Ideal laptop for Photoshop
in [Photoshop]
|
From: Fruit2O on 2 Jan 2010 18:21 Thanks - thi sis the type of information I was looking for - not all the other BS above. Any more suggestions? What about the graphics card? On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 23:38:40 -0800, Mike Russell <groupsRE(a)MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote: >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.
From: S. Fishpaste on 2 Jan 2010 19:09 On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:19:01 +0100, Stefan in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop wrote: > If you really care about performance, then forget about laptops. Thexy > are inherently slower than desktop machines. This is NOT true anymore. Some laptops like the Dell XPS line are made for CAD, 3D and graphics work. Laptops at the high end are just as powerful as desktop PCs these days. The downside is expandability. The LCDs on these high end laptops are very good.
From: John Stafford on 2 Jan 2010 20:18 In article <slrnhjvnr4.24q.SDA(a)laptop.sweetpig.dyndns.org>, "S. Fishpaste" <SDA(a)Deer-in-the-headlights.ca.invalid> wrote: > On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:19:01 +0100, Stefan in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop > wrote: > > If you really care about performance, then forget about laptops. Thexy > > are inherently slower than desktop machines. > > This is NOT true anymore. Some laptops like the Dell XPS line are made > for CAD, 3D and graphics work. They are marketed as such, but they are not such.
From: Mike Russell on 2 Jan 2010 20:18 On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 18:21:14 -0500, Fruit2O wrote: > Thanks - thi sis the type of information I was looking for - not all > the other BS above. Hey, everything comes to he who waits, LOL. > Any more suggestions? What about the graphics > card? Graphics card performance is not really an issue if you will be doing normal 2D image work. If you will be using the 3D features of Photoshop Extended, that might be a different story, but even so, Photoshop is not a gaming app where you need to render images at 60 fps or more. Depending on your budget, I'd go with a 64 bit system that will take at least 8 gigs of memory - this will allow you to handle larger images such as panoramas and mosaics, and use the raw converter more efficiently. -- Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com
From: S. Fishpaste on 4 Jan 2010 07:56
On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 19:18:39 -0600, John Stafford in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop wrote: > In article <slrnhjvnr4.24q.SDA(a)laptop.sweetpig.dyndns.org>, > "S. Fishpaste" <SDA(a)Deer-in-the-headlights.ca.invalid> wrote: > >> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:19:01 +0100, Stefan in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop >> wrote: >> > If you really care about performance, then forget about laptops. Thexy >> > are inherently slower than desktop machines. >> >> This is NOT true anymore. Some laptops like the Dell XPS line are made >> for CAD, 3D and graphics work. > > They are marketed as such, but they are not such. And how do you know this? I've been using high end laptops in demanding 3D applications without any problem. My current laptop is as powerful as the any workstation. The only drawback is expandability and the only reason to use a workstation these days. |