Is an M1 Max complete overkill for photography?

[Cmaier]

Congrats! I know there were times with my old iMac that I wanted to throw it out the window as it just sat there stuck spinning when having both LRC and PS open. The M1 is fantastic and I've not had a single issue since moving to it.

Imagine how great it would be if adobe was better at software engineering, and didn’t insist on reinventing code that the OS already provides.

 

[Renzatic]

Imagine how great it would be if adobe was better at software engineering, and didn’t insist on reinventing code that the OS already provides.

May as well wish for the stars...

 

[Cmaier]

May as well wish for the stars...

It makes me so sad that Apple killed Aperture instead of investing more into pro photgraphy tools.

 

[Renzatic]

It makes me so sad that Apple killed Aperture instead of investing more into pro photgraphy tools.

Why exactly did they do that? From what I gathered, Aperture was a fairly mature product, easily able to compete with LR's feature set almost point for point.

...then it just went away.

 

[Eric]

Imagine how great it would be if adobe was better at software engineering, and didn’t insist on reinventing code that the OS already provides.

While this is a great point, I'm guessing that if one has several 40 to 60 MB RAW photos open in both apps it's going to slow things down too, something I'm often guilty of.

 

[mollyc]

Congrats! I know there were times with my old iMac that I wanted to throw it out the window as it just sat there stuck spinning when having both LRC and PS open. The M1 is fantastic and I've not had a single issue since moving to it.

I've been wanting a laptop since before Christmas, but it wasn't directly related to the speed of my computer, more the portability aspect. But the past few weeks I've been working on a Lightroom class, and doing screen recording videos..and as I am working along, I am apologizing to my future students for just watching the beachball spin.

I think I'm going to have to re-record everything.

 

[mollyc]

I never used Aperture. I started with LR version 1 when my husband and I still shared a PC back in the dark ages. And then when I got my first iMac, I stayed with LR because I already knew how to use it.

 

[Cmaier]

While this is a great point, I'm guessing that if one has several 40 to 60 MB RAW photos open in both apps it's going to slow things down too, something I'm often guilty of.

It shouldn’t. That’s not a lot of memory usage.

 

[Citysnaps]

I tried Aperture not long after it was released years ago. And LR a little later. For me, the non-starter for Aperture was how it handled "non-destructive" brush or gradient edits, such as dodging and burning. If memory serves, an intermediate hi-res tiff of the RAW file was created which you'd then dodge/burn with a brush. You could delete a particular brush edit but weren't able to later modify the strength of a particular brush attribute (exposure/contrast/sharpening/black level/highlights/etc, or its extent/positioning. That was just dumb. And that tiff associated with your RAW took a big chunk of memory.

In contrast, LR was a breath of fresh air. Any brush/gradient/clone operation and attribute could be *modified* (not simply deleted) at any time in the future. Overall it was a much smoother flow.

Also thinking about Apple's and Adobe's core business, it was clear to me that Adobe's being primarily about image science they were going to be in it for the long haul with frequent updates and interesting new features. Adobe also had a super strong presence in the commercial graphic design and publishing world. I also like how Adobe reached out to photographers for opinions/guidance and focus sessions. I don't know how they got my name, but they invited me up to their SF operation twice for a roundtable with a couple of other photographers kicking around ideas and opinions. And paid me a few hundred dollars for my time - a nice and unexpected surprise. Once a couple of Adobe LR employees came to my house to talk about LR what I liked and didn't like, and to see how I used it on my computer. For Aperture, it wasn't so clear what the future was, and felt if it didn't meet Apple's revenue projections/requirements, the app would be canned sometime in the future.

Though I held out for two years hating the idea of going with a LR subscription, I'm now glad I switched as LR just keeps getting better and better.

 

[Yoused]

I am not a pro, so I believe I could do the occasional work I need to do using the Gnu Image ManiPulator. Better still, AAUI, the Mac version no longer relies on X11.

 

[DT]

I am not a pro, so I believe I could do the occasional work I need to do using the Gnu Image ManiPulator. Better still, AAUI, the Mac version no longer relies on X11.

I've been using Pixelmator (now called "Classic" vs. the newer Pro) for several years, I got it on discount for like $12, I've gotten my money's worth like 1000x over

 

[Clix Pix]

I use DXO PhotoLab 5 and have been very pleased with it. In the past I used Aperture and then as it eventually became clear that Apple was no longer going to be supporting it began the search for something else to use. I tried several but it wasn't until I hit on DXO that I found a program which works well for me and with me.

 

[Roller]

I tried Aperture not long after it was released years ago. And LR a little later. For me, the non-starter for Aperture was how it handled "non-destructive" brush or gradient edits, such as dodging and burning. If memory serves, an intermediate hi-res tiff of the RAW file was created which you'd then dodge/burn with a brush. You could delete a particular brush edit but weren't able to later modify the strength of a particular brush attribute (exposure/contrast/sharpening/black level/highlights/etc, or its extent/positioning. That was just dumb. And that tiff associated with your RAW took a big chunk of memory.

