# New Mac for LR Classic



## Kirby Krieger (Nov 22, 2017)

Operating System:10.11.6
Exact Lightroom Version (Help menu > System Info): 7.0.1 [ 1142117 ]

My early-2013 MBP died today (battery/power failure; prob. c. $200 to fix, 7-day turnaround).  I have been ready to replace it for some time.

What is a good sweet-spot* purchase for a Mac to run Lightroom Classic right now?
 - I use LR everyday almost all day
 - I have 10 TB of data on external drives (USB3; will likely upgrade storage)
 - Image file sizes range from c. 50 MB to 10 GB.
 - I want to be able to quickly browse very large Catalogs (over 1M images)
 - I currently use a 3-screen set-up, with my MBP in the middle but below the two large monitors (so those monitors are next to each other).  I keep the LR Main Window on the left large monitor and the LR Second Window on the right large monitor (and run other programs on the laptop screen).

*I am not looking to go out of my way to spend money.  I want the machine to remain useful for 4 years.

I will also be replacing my two NEC monitors (2490WUXi2 and PA-271W).  Strongly considering BenQ 27" monitors (open to suggestions).
 - I color-calibrate with an X-Rite i1Display Pro
 - The monitors _must_ match (I was never able to get the two NEC's to match, even with extensive help from NEC technicians)

I make fine art prints, which I print myself on Epson printers.  

I do no important work with video or music, and no important play with games.  The purchase choice is: what's best and not wasteful for running Lightroom Classic?

My goal:
 - a superb color-calibrated workflow, the higher the resolution the better.
 - dual monitors to run LR
 - very fast browsing of very large LR catalogs

The hardware Q seems to come down to:
 - ports/protocol for external storage
 - 15" MBP vs. 27 iMac vs. 27" iMac Pro (coming in Dec.)
 - what hardware will LR take advantage of?  (I suspect more than 16 GB of RAM is wasted for _one_ program.  I worry that almost all of the iMac Pro is wasted for running LR.  I have no knowledge of current graphics cards, etc.)

One problem I see with either iMac is getting an exact matching second monitor.  I could go with three monitors.

Whatever machine I get will have at least 16 GB RAM and at least a 1 TB SSD system drive.

Thanks for sharing your wisdom.


----------



## Gnits (Nov 22, 2017)

It is frustrating trying to advise people on hardware in relation to Lr, as Lr does not seem to take advantage of it.

Future proof by getting more memory. I would regard 16Gb as entry level and would go higher.
Processor speed seems to be one of the few hardware elements that has an impact, but others may advise on number of cores, etc.

I would put the Catalog / Previews and all Lr and Ps cache folders on an SSD.

I cannot advise on screens / graphic cards.


----------



## Kirby Krieger (Nov 22, 2017)

Gnits said:


> Lr does not seem to take advantage of [hardware].


That was my conclusion from casually watching around Activity Monitor.  The succinct question I should have asked is:  _*What hardware features _does_ Lightroom use to its advantage?
*_


Gnits said:


> Processor speed seems to be one of the few hardware elements that has an impact


Good to know.  It may be that the best upgrade to a Mac from the standard configuration in order to run Lightroom faster is to the processor speed.



Gnits said:


> I would put the Catalog / Previews and all Lr and Ps cache folders on an SSD.


I currently have all Catalogs (and, by default afaik, all Previews) on SSD's, and expect to continue to do so.
I did not know I could specify where to put the Lightroom caches.  I will look into this.  Thx.



Gnits said:


> I would regard 16Gb as entry level and would go higher.


I agree.  I had intended to get 16 GB _just for Lightroom_, and additionally whatever I thought I needed to run any additional programs at the same time as Lightroom.  I just found out that current MBP's are _limited_ to 16 GB RAM (apparently to keep the machines from going under 10hr use on battery power), so that gives more weight to getting an iMac instead of a MBP.

Thanks for your reply   .


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Nov 24, 2017)

Kirby Krieger said:


> That was my conclusion from casually watching around Activity Monitor.  The succinct question I should have asked is:  _*What hardware features _does_ Lightroom use to its advantage?*_



Here's the theory: Lightroom Performance - What Computer Hardware Do I Need? | The Lightroom Queen  Whether it always works the way you'd hope is a different matter!


----------



## Zenon (Nov 24, 2017)

About a year ago I purchased the cheapest laptop money could by for travel. MacBook Air with SSD and 120 GB. I run LR CC Classic, PS CC, Canon's DPP, Photomatix Pro and it smokes my 5 year old 500 GB, HDD iMac. No comparison.


----------



## Zenon (Nov 24, 2017)

Forgot to say. I had a few 2 TB portables kicking around so I partioned one for the Time Machine and file storage.


----------



## Roelof Moorlag (Nov 24, 2017)

Puget did some HW setups. I found it very interesting: Lightroom Classic CC: is it faster than CC 2015?


