I currently have a 1.67GHz PowerBook G4, but will most likely get myself a MacBook within a year to replace it, running Photoshop CS3 (or more likely CS4 when it arrives) as a student of photography.

A few weeks ago I came across some disturbing reading on the web: while Apple says that their laptops can all display "millions" (24 bits) of colors it has been revealed that this is not so and they can in reality only display 262 144 colors (18 bits) because their displays are of the cheap 6-bit type instead of 8-bit. Here's a site that describes the problem in more detail: <http://peewaiweb.free.fr/>

This might not pose a problem for most people, but how does it affect professional use, such as with Photoshop?

I've always had desktop computers in the past, but bought my first laptop 3 years ago and haven't looked back since. But paying a premium price for an Apple laptop which has a "cheap" display which isn't capable of delivering the goods seems pretty unfair to me.
The big question is: is it good *enough*? Good enough for photography use with Photoshop that is.

PS: as far as I know, MacBooks and MacBook Pro computers are fully able to display images with 16.7 million colors at once, but the built-in display isn't. If you attach an external display I believe you get a true 24-bit image, but then you're no longer looking at a "portable system", and you've forked out so much money already that you could just as well have bought a desktop computer to begin with!

Tyegrr,

As I said in your previous post about your laptop, for best color and best screen, you need a desktop system -- or at least a good second monitor.

Neil

That's true about the 6bit monitors on the MacBook Pros for sure. I purchased one (my first portable) about five months ago and from my perspective the color is totally unsuitable for professional color work. I was so distressed that I made a tech support ticket just to get on record and followed up with a written complaint to customer service at Apple. While there was no actual result of course other than polite platitudes in response, I still feel rather ripped off by a lie. While I'm not normally one for litigation, if there were a class action lawsuit on this issue, I'd sign up. I like Apple and Mac products but occasionally even the best corporation needs to have their chain yanked when they are taking gross liberties with the truth.

I absolutely agree with, Welles.

While I wasn't looking for perfect color from my MacBookPro, I was expecting accurate color. The 6-bit displays simply do not live up to desktop monitors. There is a noticeable decline in color accuracy. I don't use my notebook for critical work, so for me, it's not a hyper sensitive issue. But it is disappointing.

I would not purchase an Apple portable expecting to create color accurate images. They are portable and great for on-the-move stuff, but ultimately all final work must be done on a monitor with better color. This could be a different system or a secondary monitor pluged into the portable, but ultimately it makes the system less portable, as you posted.

With all that posted, I've been able to get pretty accurate web images from my MBP using the built in display... but for press, I wouldn't even imagine using the MBP screen.

currently have a 1.67GHz PowerBook G4, but will most likely get myself
a MacBook within a year to replace it, running Photoshop CS3 (or more
likely CS4 when it arrives) as a student of photography.




New Mac laptops are expected approx. next month with substantial improvement (more max RAM) on MBPs at least. Wait. And, include the 17" size in your considerations. For images work the improved screen real estate and pixel count are very substantial. Once I moved to the 17" size I now will never go to a smaller size.

A Macbook is a major step down from your PB and I strongly recommend against it for a student of photography. Wait to see all the new laptops, but in general you should plan on a MBP. MBs are not life-cycle cost effective for serious graphics users.

• There is a good chance that at some point you may attach a second display. MBPs have strong graphics cards but MBs have integrated graphics, so an extra display sucks MB performance.

• MBs come with only glossy displays that add saturation and contrast. Most pros do not want their laptop displays arbitrarily adding saturation and contrast.

• New photogs today are likely to involve with large volumes of 10-30 MB sized image files, necessitating attachment of external drive(s). MBs have poor connectivity (slow FW400 and unacceptable USB2). MBPs have FW800 and can also accept (faster) eSATA cards.

• MBs' lesser screen real estate and pixel count are huge limitations to graphics work when not connected to a secondary display. Most laptop users are not normally connected to a secondary display.

A MacBook is not a step down from a PBG4. To the contrary (I've had both). It is considerably faster and has larger harddisk too. But for working with photos a MacBook Pro would be much better, also considering what kind of connections it has. One problem though is the limited amount of RAM for portables (max 4 GB, but they come with 2GB per default). Check the techspecs at apple.com for all models. They all come with Leopard though and Tiger cannot be installed on them. The difference in screen-estate between MB and MBP isn't all that big (13" for MB and 15" for MBP unless you choose the much more expensive 17").

Allen Wicks wrote:

A Macbook is a major step down from your PB and I strongly recommend against it for a student of photography.

Sorry, I meant the MacBook PRO. Just a typo as I've never considered the MacBook (why couldn't they have come up with a completely different name like they did in the past with "PowerBook" vs. "iBook" to avoid any confusion.

When/if I do end up deciding on a MacBook Pro I'll most likely go for the most powerful one they have as well. But it's got to be a 15".
For portability a 12" laptop would be ideal, while the 17" is way too big for lugging around and feels more like a portable desktop computer. The 15" is in my experience a compromise between the two.

I have some additional comments to everything said so far:

Photoshop/GIMP/Elements:
I already have Photoshop Elements 2.0 which I've used for years on my Mac, mainly for web graphics, simple image editing and so on. It can still do way more than I know how to, so I don't really see a need to upgrade or go for the "full" version but.... as I'm about to start at a photography school very soon I will also be taught how to use Photoshop in a professional way, so that's why I eventually need to buy the full version. GIMP is a good suggestion if it wasn't for the fact that the school teaches Photoshop, so I really need to use the same software as they do.
For now though I can use the computers (with pre-installed software) at the school's premises, but failing to spend all my afternoons and evenings there I'd be better off having it installed on my own computer as well so I can practice at home too.

Seeing that CS4 most likely will work on my Powerbook I won't buy anything for the moment, but wait until CS4 arrives.
I have already tried out the 1 month trial of CS3 which means I have no way of reinstalling it, but if I make a backup of my whole hard drive, reformat and reinstall I will be able to install a new 1 month demo. Cumbersome, but what else to do as a starving student not wanting to buy two student editions of Photoshop (CS3 and CS4), but wait until CS4 arrives.

Allen: you've got some real good points there with the MacBook pro, most of them the same reason I bought a Powerbook G4 instead of an iBook. But from a professional photographer's choice of computer I'm really starting from scratch and could need a few pointers.
The 6-bit display issue has caught my attention and is something I hope Apple looks into -they should if they want to capture the "pro" market.

Scott: you're addressing the latter issue though I was hoping it wouldn't be as bad as I had though, or that current MacBooks would indeed have real 8 bit displays built into them.
Do you know if there has been any talk about putting in real 8-bit displays in newer MacBook Pro computer? Or has the discussion been forgotten by the majority of people? What I've found about the subject on the web seems to date back a few years.
I read somewhere that the majority of laptops use 6-bit displays because they're cheap and "good enough" though more expensive laptops use 8-bit displays. I don't know which laptops that would be though, but for me, using a Windows laptop isn't really something I want to do as I prefer MacOS, although Apple doesn't seem to have taken the term "pro" seriously enough with its choice of cheaper 6-bit displays (perhaps they should have chosen to call their current laptops "MacBook economy" and "MacBook premium" instead) ;-)

6 bit displays are dithered to fake additional colors.
Do not get a glossy display.
I don't think a PowerBook g4 will handle CS4 the way you would like. Processor speed and RAM are way below the poverty level.

GIMP? You've got to be kidding, Linux doesn't stand still long enough to hold an image.