pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Using a Laptop for Image Processing?  (Read 16592 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: April 04, 2010, 12:40 »
0
Does anyone use a laptop for image processing and uploading to microstock? If so how?

I spend quite a bit of time travelling and I want to continue doing some processing/uploading whilst I'm away.

I'd assumed that a decent laptop would be sufficient for the job but, having done some research, now I'm not so sure. The problem is that every laptop screen out there appears to be totally dependent on the viewing position __ move your head or the screen just slightly and there's a massive change in contrast/brightness. Short of clamping my head and the laptop together in some sort of huge mechanical brace I don't see how you can be confident of producing consistent results. I still use a CRT monitor for processing at home (basically because they are good).

I was intending to buy the best laptop I could afford with the biggest and highest-resolution screen but I am now considering buying a smaller laptop and combining it with a cheap-ish external monitor instead. I should be able to leave the monitor in place for future trips.

I'd appreciate any advice from anyone that has tried using a laptop for microstock processing/submissions.


« Reply #1 on: April 04, 2010, 12:59 »
0
I asked the same question some of my friends, and what I learned is there is almost no good laptop screen when we talk about PC laptops. But they said only good things about Macbook Pro laptops. Later I found similar info in internet. Everyone says Macbook pro family is great for photo editing...

WarrenPrice

« Reply #2 on: April 04, 2010, 13:00 »
0
Does your viewing angle make no difference on a fixed-position monitor?

I was a photojournalist before becoming a stock photoghrapher.  I've used a laptop for many years, knowing that it is not the best option.  I also shoot most of my stuff in jpg, with some RAW when using studio lighting.  I avoid the temptation to adjust contrast and saturation in the post processing.  My acceptance ratio is not the greatest but, if you travel, there has to be some tradeoffs -- unless all your processing will be done after the journey.

PS:  there is a thread available about processing power in the Video Stock Forum of this site.  There is plenty of power available in Laptops using the i7 Processor and an 18.4" screen/graphics card, starting at about $1700 US.

After a while, you will "Know" your best viewing angle.

« Reply #3 on: April 04, 2010, 13:16 »
0
I asked the same question some of my friends, and what I learned is there is almost no good laptop screen when we talk about PC laptops. But they said only good things about Macbook Pro laptops. Later I found similar info in internet. Everyone says Macbook pro family is great for photo editing...

Thanks __ that confirms what I thought. I didn't know about Macbooks being better but they are so horrifically expensive (in the UK) for a decent-sized screen that it wouldn't make economic sense.

« Reply #4 on: April 04, 2010, 13:25 »
0
The review says this: "The horizontal viewing angle on this thing is insane.  It's practically 180 degrees, although it is kind of hard to see anything on the screen at that point.  The vertical angle is not quite as good.  It has about a 15 degree sweet spot with the picture losing brightness and inverting white and black too far beyond that."

« Reply #5 on: April 04, 2010, 13:30 »
0
The review says this: "The horizontal viewing angle on this thing is insane.  It's practically 180 degrees, although it is kind of hard to see anything on the screen at that point.  The vertical angle is not quite as good.  It has about a 15 degree sweet spot with the picture losing brightness and inverting white and black too far beyond that."

It's the vertical angle that is the problem. It's easy enough to sit in the middle for horizontal positioning but the angle of the screen in relation to your eyes is much more difficult.

« Reply #6 on: April 04, 2010, 13:36 »
0
i use a laptop as my main computer so i have everything available when i travel, but at home i also add another monitor for more consistent photo results.

when traveling i try to limit my image work to captioning, etc that doesn't rely on the monitor
s

« Reply #7 on: April 04, 2010, 13:41 »
0
Does your viewing angle make no difference on a fixed-position monitor?

I was a photojournalist before becoming a stock photoghrapher.  I've used a laptop for many years, knowing that it is not the best option.  I also shoot most of my stuff in jpg, with some RAW when using studio lighting.  I avoid the temptation to adjust contrast and saturation in the post processing.  My acceptance ratio is not the greatest but, if you travel, there has to be some tradeoffs -- unless all your processing will be done after the journey.

PS:  there is a thread available about processing power in the Video Stock Forum of this site.  There is plenty of power available in Laptops using the i7 Processor and an 18.4" screen/graphics card, starting at about $1700 US.

After a while, you will "Know" your best viewing angle.

Thanks for that. Interesting.

Viewing angle (and largely ambient light) makes little or no difference with a CRT monitor.

Whilst I'm sure I could get to "know" my best viewing angle, and achieve some passable results, it would be a world away from carefully crafting optimised images as I do on my home set-up. Photojournalism of course has very different requirements and the images can always be adjusted at the offices that receive them. Using such a crude method could end up being a real waste of quality stock so it would probably be better to wait until the job could be done properly.

