB of memory should be enough for Capture One, Affinity and Final Cut Pro, but, like the OP, there are other things I want to do with the machine, in my case software development, that will need more.
Normally I do a soft migration to a new machine, different things at different times, but because I don’t have enough external SSDs to do full rotation backups of both the new and old machines, I can’t back up the new one. So it has to be a “big bang”, everything at once. And because there is a third party program which doesn’t play well with Golden Gate, and I have to recompile and test all my own software too, that isn’t happening yet, and I continue to use the old machine for photo processing.
So I have nothing definite to say about its performance with Capture One and Affinity. However, except for Capture One’s advanced noise reduction the iMac found those much easier than an Xcode installation, and my M5 MacBook Air is pretty good with Capture One, so I expect this new machine to be adequate.
Sep 27, 2026 at 09:03 PM
p.4 #20Need Laptop Recommendation for Photo Processing
tsdevine wrote:
When buying Macbook Pro's, I tend to shoot a bit higher than I think I "need". When I bought my M1 MBP at release, I opted for the M1 Max with 32 GB of memory. At the time the Max might have seemed like overkill, but since then, more software is using GPU and neural engine for processing. I am also now shooting a GFX100S II along with my Sony's. I feel that laptop still does pretty well given its age, and I'm glad I didn't skimp too much.
If I were to buy a new one now, I'd probably...Show more →
I agree with “shooting a bit higher” than the minimum need. The price of slightly under-equipping is probably worse than the price of somewhat over-equipping.
When buying Macbook Pro's, I tend to shoot a bit higher than I think I "need". When I bought my M1 MBP at release, I opted for the M1 Max with 32 GB of memory. At the time the Max might have seemed like overkill, but since then, more software is using GPU and neural engine for processing. I am also now shooting a GFX100S II along with my Sony's. I feel that laptop still does pretty well given its age, and I'm glad I didn't skimp too much.
If I were to buy a new one now, I'd probably...Show more →
I agree with “shooting a bit higher” than the minimum need. The price of slightly under-equipping is probably worse than the price of somewhat over-equipping.
Sep 27, 2026 at 09:09 PM