----------



## Zenon (Nov 24, 2017)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1ls0SpPbLg


----------



## Kirby Krieger (Nov 24, 2017)

Victoria Bampton said:


> Here's the theory: Lightroom Performance - What Computer Hardware Do I Need? | The Lightroom Queen  Whether it always works the way you'd hope is a different matter!


Deft and superb    — thanks for the link and the article.


----------



## Kirby Krieger (Dec 1, 2017)

Roelof Moorlag said:


> Puget did some HW setups. I found it very interesting: Lightroom Classic CC: is it faster than CC 2015?


Thank you.  I did as well.  Recommended.
My simple take-away:  For running Lightroom Classic* spend money on, in order: SSD system drive, processor speed, processor and cores above quad-core i7, RAM above 16 GB.

*Another travesty of corporate nomenclature.


----------



## Zenon (Dec 1, 2017)

I can't see that I posted this here.  

Optimize Lightroom performance


----------



## Kirby Krieger (Dec 1, 2017)

Kirby Krieger said:


> Operating System:10.11.6
> Exact Lightroom Version (Help menu > System Info): 7.0.1 [ 1142117 ]
> 
> My early-2013 MBP died today (battery/power failure; prob. c. $200 to fix, 7-day turnaround).  I have been ready to replace it for some time.
> ...


For anyone interested (    ):
I ordered a loaded iMac and a matching LG monitor.

The decision was forced by two things:  I need to buy now, and the MBP's available now and for the foreseeable future are all limited to 16 GB RAM.  (Due to Intel postponing delivery of the new MBP chips 18 months, MBP's that can use more than 16 GB RAM won't come out in 2017, and may not come out in 2018!)  I looked into the about-to-be-released iMac Pro, but nixed it as a poor value for Lightroom Classic (it's designed for video and VR, and much of the hardware is — afaict — not used by Lightroom).  I did upgrade my iMac to the fastest-available processor (4.2GHz quad-core 7th-generation Intel Core i7 processor, Turbo Boost up to 4.5GHz), and (since I will run dual 5K monitors _and_ want to be able to run a third monitor concurrently) the 8 GB video card (Radeon Pro 580 with 8GB video memory).  The only upgrades I did not get are the 2 TB SSD system drive ($800 more than the 1 TB SSD) and the 64 GB RAM ($800 more than the 32 GB RAM; I purchased the built-in Apple RAM instead of using OEM RAM because it made the purchase eligible for a business discount which equalled any savings from using OEM RAM, and it is covered under AppleCare {which I also purchased}).  Additionally, I got the keyboard with the number keys ($30 more).

My biggest concern is color-fidelity for printing, and matching color across the two monitors on which I run Lightroom.  I will calibrate the monitors (the iMac and the LG, which uses the exact same screen) as soon as I have everything hooked up and my data transferred.  I intend to not use the default P3 color gamut.

My second-biggest concern is using one of my NEC monitors as a third monitor.  Both of the NEC's I have use DVI or DisplayPort.  I think that I will have to get a Thunderbolt dock to use either of these monitors.

Thanks to each of you for your help, and to lightroomqueen.com/community.


----------



## Zenon (Dec 1, 2017)

I had an NEC bit it was my primary. I used Spectravision to calibrate. I use i1Display Pro for my iMac. Not sure if both being from xRite makes a difference. Not sure if using something like ColourChecker Passport will work on an NEC.


----------



## jimburgess (Dec 2, 2017)

Kirby....which LG model did you purchase? Also let us know how it goes when you are set up and running. Specifically, performance. There's been so many reports of lousy performance on high-end systems so I'm interested in your experience.
Thanks.


----------



## Kirby Krieger (Dec 2, 2017)

jimburgess said:


> Kirby....which LG model did you purchase?



The "LG UltraFine 5K Display HKN62LL/A" sold at the Apple Store.  After years of mental and workflow contortions to compensate for having mis-matched monitors (with extensive help from NEC technical support, I exhausted the means of getting my 2490WUXi2 and my PA271W color-matched) I determined to get identical monitors.  Apple staff have assured me that the LG listed above is the exact same monitor used in the iMac 27" currently being sold.  I hope to be thrilled to calibrate them with an i1DisplayPro _and have them match_.

Fwiw, this was my second choice for monitors.  I would have preferred using two BenQ 31" monitors (BenQ SW320 31.5") side-by-side, running off a MBP — but I ruled out the MBP due to it not being able to hold more than 16 GB RAM (enough, IME, for Lightroom, but not enough for Lightroom and the other programs I regular have loaded).  The iMac has the advantage over the MBP of delivering roughly twice the performance/cost, but with the (to me) less-than-ideal necessity of using the built-in monitor and a duplicate (both made by LG, and clearly spec'd for video).  I stopping holding back on going this route after reading several reports on Luminous Landscape of photographers pleased with using their iMacs for photo-editing including pre-press.



jimburgess said:


> ... Also let us know how it goes when you are set up and running. Specifically, performance. There's been so many reports of lousy performance on high-end systems so I'm interested in your experience.
> Thanks.