« Reply #8 on: April 04, 2010, 13:44 »
0
i use a laptop as my main computer so i have everything available when i travel, but at home i also add another monitor for more consistent photo results.

when traveling i try to limit my image work to captioning, etc that doesn't rely on the monitor
s

Thanks. Looks like I will have to go down the seperate monitor route if I want to get any worthwhile work done. I was under the impression that laptop screens were all brilliant nowadays but it seems that the main issues remain, if perhaps not as badly as before.

« Reply #9 on: April 04, 2010, 13:46 »
0
Maybe check out the Dell Studio XPS 16. It has the i7 processor, up to 8gb of ram, and a 1gb graphics card for under $2000. Not sure on the viewing angle.

« Reply #10 on: April 04, 2010, 14:19 »
0
Does anyone use a laptop for image processing and uploading to microstock?

of course, I do it from the beginning. However I calibrated it.

Xalanx

« Reply #11 on: April 04, 2010, 14:25 »
0
Keep your eyes at monitor level so that the angle from your eyes to the screen plane is 90 degrees. That's for a correct image contrast / brightness. However, LCDs have some other interesting "feature", due to the above mentioned bug. If you're cleaning up studio shots isolations over white, is kinda easy to tilt your screen to face slightly upwards - you can see then the problematic areas of your isolation ;D

« Reply #12 on: April 04, 2010, 14:55 »
0
Does anyone use a laptop for image processing and uploading to microstock? If so how?

I spend quite a bit of time travelling and I want to continue doing some processing/uploading whilst I'm away.

I'd assumed that a decent laptop would be sufficient for the job but, having done some research, now I'm not so sure. The problem is that every laptop screen out there appears to be totally dependent on the viewing position __ move your head or the screen just slightly and there's a massive change in contrast/brightness. Short of clamping my head and the laptop together in some sort of huge mechanical brace I don't see how you can be confident of producing consistent results. I still use a CRT monitor for processing at home (basically because they are good).

I was intending to buy the best laptop I could afford with the biggest and highest-resolution screen but I am now considering buying a smaller laptop and combining it with a cheap-ish external monitor instead. I should be able to leave the monitor in place for future trips.

I'd appreciate any advice from anyone that has tried using a laptop for microstock processing/submissions.

I use my HP 17" brightview laptop for all my processing, and I stuck my Spyder 2 in the closet after the crappy orange cast it put on everything.  Now I just turn off the lights and eyeball it to calibrate.  Of course, I don't do a lot of really fancy PS wogk.

« Reply #13 on: April 04, 2010, 15:30 »
0
I use my HP 17" brightview laptop for all my processing, and I stuck my Spyder 2 in the closet after the crappy orange cast it put on everything.  Now I just turn off the lights and eyeball it to calibrate.  Of course, I don't do a lot of really fancy PS wogk.

Interesting __ thanks. I agree with the Mk 1 eyeball for calibration too. I don't do any fancy PS work either so maybe I'm being over cautious. If it works for you then it obviously ... works.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #14 on: April 04, 2010, 18:00 »
0
I use my HP 17" brightview laptop for all my processing, and I stuck my Spyder 2 in the closet after the crappy orange cast it put on everything.  Now I just turn off the lights and eyeball it to calibrate.  Of course, I don't do a lot of really fancy PS wogk.

Interesting __ thanks. I agree with the Mk 1 eyeball for calibration too. I don't do any fancy PS work either so maybe I'm being over cautious. If it works for you then it obviously ... works.

Hmmmm... are you sure?  That seems to be the same "crude method" that I use.   ;D

« Reply #15 on: April 04, 2010, 19:46 »
0
I have 2 laptops I use for editing all the time ... neither are Macs. I also think the eyeball calibration method is the best one. My screens are calibrated to be a precise match of prints coming from the lab. My primary income comes from portraiture where I'm dealing with the clients in person so they are being exposed to an onslaught of products .. books, prints, DVD slideshows, etc. all of which must match the sales presentation with exact precision. All it takes is a tilt of the screen and I'm good to go. Even if you did have slight variations, microstock clients don't have anything to compare it to anyway .. there's no product options or presentations so chances are if one screen is slightly off from another nobody is going to ever know.

« Reply #16 on: April 05, 2010, 00:47 »
0
I'd appreciate any advice from anyone that has tried using a laptop for microstock processing/submissions.

I do it all the time when I'm in Europe (1/3 of the time) since I have more time there to post-process. I have a HP Pavillion Duo Centrino, NVidia, 15" for the past 2 years. It doesn't sound "professional" but it works fine for me. The caveats are: use it on a proper table so you can keep a good viewing angle comfortably (hotel tables are bad, laps are worse), don't use it on battery, have a top-quality wireless mouse, use it in very low ambient light.
If it's for weight-critical travel (plane, backpacking) don't go for "the best" and "the biggest" (= the heaviest), and... remove the battery: a battery is relatively heavy, wears out after 1.5 years and dims the screen. Buy a universal plug, so you can use it everywhere in the world in airport lounges etc...
I can see black clippings as well as on my desktop Samsung Syncmaster. Just take some time to calibrate the screen: I have a list of tools here (scroll down till article bottom).
« Last Edit: April 05, 2010, 01:03 by FD-amateur »

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #17 on: April 05, 2010, 03:23 »
0
Does anyone use a laptop for image processing and uploading to microstock? If so how?

