looking for opinions on a photo/video editing laptop

[Tri Danimal]

IN the link below I have built up a laptop I think will do a good job with the adobe suite of tools. Unfortunatly I am not a computer person so I cant tell if this is a good quality computer. What do you guys and gals think. What do you guys and gals use? I am only considering windows options, ZERO intrest in going apple.

https://www.lenovo.com/us/en/p/81SXC..._11=5WS0V17082

[DanK]

I can't give you feedback on the choice of processors. Mine, which is fully adequate, is a i7-7700, which has only 4 cores but is clocked faster than either of these.

Mine has only 16 GB of RAM, and it seems fine. I don't know about video editing, which I don't do, but it is fine for stills.

I have a 500 MB SSD for software and a 2 TB hard drive for photos, etc. That has been satisfactory. I have a lot of space left on the SSD.

YMMV

[Manfred M]

I'm not a fan of doing either photo or video editing on a laptop. The screens are generally too small and tend to be of relatively poor quality when compared to desktop screens that are purpose built for this type of work. At a minimum I would look at getting a screen that is 100% sRGB compliant and better yet one that is Adobe RGB compliant for photo editing work. If the specs for the computer do not mention this, then you can be quite certain that they are not.

Photo editing is not particularly resource intensive, so what you have chosen is more than adequate. Video editing, especially the rendering component, is extremely resource intensive and is multi-threaded, so the more cores / threads the better. Either CPU would be fine for image editing and the more expensive one would be worth considering for video editing.

Advanced graphics cards are used in the video rendering and playback work. At one time the nVidia cards / drivers were "crippled" so that users would buy the more expensive workstation cards. I'm not sure that is still correct and these Quadro cards are not available in a notebook. The difference between the two cards appears to be that the more expensive one is aimed at gamers, so it is unlikely to be worth the premium if you are not planning to place games that require that level of video throughput.

Both photo and video editing are RAM intensive, so more is generally better.

The M.2 drives are very fast and should be used as your main drive; i.e. it should have the operating system as well as your software and where your working files reside. Bigger is better as it can also be used for swap space. If you use this as your main drive and have your working data on it, then I would opt for the slower 5400 RPM mechanical drive as my main storage drive. Getting 2TB storage would be more important than the faster, but much lower capacity 7200 RPM dirve.

I personally feel that for what you are planning to do that Windows 10 Pro offers any advantage over Windows 10 Home. I would save the money and stick with Home.

A 144 Hz refresh screen is only important when gaming. A 60 Hz screen is more than adequate for editing work.

[Polar01]

Daniel, like the i7 processor, I would go 32GB ram the reason is some laps tops you can not upgrade yourself as the back of the unit is sealed. Myself I would not go with the first hard drive, use external drives for image storage. The 256 SSD is nice however I myself have a 512 SSD and use a 256 SSD as a scratch drive for photoshop, so I would lean to the 1TB SSD. I would go with the 1160 video if you are not gaming or doing video work.
Those would be the items I would look at if I was going to use a laptop for all my photoshop work. I do use a laptop when I am away, however all the heavy work gets transferred to my desktop when I get home.

Cheers: Allan

[dje]

I'm not sure what they mean by first and second drives but just make sure they load Windows onto the SSD. This would normally be labelled "C". I'd make this drive at least 512GB and the other drive 2TB rather than 1TB. For video editing go for the RAM and processor they recommend.

You might also consider an external monitor for editing purposes.

Dave

[mugge]

I have just purchased a Dell xps 13 which I love. Do consider the 15 also. Different machine not just in size.
Cheers Ole

[Manfred M]

I have just purchased a Dell xps 13 which I love. Do consider the 15 also. Different machine not just in size.
Cheers Ole

Ole - the specs for a computer used for video editing will be significantly higher than one used for photographs as that process is far more resource intensive. One can get away with a moderately spec computer for photo work. Something far more high end is required for video editing.

In still photography one has to worry about creating a single image. In video, depending on the frame rate one has to have a computer that can handle at least 24 images (frames) per second. In North America, 60 frames per second are a common standard.

[tclune]

If the OP will be doing 4K video, he will probably want to increase just about everything on the computer over what he selected. A current-generation i9 processor, 32MB RAM, a larger HD, and the best NVIDIA chip he can get with as much memory on it as possible. Realize that you can't view 4K video on the monitors that are available for this device without downres'ing. If the OP will be doing 1080p, the machine as spec'ed will be fine AFAICS.

[Tri Danimal]

Hey all,

I pulled the trigger on a Lenovo Legion Y545, I couldnt say no to the computer at this price. So far its pretty awesome.

I am trying to figure out how I should set up my file structure, using the 2 drives on the computer is new to me. I think Ill store the files on the HDD but keep the catalogue on the SSD? im not too sure what is the most efficient.

[DanK]

Hey all,

I pulled the trigger on a Lenovo Legion Y545, I couldnt say no to the computer at this price. So far its pretty awesome.

I am trying to figure out how I should set up my file structure, using the 2 drives on the computer is new to me. I think Ill store the files on the HDD but keep the catalogue on the SSD? im not too sure what is the most efficient.

That's what I do. I have the SSD set as the boot drive, and LR automatically placed the catalog there, under c:\users\me\pictures\lightroom. I have my hard drive as d:\ and leave all of my photos there. I then have D:\ mirrored to an external hard drive as my first backup (although as a sync rather than a true backup).

[Cantab]

That's what I do. I have the SSD set as the boot drive, and LR automatically placed the catalog there, under c:\users\me\pictures\lightroom. I have my hard drive as d:\ and leave all of my photos there. I then have D:\ mirrored to an external hard drive as my first backup (although as a sync rather than a true backup).