In contrast, LR was a breath of fresh air. Any brush/gradient/clone operation and attribute could be *modified* (not simply deleted) at any time in the future. Overall it was a much smoother flow.

Also thinking about Apple's and Adobe's core business, it was clear to me that Adobe's being primarily about image science they were going to be in it for the long haul with frequent updates and interesting new features. Adobe also had a super strong presence in the commercial graphic design and publishing world. I also like how Adobe reached out to photographers for opinions/guidance and focus sessions. I don't know how they got my name, but they invited me up to their SF operation twice for a roundtable with a couple of other photographers kicking around ideas and opinions. And paid me a few hundred dollars for my time - a nice and unexpected surprise. Once a couple of Adobe LR employees came to my house to talk about LR what I liked and didn't like, and to see how I used it on my computer. For Aperture, it wasn't so clear what the future was, and felt if it didn't meet Apple's revenue projections/requirements, the app would be canned sometime in the future.

Though I held out for two years hating the idea of going with a LR subscription, I'm now glad I switched as LR just keeps getting better and better.

I had used Aperture for years and was accustomed to its workflow when Apple killed it. It struck me as a slap in the face to their user community, which made me wary of committing to other apps. Still, when iMovie was no longer adequate for my video editing needs, I switched to Final Cut Pro, though I still wonder how it will fare in the long term. It's a bit like my feelings about Keynote, which I use almost exclusively for presentations. I still prefer it to PowerPoint, but Apple hasn't meaningfully extended its feature set in a long time, in part because they want to maintain parity between the macOS and iPadOS versions.

When Aperture ended, I switched to Adobe LR and haven't looked back. Transferring everything from Aperture was a bit of a pain, but I like LR's workflow, and I expect Adobe to keep adding features. I'm far from a PhotoShop expert, but I know how to do what I need, and there are so many tutorials available. I've also been impressed the way Adobe has added functionality that makes some things much easier than they used ti be.

BTW, I recall using Barneyscan XP, which was the original version of Photoshop that shipped with the Barneyscan slide scanner.

 

[mollyc]

Have any of you calibrated an M1 machine? I ran my SpyderX on it yesterday, which is allegedly compatible and native, and it completely fucked up my screen. It was 98% pure black with a bit of white where some icons showed through. It would boot up normally to the login screen, but the profile that Spyder made was associated with my user account so as soon as I logged in the black screen came back.

I ultimately was able to go through some Voice Over commands and spoke it to airplay to our Apple tv. At that point I could then use the tv screen as the "monitor" and I was able to delete that wretched profile and get everything back to normal. I've also since added a separate admin profile where I can boot into if necessary.

So major crisis averted, but I need to properly calibrate because my photography stuff is all color critical and I do a lot of portfolio reviews where I need to see other people's photos accurately.

I am not sure if I just downloaded the wrong version of the Spyder software, but I have never had such a complete botch of calibrating before.

 

[mollyc]

Also, can someone explain File Vault to me. Having always had an iMac that lived in one spot it's not something I've ever used, but I feel like it's probably more important for a laptop?

 

[Cmaier]

Have any of you calibrated an M1 machine? I ran my SpyderX on it yesterday, which is allegedly compatible and native, and it completely fucked up my screen. It was 98% pure black with a bit of white where some icons showed through. It would boot up normally to the login screen, but the profile that Spyder made was associated with my user account so as soon as I logged in the black screen came back.

I ultimately was able to go through some Voice Over commands and spoke it to airplay to our Apple tv. At that point I could then use the tv screen as the "monitor" and I was able to delete that wretched profile and get everything back to normal.

So major crisis averted, but I need to properly calibrate because my photography stuff is all color critical and I do a lot of portfolio reviews where I need to see other people's photos accurately.

I am not sure if I just downloaded the wrong version of the Spyder software, but I have never had such a complete botch of calibrating before.

I have not, but I recall reading that there were some issues with calibration tools.

 

[mollyc]

I have not, but I recall reading that there were some issues with calibration tools.

Yes, I knew that but the Spyder website claims it works.... I'll go do some more research, just wondering if anyone here had successfully done so.

 

[Cmaier]

Also, can someone explain File Vault to me. Having always had an iMac that lived in one spot it's not something I've ever used, but I feel like it's probably more important for a laptop?

You turn it on and you never notice it. Everything on your drive is encrypted and decrypted on-the-fly. If someone gets your machine and removes the disk, or has physical access to the machine, unless they have your password it’s essentially impossible to read your disk.

The use of the machine doesn’t change at all - just enter your password (or touch ID, as appropriate) to wake up your mac, and the disk can be read.

 

[mollyc]

ohhhh...I think I found my problem. The Spyder needs Monterey 12.3 and I'm only on 12.2.1.

 

[mollyc]

okay, for FileVault, in attempting to turn it on, I get this message:

but I am the company/school/institution.....does this just mean the password I use to log in?