I really don't like laptops for image processing, feels uncomfortable.

Eventually, I buyed an Asus eee netbook and use it for uploading only. Great also for web/email while travelling.

« Reply #18 on: April 05, 2010, 04:29 »
0
I use a macbook - don't really have the option of waiting until I get "home" seeing as that's not going to happen for a while yet.

I think its inevitable that you'll get a slightly higher rejection rate, but if you know how your workflow goes on your normal system and stick to it on the laptop - and rely more on the levels than how bright the image looks on the screen you should be able to get by.

« Reply #19 on: April 05, 2010, 06:20 »
0
I read the the unibody macbooks / pro had dropped the quality of the screen and were quoted from somewhere as saying that graphics industry isnt their big market anymore and that education is (it was a while back and personally I couldnt see much difference). We have 4 in the house and they have a nice screen for a laptop but I wouldnt say it is amazing or anything better than a good pc laptop offers. When i looked about a year ago only the 17" was available with a matt screen (personal preference for gloss / matt).

I used quite a number of laptops, personally i find above 15" is really bad for viewing angles, non led screens (dont know if their is any still) are dark, led screens are often too bright (even after calibration). I have samsung x360 13" ultralight that I use for downloading and basic checking but it is too slow even for that really (but good weight for carrying/travelling) and will be replaced later in the year. I am thinking either the 14 or 15" dell precision laptop (heavyish but known for its graphics, the 15" has option of adobe rgb gamut screen) or one of the high end sony 13"s (supposedly also have a good screen)

« Reply #20 on: April 05, 2010, 06:30 »
0
I use a Macbook Pro, which I've found to be pretty great.  I got it about half-way through my time in microstock and have not noticed a change in acceptance rates.  But I do find myself cranking up brightness all the way and adjusting the angle of the screen back and forth to do my best to check for banding and other strange effects that might have resulted from overzealous Photoshop trickery.

« Reply #21 on: April 05, 2010, 06:44 »
0
i use a laptop as my main computer so i have everything available when i travel, but at home i also add another monitor for more consistent photo results.

when traveling i try to limit my image work to captioning, etc that doesn't rely on the monitor
s

Thanks. Looks like I will have to go down the seperate monitor route if I want to get any worthwhile work done. I was under the impression that laptop screens were all brilliant nowadays but it seems that the main issues remain, if perhaps not as badly as before.

This is what I do too. I have worked on images with the MacBook Pro laptop screen when traveling, but for everyday work I have a 22" monitor to use. My opinion is that the laptop screen is more than adequate to do the job, I just like to see things much bigger on the bigger screen.

vlad_the_imp

« Reply #22 on: April 05, 2010, 06:48 »
0
"When i looked about a year ago only the 17" was available with a matt screen"

The 15" is available with a matt screen, I think it's about 40 extra so specify it.

« Reply #23 on: April 05, 2010, 08:53 »
0
I have a 17" MacBook Pro, with an LED back-lit matte screen.

It's not my primary editing set-up, but I do use it for editing when traveling.
Images worked on the MBP and then viewed on my main workstation are not appreciably different from images that were only touched on the desktop.
It works fine.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2010, 20:37 by nosaya »

« Reply #24 on: April 05, 2010, 16:04 »
0
Anyone tried the Sony Vaio Z serie?
13" screen , very light, less expensive and more powerful than macbook pro, it could be a good choice for travelers .
« Last Edit: April 05, 2010, 16:07 by Smithore »

jbarber873

« Reply #25 on: July 25, 2010, 14:44 »
0
   I have a macbook pro which works pretty well in a pinch at home when I'm not in the studio, but as Powerdroid says, you end up cranking the brightness all the way up and moving your head around till you get what you like. I would probably say that it can work fine, as long as you create a " loop" of quality. What I mean by that is- open some files that you know are good on the laptop and calibrate the laptop until those files look as good on the laptop as they do on the regular monitor. This gives you a reference file so that " in theory" all other files will look as good. Also, you should always be looking at the histogram on a file to judge the exposure anyway, and taking samples of neutral areas to judge color. Look critically at your files when they go up on the websites, and you can pick out right away if you're off.

« Reply #26 on: July 25, 2010, 15:05 »
0
I've never owned a desktop.  The speed on my old 2.4 ghtz macbook pro is still good.  An external monitor helps when I'm working at home.  The calibration seemed fine right out of the box. 


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
4048 Views
Last post June 24, 2007, 14:37
by hatman12
23 Replies
10405 Views
Last post January 24, 2016, 12:11
by Sean Locke Photography
81 Replies
15495 Views
Last post May 25, 2013, 16:39
by jshooz
17 Replies
4023 Views
Last post May 06, 2013, 05:49
by MicrostockExp
21 Replies
2346 Views
Last post July 31, 2023, 13:00
by Jo Ann Snover

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors