Any photographers using Surface Pro?

[sssamjoan]

I would like to buy the nSP soon but I'm very hesitant that I can adapt from being a longtime MacBook user.

Any photographers out there using Surface Pros to organise or edit their work?

 

[Chintan Gohel]

I would like to buy the nSP soon but I'm very hesitant that I can adapt from being a longtime MacBook user.

Any photographers out there using Surface Pros to organise or edit their work?

You can get a review from this link: https://petapixel.com/2017/06/15/review-new-microsoft-surface-pro-photographers/

I'm a photographer myself but I count myself as an amateur - and I've only been using the surface 3 for editing

 

[L0n3N1nja]

I'm not a professional but I do use a Nikon DSLR and edit photos with Adobe Light room.

I edit on my Surface Pro 3 occasionally, but I do most of the work on my desktop. It has better specs, far more storage, multiple USB ports, and connected to 2 much larger screens.

 

[anon(10237065)]

I'm not a professional as well, but I use SP4 for editing my photos for its magnificent screen.

 

[onlysublime]

I'm a photographer. Big into Lightroom, Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, and Premiere Pro.

They're all great on my Surface Pro with i7, 8 GB, 256 GB... Though I wish I had 16 GB for Premiere Pro.

 

[Chintan Gohel]

I'm a photographer. Big into Lightroom, Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, and Premiere Pro.

They're all great on my Surface Pro with i7, 8 GB, 256 GB... Though I wish I had 16 GB for Premiere Pro.

16GB model would cost quite a lot more I imagine

 

[etphoto]

I'm a pro photographer and the Surface Pro will be able to handle photoshop. Depending on what images you are editing and how many, I strongly suggest the 16g i7 version which cost a pretty penny. The only limitations (and if me a big one) is the screen size (I guess you could attach a larger monitor if the mood fits you).

Twitter: @PhotographyET

 

[DCW1000]

16GB model would cost quite a lot more I imagine

$600 US more or about 30%. But the extra money is for more than just the extra RAM. You can't get 16GB without also boosting storage from 256GB to at least 512GB.

If the new Pro is going to be anyone's top computer or even the only one, I'd say everyone should strive for an upper-end model. That's what I did some time back when I finally plunked down the money for a SP3. In the interim I got more powerful machines, so my new Surface Pro, which is basically a replacement for the SP3 that I handed off to a family member, didn't need to be super powerful and I felt comfortable with the i7/8/256 model. Also, it was the only i7 model available in the days immediately after their introduction, so instant gratification played at least a small role in the decision.

 

[onlysublime]

16GB is not critical for Photoshop. 8GB will take you very far for it. 16GB is more for Lightroom (which for some reason is a serious hog) but especially for Premiere Pro (video editing definitely requires horsepower).

 

[Chintan Gohel]

16GB is not critical for Photoshop. 8GB will take you very far for it. 16GB is more for Lightroom (which for some reason is a serious hog) but especially for Premiere Pro (video editing definitely requires horsepower).

I've been editing using my surface 3 which has only 4GB RAM and that is a limitation but that has also forced me to try software that are light and swift - so my choice of raw editing software is RAWtherapee as opposed to lightroom

 

[etphoto]

16GB is not critical for Photoshop. 8GB will take you very far for it. 16GB is more for Lightroom (which for some reason is a serious hog) but especially for Premiere Pro (video editing definitely requires horsepower).

Agree 16g is not "critical" but if your running an action in Photoshop for several hundred images, 16g makes life a little easier.

If you are going to work on one image at a time then yeah, 8g will do.

Twitter: @PhotographyET

 

[anon(10237065)]

In the worst case or if you don't work with huge RAW files and edit heavily a dozens of photos at the same time, even 4GB is ok for Photoshop. In modern days it's all about source data, I mean it always depends on how much performance do you really need and low-spec machine doesn't mean you won't be able to do anything.

 

[GG002]

I'm a semi-pro and freelance every once in a while, but it's not my bread and butter. That said, my SP3 has served me for a number of years as an excellent on-the-go machine for editing. With 256GB, 8GB RAM and its USB-A port(!) for external HDDs, I've had no issues, neither performance- nor storage-wise. In fact, it has a lot better colour accuracy than my gaming laptop's screen, so for more accurate editing, I actually grab my SP3, even at home.

 

[convergent]

16GB is not critical for Photoshop. 8GB will take you very far for it. 16GB is more for Lightroom (which for some reason is a serious hog) but especially for Premiere Pro (video editing definitely requires horsepower).

Not sure what you are talking about with Lightroom needing 16GB of RAM. I've never owned a machine with 16GB of RAM and am a heavy user of Lightroom. I initially used it on a MacBook Air with 4GB or RAM for years, then to a Mac Mini with 4GB, and eventually upgraded to 10GB. Now I'm on a nSP with 8GB of RAM. Its seems to work fine on all those machines editing large libraries xx,xxx of RAW images.

I've not had the nSP long enough to do a full analysis but so far it is working fine with Lightroom.

 

[dirtyvu]

That's not what he means. He didn't say that Lightroom needs 16 gb. But Lightroom is more of a resource hog than photoshop. If you're going to need more ram, it's for Lightroom, not photoshop.

 

[onlysublime]

My Surface Pro is an i7 with 8 GB and 256 GB and I do quite well with Lightroom. But Lightroom does bog down my system and does use a lot of resources. It doesn't absolutely need 16 GB but more RAM could definitely help. When I check the task manager, I see Lightroom often going to 4 GB just by itself. And of course, you never have just Lightroom loaded. You always have Photoshop ready to use right away as they go hand in hand.

 

[convergent]

My Surface Pro is an i7 with 8 GB and 256 GB and I do quite well with Lightroom. But Lightroom does bog down my system and does use a lot of resources. It doesn't absolutely need 16 GB but more RAM could definitely help. When I check the task manager, I see Lightroom often going to 4 GB just by itself. And of course, you never have just Lightroom loaded. You always have Photoshop ready to use right away as they go hand in hand.

Any idea what you are doing when it bogs down? As I said, I've used it on a machine with 4GB of RAM (albeit a Mac) for years and never felt bogged down. And I also don't, "always have Photoshop ready to use"... I can't remember the last time I've needed it since going to the version of Lightroom that I'm on now (V5). Are you running a newer version... maybe that is more of a hog? A typical shoot for me is 600-700 RAW images and I end up processing about 300. It does take a while to ingest them and create full sized previews; and it does take a time to output; but both of those things go on in the background.

 

[onlysublime]

Lightroom 6. Lightroom scales. Put it on a weaker machine and it takes up less resources but performs worse. Put it on a more powerful machine and it takes advantage of the power and consumes resources like a beast.

I always have Photoshop also loaded for tools like stamp, dodge, spot removal, etc. Removing objects. Layering objects.

 

[Chintan Gohel]

Try using rawtherapee for raw editing - I find it very light on resource use but quick

 

[convergent]

Lightroom 6. Lightroom scales. Put it on a weaker machine and it takes up less resources but performs worse. Put it on a more powerful machine and it takes advantage of the power and consumes resources like a beast.

I always have Photoshop also loaded for tools like stamp, dodge, spot removal, etc. Removing objects. Layering objects.

Can you explain this a little more please? Are you saying that Lightroom 6 runs worse on the same machine as Lightroom 5, but with more resources it runs faster? Or are you saying it runs the same as Lighroom 5, but if you through more resources at it then it will run faster?