[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/rev...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?

[convergent]

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?

I did a little research on this and found this article - https://photographylife.com/lightroo...nce-comparison

This seems to contradict what you are saying. Except in a few specific actions, Lightroom used similar RAM on V5 and V6... and certainly should run fine with a machine containing 8GB of RAM based on that testing.

[onlysublime]

I run Lightroom on both my Surface Pro and my desktop machine. My desktop is Ryzen 1800X which is a beast with 32 GB of RAM and 8 core-16 thread 4 GHz performance. It was built to edit 4K video and does so very well.

While I use Lightroom on my Surface Pro machine all the time and find it a fine experience, more RAM definitely helps. If I could afford it, I would've gotten the 16 GB model but Microsoft pairs 16 GB with the larger SSD and charges a premium price which I couldn't justify. When I'm running Lightroom, Photoshop and a few tabs in the browser, my RAM is maxed out (as can be seen in the task manager). Lightroom by itself takes up 4 GB of RAM.

Again, I never said in any post that Lightroom was not doable in 8 GB.

[Adam Desrosiers]

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

+1
Rawtherapee is great! I have access to Lightroom with my work's Creative Cloud subscription (and no lack of specs on my computer) but I still stick with Rawtherapee. Excellent software.

[dnmartin98]

I'm a pro-photographer but have always been a Windows user. A rare beast....lol. I'm also former photo faculty at a mid-west university too.

I use a SP4 for my work. Recently I actually migrated off my desktop rig just to my SP4 to see how that went. It's been great. I work almost exclusively in Lightroom, though, and rarely have a need to do work in PS so can't comment on that side of the house. My SP4 is the i7 variety with 16gb of RAM and 512GB drive. I'm using it with the surface dock and drive two external monitors at my desk.

I haven't had any issues, really. Performance is generally great, depending on the size of your RAW files. I mainly shoot in mRAW or sRAW on my 5dM4. Lightroom can handle those fine, though as my catalogue is growing, I suspect that will become more of a challenge. I generally have created new catalogues every three years or so, but I suspect that part of my flow is going to have to change with the Surface to keep my catalogue smaller. I did an architecture shoot this weekend that require full RAW files. Performance in editing was noticeably slower than with mRAW or sRAW files, but it did not impact my work flow much.

The biggest benefit for me is travel and mobility. As airline seats are getting tighter, editing and processing files on planes is becoming much harder. The SP4 solves that problem as it takes up so much less space on the tray table or on my lap. If space is really tight and I can deal with it, then I use it in touch mode with out the type cover. Adobe have done a pretty poor job of touch mode in Lightroom (IMO) and it slows my workflow down significantly. But when it comes to not being able to do anything on a plane or getting some stuff done, it's definitely usable.

Storage space will be the issue for me. I have yet to solve that. My desktop rig had three huge internal drives in it and I back up to Crashplan. I'm cut off from those drives now on my SP4. I rarely need to back to shoots, but I'm very conscious that it's going to be a pain when I need to. I need to solve that part of the puzzle.

The other annoyance is colour management. I use Colormunki Photo for management. Both monitors are profiles and the SP4 screen is profiled too. But switching between profiles is irritating in Windows. When I am docked I have to go into settings, select the profiles for the external monitors, then restart. When I unplug and go sit on the couch, I have to go in to settings, select the profile for the internal panel and then restart once more. It's a nuisance, but not a deal breaker.

Battery life is not an issue for me. It's not great; building previews, etc. takes a lot of juice. But I am never with a charger and I'm fully charged before getting on a plan. If there is no power on the plane, when the battery stops, so do I....lol.

So that's my experience. I hope it helps you. The benefits FAR outweigh the minor inconveniences.

Cheers!

[ananve]

Thanks for all the inputs. There are many people asking on this topic and I'm not photographer. You guys will help me recommend new SP for them. Thanks.