Do you think new MacBook 12'' can use Lightroom and Photoshop cc ?

[watcharak90106559]

Hi,

Do you think the new MacBook 12'' can use Lightroom and Photoshop cc ? I'm about considering to buy this MacBook.

Thank you for your advise.

Best regards,

Watchara

[Akash Sharma]

Hi Watchara

As per System requirements for Photoshop Lightroom for Mac and Windows OS​  and Photoshop system requirements  ​,It should be able to run both Apps absolutely fine.

Let us know if you face any issues while using these Apps.

Regards,

Akash

[Abambo]

Except that the screen will be very compact (which is an advantage and a disadvantage at the same time): yes.

[Alfred Pennyworth]

I have used the 2015 version for location and client/teaching, yes it is small but works fine! I use an external HDD to ease the lack of storage.

As mentioned the screen is small, however you get used to it! You may need to hide the dock when using PS to see the complete window?

[Abambo]

I have a 17" Laptop with a 500Gb SSD and a 1Tb HDD, but still I use an external drive to store my (Lightroom) pictures as this gives me the opportunity to import the Lightroom database (import photos from a different Lightroom catalog)

directly to my desktop work- and back-up station. So I would anyhow recommend an external disk. They are small nowadays and draw their power from the computer and you may even use a SSD. Just be careful to have enough disk space, so that you do not need to change to soon.

[robgendreau · Accepted solution]

It should work. For some processor intensive image adjustments it may lag, but get a cuppa coffee. Ditto on generating say 1:1 images on big RAW files. But consider I have Lr CC open right now on a 2009 Core Duo 13" MBP and it works. Big batch imports and such are gonna be slower than say a top of the line 15" or retina iMac, but so what?

And BTW, the screen RESOLUTION is huge.

Consider that a 17" MBP has a resolution of 1920x1200. That's decidedly old school.

The 12" has a retina screen, at 2304x1440 native resolution at 226 ppi. That's WAY more stuff on the screen. Almost as much as a regular 2.5k iMac. Yes, the photos would be smaller, but you just move the thing closer...which is easier since it's smaller. It's retina at 15" from your eyes, meaning that's as close as you can get before you see pixels. So you'd see a ton more of your image at 1:1 without scrolling around, and yet the Lr icons and menus would be regular Mac size. They'd crowd in a bit more obviously than on a 15" screen, but you'd still see tons.

And BTW you could also run a 4k monitor off it.

[Abambo]

A huge resolution is not a big screen. The resolution only means that the screen is sharp as a razor and fine details can be represented like in print. But the surface is still limited unfortunately!

[robgendreau]

Feierwoon wrote:

A huge resolution is not a big screen. The resolution only means that the screen is sharp as a razor and fine details can be represented like in print. But the surface is still limited unfortunately!

I disagree, but part of the problem is that "resolution" is vague, since it's often used for both describing pixel density, which is a function of both the physical size of the screen AND the number of pixels, and just the number of pixels.

But a 2304x1440 shows  more than a 1920x1200. 2.7MB vs 2.3MB. So you could show more stuff on the smaller 12" screen than you could show on that old 17" screen. Like say a 1900x1200 pixel image; it would fit in full screen on the 17" with no room for tools, but on the 12" you'd have room for the tools and the entire image. Even an iPad Air shows more. Again, some UI elements like icons would take up proportionately more space, since in retina they're bigger (in PPI, in physical dimensions they may be the same size on the screen itself; eg an icon on a 2.5k iMac is say an inch wide across the screen and also an inch on the 5k, but on the 5k it's 4x the number of pixels and hence far more sharp).