[Gallopingphotog]

I have a 15" MacBook Pro, with Lightroom and Photoshop for handling my photos. My husband (non-photographer) uses his iBook most of the time, but there's still stuff he needs the laptop for. I use it for everything. The sharing part is OK, only sometimes inconvenient. But the photo issue is getting worse; taking up more and more memory. I store photos in the cloud and on external drives when I think I won't need them for a while, and compress files on the laptop, but it seems I'm always teetering on the edge of hitting the memory limit.
Lately I've been looking at refurbished MacBook Pros, with the idea of buying one to use strictly for photos. I'd try to get rid of everything I don't need, like Garage Band, etc., keeping just basic word processing, and add LR and PS to this computer.
So does this make any kind of sense? Or is there some other alternative I should look at?
I'm not computer-smart, so a non-Apple solution wouldn't be good. Also, I have an iPad but I like the larger screen much better for photos.
Any ideas most welcome!

[KiloHotelphoto]

I was having the same issues when I was using a MacBook Pro and ended up getting a 27” iMac with the 5k resolution basically just for my photography work. It definitely makes editing in Lightroom faster and with the monitor pixel peeping is amazing.

Not sure what body you are using, when I had a K50 and K3 the laptop work fine then I got the K1 and I noticed it slowing down with the larger file sizes. Now I’m using a Canon 5dsr and with size of those raw files the speed of the iMac is great. Kind of sucks to spend all the money on a iMac just for photos but it speeds up the post time and was worth it to me and I know it will work for a long time. I still have a old Mac PowerBook G4 that has to be close to 19 years old and it still works when plugged in, it’s to out of date for anything really but it works.

[photoptimist]

Have you considered upgrading the disk in your MacBook Pro? You can replace the current internal drive with a much larger SSD -- maybe up to 2 TB (see SSDs (Solid-State Drives) Designed for the MacBook Pro for details). Plus, many upgrade kits come with a little enclosure that converts your old internal drive to an external drive. That can be really handy for either additional storage or you just keep the old drive as a bootable backup with all your files. If the thought of doing the required computer surgery scares you, then see if there's a local Mac repair shop that will do the install for you.

Another "Apple solution" for storage is to get a Time Capsule. These devices sit on your network, can provide storage for Time Machine backups of your computers. But you can also just use them as network drive for shared external files. Time Capsules can also be upgraded with larger disks (I've got 6 TB drives in mine). The only disadvantage is that accessing files over the network, even on a wired gigabit ethernet cable is slower than using a USB-C external drive.

[boriscleto]

Another "Apple solution" for storage is to get a Time Capsule.

The entire AirPort lineup, including Time Capuse, has been discontinued without replacement...They are still available while supplies last...

[grog85361]

I think a dedicated computer is a great idea. It is what I do in the Windows universe. I have a fairly robust intel computer with Windows 7, Lightroom 6, Photoshop CS5, and some video applications. It doesn't go on the internet, just gets used for photo and video work. It is stuck in the time it was built, but that is ok with me, this way there is little danger of unwanted updates wrecking my installation, or other internet based problems developing. Probably not the best solution for some people, but it works for me.

[photolady95]

taking up more and more memory

And just to clarify, it isn't memory that is being taken up, it's your harddrive space. Memory are just sticks/modulars inside your computer that do not hold your documents, photos or other data. Harddrives do that.

[david94903]

I'm not a Mac person, so I won't comment on the computer directly. But whatever you buy, I'd recommend getting high quality video graphics card, and a good IPS Adobe RGB capable monitor. When I upgraded my machine recently, to be used primarily for photo editing, I made it a point to go to a Adobe RGB monitor. Very happy I did.

[UncleVanya]

I've never been happy sharing a computer with my wife. I suggest separate computers even without photo needs. Sharing when needed is fine but this cuts down problems that arise when both partners need it at the same time. The only other option is to get a really good ipad and convert your photo workflow to the newer options that work there. (Photoshop and Lightroom for example)

[jpzk]

Adobe RGB monitor

Can you be more specific regarding this ?
Curious, I am.

[Tamia]

Gallopingphotog, I ran up against a variety of limitations on my old (2009) MacBook laptop, so two years ago I finally decided to move to a desktop computer. With a severely limited budget, I bought a used Mac Mini (2010) and a new inexpensive but capable Viewsonic monitor (this based on a review here on the forums). After calibrating the monitor, I realized the limitations of the laptop monitor had led to over-saturated photos in post processing. The MacMini has been a robust and capable computer, and even though I'm still running an outdated operating system (10.6.8) I can do far more than I was able to do with the laptop. Now I use the MacBook laptop computer for "on the road" work as well as basic word processing, but do final photo editing on the Mini/Viewsonic. For photo storage, I use a small external backup harddrive.

[RGlasel]

I've never been happy sharing a computer with my wife.

Now that made me laugh. It may be sparse comfort, but I feel your pain.

The only other option is to get a really good ipad and convert your photo workflow to the newer options that work there.

Which still carries all the problems of a small form factor and is getting closer to the price range of a 13" MacBook? (and a used laptop would still have more capabilities than an iPad). Would really only work to solve the OP's storage problems if used in conjunction with some kind of external harddrive setup. For a relatively economical solution, what about a Mac Mini hooked up to a monitor or HDTV?

Oops, I see Tamia beat me to it.

[Tamia]

Now that made me laugh. It may be sparse comfort, but I feel your pain.Which still carries all the problems of a small form factor and is getting closer to the price range of a 13" MacBook? (and a used laptop would still have more capabilities than an iPad). Would really only work to solve the OP's storage problems if used in conjunction with some kind of external harddrive setup. For a relatively economical solution, what about a Mac Mini hooked up to a monitor or HDTV?

Oops, I see Tamia beat me to it.

Great minds!...

[RGlasel]

Can you be more specific regarding this ?

About Adobe RGB in general or about getting a monitor that is calibrated to the Adobe RGB colour space? I'll admit I'm not an expert on colour spaces and getting what you see on a backlit computer monitor to match what a printer can output, but I have to warn you there are religious wars over colour spaces and more sources of bad information that any person can keep track of.

[david94903]

Can you be more specific regarding this ?Curious, I am.

The long and the short of it is that Adobe RGB has a greater gamut (range of visible colors) than sRGB, (like RGlasel, I'm not an expert on color space theory. Per Wikipedia "sRGB's color gamut encompasses just 35% of the visible colors specified by CIE, whereas Adobe RGB (1998) encompasses slightly more than 50% of all visible colors. Adobe RGB (1998) extends into richer cyans and greens than does sRGB – for all levels of luminance. The two gamuts are often compared in mid-tone values (~50% luminance), but clear differences are evident in shadows (~25% luminance) and highlights (~75% luminance) as well. In fact, Adobe RGB (1998) expands its advantages to areas of intense orange, yellow, and magenta regions.").


This falls under the category of "too much information"

You Tube

You Tube

If you're shooting JPG, sRGB typically is fine. Shooting RAW, you capture more color information, and using Adobe RGB color space when editing RAW file allows access to more of that color information. Printing from an Adobe RGB file will often yield more color, truer to what one sees on the monitor. However, when publishing to the web, Adobe RGB can look odd, so should be converted to sRGB prior to posting. In Photoshop, there's a Save for Web & Devices option, that includes the conversion as an option.


I bought a BenQ monitor that has a nifty little button that allows me to switch easily from Adobe RGB to sRGB and also to Black & White. When not in photo editing mode, I switch to sRGB for all my regular computer tasks.

[Tamia]

Thanks for the concise and understandable rundown on colorspace, Dave.