Dan, do you use software for the sync/backup to your external hard drive or some form of RAID?

[DanK]

I don't use a RAID system. It seems like overkill to me. The main advantage of RAID is that it is essentially instantaneous because everything is mirrored. This makes sense for applications where a momentary loss is serious, but it seems like more than I need. With the exception of one computer that couldn't be backed up to any other device for security reasons, I have never used RAID for either work or home.

My system is very simple. My offsite backup is a commercial backup service. I currently use Backblaze. My onsite backup is actually a sync, that is, a mirror of my hard drive. I do that with the same software I use as a replacement for Windows Explorer. I use PowerDesk Pro, but there are several similar ones, e.g., the Australian program Opus. I use this also to sync my non-photo material between computers.

For photos, my procedure is as follows. I use a card reader to load the photos onto my hard drive. If I want to do any initial culling, I leave the card in the reader until I am done. Then I sync my master photo directory to an external hard drive that is always connected to my computer. Only after that do I reformat the card in the computer. So, from the moment I upload the photos, I always have two copies of them, and fairly soon thereafter, I have a third on Backblaze.

Doing things this way, the only risk I run is that if a drive failed while I was editing, I would lose the edits that I was doing at the time of the failure. RAID would avoid this risk.
However, I do keep my desktop plugged into a UPS (uninterruptible power supply), which gives me a few minutes to save my work if the power fails. (this is of course unnecessary with a laptop that has its own power source.) I have had numerous power failures over the years, but zero disk failures while I was working. So, to my way of thinking, a UPS is better insurance against losing the work that is in progress.

[davidedric]

I have a very similar system to Dan (though I use CrashPlan for the external backup).

I do however use RAID. I have a desk top with plenty of space, and for the minimal extra cost it's worth it to me. I did have one of the disks fail a year or two back, and it just seemed so much simpler and less stressful to get hold of a new disk at some leisure and let the mirror rebuild.

Dave

[DanK]

I'm curious: how large is your RAID system, and how much did it cost? I haven't looked at costs in a long time. Maybe they have come down enough that I should rethink what I do.

BTW, I used Crashplan for years, but they stopped selling their basic personal backup service in the US some time ago.

I have a very similar system to Dan (though I use CrashPlan for the external backup).

I do however use RAID. I have a desk top with plenty of space, and for the minimal extra cost it's worth it to me. I did have one of the disks fail a year or two back, and it just seemed so much simpler and less stressful to get hold of a new disk at some leisure and let the mirror rebuild.

Dave

[Rufus]

One could consider a Drobo NAS instead of RAID. I have used one with 5 disks and dual disk redundancy. It is trivially simple (no tools required) to take out a failed disk and replace it, or to replace disks with larger capacity ones if required. I have only used the Drobo for onsite a backup, so I don't have any experience of how it would perform when editing images.

[DanK]

One could consider a Drobo NAS instead of RAID. I have used one with 5 disks and dual disk redundancy. It is trivially simple (no tools required) to take out a failed disk and replace it, or to replace disks with larger capacity ones if required. I have only used the Drobo for onsite a backup, so I don't have any experience of how it would perform when editing images.

Pardon my ignorance, but isn't it the case that a NAS would function pretty much like my system--that is, you copy from time to time from one disk to another? The advantage of RAID that Dave suggested is the continual mirroring.

[Manfred M]

David - Drobo is effectively a form of RAID and its main advantage is that it can use different sized disk drives which means increasing the size of drives when one runs out of space is all one has to do. Traditional RAID requires all drives to be the same size.

I use both and tend to favour Drobo due to its inherent flexibility, although the hardware solution is considerably more expensive than traditional RAID.

[DanK]

I just looked on B&H. The cheapest Drobo enclosure, along with two of the cheapest 2 TB drives, is about $450, in round numbers. A 2 TB external drive (again, the cheapest) is about $50.

I'm somewhat intrigued by switching to RAID, but this is a rather large price difference.

[davidedric]

My RAID is just two 2Tb internal hard disks. There was no cost, just a configuration option when I specified the PC I was buying. They appear to be managed by an Intel utility

I'm curious: how large is your RAID system, and how much did it cost? I haven't looked at costs in a long time. Maybe they have come down enough that I should rethink what I do.

BTW, I used Crashplan for years, but they stopped selling their basic personal backup service in the US some time ago.

[Manfred M]

I just looked on B&H. The cheapest Drobo enclosure, along with two of the cheapest 2 TB drives, is about $450, in round numbers. A 2 TB external drive (again, the cheapest) is about $50.

I'm somewhat intrigued by switching to RAID, but this is a rather large price difference.

Dan - like Dave, I have been using RAID for a long time (probably in the order of 20+ years).

My first RAID was mirrored drives inside the computer case itself, but the downside was that it was a bit of a pain to change the drive after one failed as I had to open up the case and remove and replace the dead drive. I then switched to a Buffalo Technologies Terastation external unit that worked reasonably well, but when I ran out of space, Drobo had just announced their first units (~ 13 years ago) and the upgradeability with a higher capacity drive seemed like a good idea.

What I like about Drobo is their relatively good interchangeability and upgradeability of their devices. Customer support is okay while on warranty and / or on a customer support plan, but once a unit has been discontinued, you are on your own. I run 2 Drobo units (one direct attached and one networked); these are mirrored so if I loose a drive or unit, I have backup as well as a more traditional RAID solution from another supplier (the units was much less expensive than the Drobo), but is less flexible.

One of the Drobo units is in my office and attached directly to my computer and the other is in another part of the house connected by LAN. If one goes down or is damaged I have a full backup of all my files. Given the high cost of my trips and equipment, the backup costs seem worth it.