Actually, it all depends upon your needs, as
you see them. While it’s true that ‘many, many’ professional photographers use the 15” UMBP, a great many do not. And, of those that <do>, many cannot afford the investment, don’t wish to acknowledge there’s even a possibility that a difference exists (I’ve seen this in studios many times- it’s known to some of the staff and creative heads for whom I’ve consulted as ‘17” envy’.)... Then there’s the flat-out ignorance of the difference, and, lastly, the least-common reason- “... I know the difference, need the difference, but I’m going to settle for ‘adequate’...”. Not common if the Pro’s needs are more than average. The ‘ballpark’ is sometimes not good enough- if it often needs to be a certain part of the outfield, then the 17” UMBP’s screen, the best laptop solution is the next step up from the 15” UMBP. The realistic expectations of a pro photographer, who needs more than the display accuracy of the 15”UMBP, there IS an alternative. And if it raises productivity, and/or the quality of your final product, the 17” display’s broader color gamut is immediately worth it as an investment going forward; after a certain period, the 17” becomes
cheaper, not more expensive to use, by saving editing time on the 23”, for example, when the workflow can be more ‘localized’ to left field, rather than Wrigley Field ;^). I use the 15” UMBPs all the time- but for color-critical work, where time is money and my 30” ACDs are far away for the day, I need MORE than the 17” UMBP can provide, so all the hardware ability I can get is a
requirement, not an alternative. An example: I had to batch-process over 600 NEFs from my D3X several weeks back... I had both a 15” and a 17” at my disposal, the 15” calibrated to its color space limit, a just-barely Adobe RGB 1998, w/ 500GB 7200 rpm drive, 6GB RAM, Capture One Pro, NX2, LR2, Aperture, Bibble, RAW Developer, CS4, etc..., same software on my 17”, but 8GB RAM, a calibrated ProPhoto color space, bigger screen, 2.93 Ghz processor, and no power to either for the afternoon. Both batteries were fully charged, and I had an extra battery for my 15”, also fully charged. I knew I could batch-process all 600 NEFs on the 17”, and still have about 35-45 minutes of surf/e-mail time after batch-processing. I also knew that, if I grabbed the 15” for the job, I’d have to batch-process WAY differently, since I’d have to ‘strip’ each NEF of its ICC tag (for Adobe RGB 1998), because, if I batched into CS4 or Aperture or Capture One Pro, for example, with any of those programs on the 15”’s ‘maxed’ ICC calibrated color space of Adobe RGB 1998, I’d
never regain the lost gamut from any of the 15”’s batched files, because, well.. it’d be gone. With the 17”, calibrated to ProPhoto RGB, I’d be able to bring ALL the gamut from ALL my batched files into CS4 one of my office office Mac Pros (32GB, 8-core, 12 TB RAID, yada yada), and have a leg up on the next day, when some of these batched files would be fed the output ICC tag of ProPhoto RGB to print on an Epson 9800 for proofs that could hang on a gallery wall, which is exactly where my client wanted to be able to hang HER NEF files, after the full process she wanted to implement at her studio, beginning with a Nikon + laptop, next stop, ProPhotoRGB files being fully massaged on a pair of 24” ACDs (LED), then some of these being incorporated into very high-end HD video loops edited in FCP. ProPhoto RGB is the ONLY color space that photo files have a chance in that kind of application, as with so many other pro applications/scenarios; Adobe RGB 1998 may be NTSC-safe, but would be dwarfed by the video gamut, given the type of output monitors being used...
all right, so many, many scenarios are far more mundane, but obviously still ‘professional’ in nature.. I’m illustrating my point with a high-end flashlight so that the spectrum is clear- in so many professional photo, video, layout and graphical, even architectural applications/situations, the 8GB, broadest-gamut capable, big-real-estate, 133 dpi screen rez (AMAZINGLY helpful when editing/viewing fine detail/tonal gradations), and even the 2.93 Ghz chip (I save about 20 minutes a day, by my estimation, with the difference in clock speed
alone, for some of the transcoding and Shake-related projects I do), amount to a significant increase in both utility and ‘easy-breathing’ performance- it’s easier to hit the bulleye when your equipment’s not breathing too hard, straining at its limits!
OTOH, if the above sounds like WAY further out to sea than you normally venture, get the smaller, more maneuverable craft. But if you need a rig that gets you between islands as fast and as accurately as possible, the big dog’s your rig. To strain the metaphor a <little> further, it sounds as if you might need the bigger boat, eventually, and RAW files in CS3 go WAY more accurately and speedily on the 17” UMBP- I’d get the blue-water rig, because you never know when you’ll get a job that changes your needs for good- to the bigger! ;^)
Best,
Charlie