I will.  Unfortunately, I have no way to benchmark the performance.  Since I'm coming from a four-year-old Mac laptop (2.7 GHz Intel Core i7) I should perceive a leap in performance.  The single most important factor for me is color-accuracy for printing (hence my concern re: monitors above); the most important performance issues for me are being able to work with enormous catalogs (1M Photos) and, through to Photoshop, huge image files (20,000 x 20,000 px).  I have high hopes for the new set-up.  The computer should be delivered in four days.  At the very least, I will be able to confirm or deny that the performance is lousy  .


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Dec 2, 2017)

My EIZO's DVI, and I just use a Thunderbolt to DVI adaptor. In fact, I think the iMac came with it. I've been well impressed with the screen on the iMac.


----------



## Kirby Krieger (Dec 2, 2017)

Victoria Bampton said:


> My EIZO's DVI, and I just use a Thunderbolt to DVI adaptor. In fact, I think the iMac came with it.



Thanks for the info.  Thunderbolt 3?  No real need to reply — I'll puzzle this out once I have the hardware on-hand.  The suggestion to use a Thunderbolt dock came from my local Apple Store's Apple Business agent when I pointed out that the Apple adapter he recommended does not support video.  (Apple has made this confusing.  9to5Mac has attempted to clarify, and provides this Amazon link to suggested adapters which should meet my need of adapting self-powered monitors from Mini-DisplayPort to Thunderbolt 3.  I'm pretty sure my monitors have DVI-I and DVI-D output ports as well.  I adapted the monitors to Mini-DisplayPort to work with my early-2013 MBP.)



Victoria Bampton said:


> I've been well impressed with the screen on the iMac.


Best news I heard today  .  What color-gamut (space) do you use/recommend for photo-editing for printing?  I've been using ProPhoto (with brightness set to 85 cd/m^2).


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Dec 3, 2017)

Oh very confusing. Mine's just a very straightforward DVI to mini display port, but my iMac's a couple of years old now, so stuff could have changed.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Dec 3, 2017)

Kirby Krieger said:


> Best news I heard today  .  What color-gamut (space) do you use/recommend for photo-editing for printing?  I've been using ProPhoto (with brightness set to 85 cd/m^2).



If there's a color space setting on the monitor, widest it offers. Beyond that, just let the calibration software build a profile. I generally recommend 6500k, 100-120 cm/m2 as a starting point (but may vary depending on brightness of surroundings, so 85cd/m2 might be a good print match if you're working in the dark).


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Dec 3, 2017)

Kirby Krieger said:


> What color-gamut (space) do you use/recommend for photo-editing for printing? I've been using ProPhoto (with brightness set to 85 cd/m^2).


That sounds like maybe you are using ProPhotoRGB as monitor profile (because you mention brightness set to 85 cd/m^2)? If that is indeed the case, *don't*! The color profile that you use for your monitor is not the same as the working space in applications like Photoshop. Calibrate your monitor and create a color profile for it with a calibration package.


----------



## Kirby Krieger (Dec 4, 2017)

JohanElzenga said:


> That sounds like maybe you are using ProPhotoRGB as monitor profile (because you mention brightness set to 85 cd/m^2)?


Thanks for catching that — I clumsily conflated those separate processes.  I should have asked just about the working (and export?) space for Lightroom (and Photoshop).  Since the new iMacs (and the matching monitors sold by Apple) default to P3, I'm interesting in finding out if there is any reason for a photographer whose work is printed to use P3 instead of (what I currently specify) ProPhoto.


----------



## Kirby Krieger (Dec 4, 2017)

Victoria Bampton said:


> may vary depending on brightness of surroundings, so 85cd/m2 might be a good print match if you're working in the dark


  I work almost exclusively in natural light.


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Dec 4, 2017)

Kirby Krieger said:


> Thanks for catching that — I clumsily conflated those separate processes.  I should have asked just about the working (and export?) space for Lightroom (and Photoshop).  Since the new iMacs (and the matching monitors sold by Apple) default to P3, I'm interesting in finding out if there is any reason for a photographer whose work is printed to use P3 instead of (what I currently specify) ProPhoto.


No, ProPhotoRGB is much larger and contains all the colors (and many more) that P3 contains. And if you print from Lightroom that is irrelevant anyway.


----------



## LouieSherwin (Dec 4, 2017)

Kirby,

For a good explanation for why it is  best to always use the largest gamut space when editing even when your output is using a smaller gamut I suggest you check out Andrew Rodney's (DigitalDog.net) tutorial The benefits of wide gamut working spaces on printed output.

To learn more about how to create monitor profiles that will be closely matched to your prints I also suggest Why are my prints too dark.  This covers how to set cd/m2 and other profile settings.

-louie


----------



## Zenon (Dec 4, 2017)

I was in forums 10 years ago I think at Luminous Landscape where Andrew Rodney said to work in aRGB. Those were the days when you had to actually use the Edit - Convert to Profile command. Adobe later added it to the Save for Web export page. I switched to ProPhoto quite a while ago.

LR works in ProPhoto and the edit in PS command is set to ProPhoto.


----------

