Ideal laptop for Photoshop
in [Photoshop]
|
From: krp on 28 Dec 2009 18:39 "Andr�, PE1PQX" <Andre_geenviagra(a)pe1pqx.eu> wrote in message news:7ps7daFnlmU1(a)mid.individual.net... > Het is z� dat krp formuleerde : >> "Fruit2O" <jz137xww(a)cox.net> wrote in message >> news:ncrfj5pha9qivacsfjhl9jcahkgt25q98j(a)4ax.com... >>> I'm looking for opinions on what to look for in a laptop that will be >>> used primarily for Photoshop. I'm waiting for USB 3 and intend to get >>> Windows 7. But things like the processor, RAM, screen size, color >>> controls, graphics card and built-in memory, etc. are going to be >>> important. Price is not an object as long as I get what I pay for. I >>> travel across the country so durability is important. I'm also >>> interested in recommendations for a printer and scanner (specs - not >>> necessarily current models). >> >> GET A MAC! > > BULLSHIT!!! WHATEVER!
From: Mike Russell on 29 Dec 2009 02:38 On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 10:06:24 +1100, N wrote: > "nsbm" <fac_187(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:hhatlr$q00$1(a)adenine.netfront.net... >> First realize that you cannot accurately calibrate a laptop monitor for >> critical printing. If printing is your goal you will need an external >> monitor. Calibration and use of consumer grade LCD panels for color >> managed printing is the most misunderstood topic in digital photography, >> particularly among mac users who do not comprehend how useless their >> machines are for the purpose. >> > > Please explain this in more detail and explain how a laptop LCD differs from > a desktop LCD. The main criticism of low end LCD displays, including the majority of notebook displays, is that brightness, contrast, and hue vary with viewing angle. At normal viewing distances, this creates a subtle vignetting effect that makes these displays somewhat inferior for fine color work, compared to higher end displays. Point taken, but ... I'm an inclusive person by nature, and would certainly not support remarks, such as those made by "nsbm", re notebook displays and those who use them. I disagree with those who say that critical color work cannot be done on a notebook, or any system with a lower end LCD display. I'd even go one further and say that, while calibration can be important (particularly in a multi person work environment), it is not a necessity for good work. The evidence of this is the large volume of good printed work that was produced before display calibration technology existed. Loosely speaking, there appear to be two approaches to color correction. One group believes that any color issue is ultimately related to poor calibration somewhere in the work flow. Bruce Fraser was a member of this group. Another camp, to which I belog, starts with the assumption that calibration is never perfect, and that it is necessary to navigate this imperfect world by use of numeric color values. Dan Margulis is the main promoter of this "color by the numbers" approach to color correction. So, for example, a deep black with some shadow detail will have a color value of about RGB(10,10,10), and a pure white with detail will be about RGB(245,245,245). Likewise, neutral grays are recognized by having equal RGB values in the three color channels. There are related rules for skin tones, sky, foliage, and other common colored objects. It's amazing what can be done using this information, to improve the appearance of the image. It's also important to take care to calibrate and adjust your monitor, and to train your subjective perception of color, using the numbers as landmarks. But with color by the numbers, calibration is no longer a central requirement for good color work. Notebook displays can be used for critical work. Incidentally, it stands to reason that, using color by the numbers, color blind people, who make up a non-trivial number of color practitioners, can learn to do excellent color corrections, going by the numbers. Back to the OP's question about a good notebook - get a 64 bit notebook that supports Windows 7, and can support 8G of main memory. Dual core, at the present time, is useful for certain Photoshop operations, but quad core is not. Display acceleration is not critical for the 2D features of Photoshop, though it is being used increasingly by the extended features of the product. Rather than concern yourself about the quality of the display, invest in a dock mount and spend a few hundred on a desktop monitor for more critical work while you are at home. Do consider getting a calibration device, such as the i1 Display2, particularly if your images are going to be shared with third parties for critical work - this includes printing. -- Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com
From: nospam on 29 Dec 2009 04:04 In article <hhatlr$q00$1(a)adenine.netfront.net>, nsbm <fac_187(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > First realize that you cannot accurately calibrate a laptop monitor for > critical printing. nonsense. > If printing is your goal you will need an external > monitor. external monitors are generally better but not required. > Calibration and use of consumer grade LCD panels for color managed > printing is the most misunderstood topic in digital photography, > particularly among mac users who do not comprehend how useless their > machines are for the purpose. nonsense. > Simply get the fastest core duo processor, quad core is not worth the > weight/heat/power consumption for Photoshop. Most laptops are limited to > 4gbs of ram, which is plenty for a 64 bit OS. mac laptops are not limited to 4 gig, and there's no need for a 64 bit os with 4 gig. > The key thing is to get the > most modern graphics processor, either ATI or NVIDIA, you can as only that > will allow for any GPU accelerated processing (if enabled for laptops, a > whole other issue). USB3 is utterly irrelevant. If you can afford a solid > state drive go for it but there are better things to do with $600. usb3 isn't out yet.
From: nospam on 29 Dec 2009 04:04 In article <nhoj-09C28C.13444628122009(a)news.supernews.com>, John Stafford <nhoj(a)droffats.net> wrote: > Note that Adobe suggests a single processor GPU because Photoshop will > use only one regardless of how many there are. and where exactly do they suggest that?? photoshop will use multiple cores/cpus as needed. not everything will benefit from it, however.
From: Stefan on 29 Dec 2009 07:04
nospam schrieb: >> Note that Adobe suggests a single processor GPU because Photoshop will >> use only one regardless of how many there are. > and where exactly do they suggest that?? photoshop will use multiple > cores/cpus as needed. not everything will benefit from it, however. Read more carefully, John talked about the GPU, not the CPU. |