Laptop with 4k for photo editing - worth it or unnecessary resolution?

[GoHokiesGo]

TL;DR = I use my laptop for photo editing and am ready for a new one. Is it worth the upgrade price for a 4k screen on a laptop, or is it a waste for small screen even if just the laptop alone is your primary editing option?

Full info=
I posted this on one of my photo forums, but this site has a pretty active photographers group too.

I'm in the market for a new laptop. I have an aging 1st generation Lenovo Yoga that has served me well over the past 5 years, but has started to struggle mightily with Lightroom the past 1-2 months. I want a new laptop for the next few years that is capable of strong Lightroom performance, but I am the type of person that sits on the couch while editing; photography is only a hobby for me (albeit a big hobby), so I do not have a dedicated desktop in my home for photography work. I travel quite a bit and have enjoyed the thin, lightweight form factor of the Yoga, so I'm likely looking for a similar type of Ultrabook again. I do very small amounts of video editing with GoPro clips, but far and away the bulk of my work is in photography. I am sticking with a Windows machine (personal preference), so please no suggestions for anything Apple.

One question from any similar photographers - is a 4K screen on a laptop worth the upgrade price, or is it wasted resolution for a small laptop screen? I do not think I'll notice the difference between 1080 and 4k on a 15-inch screen for regular tasks, but do you gain much in lightroom with the added resolution if I'm not using a large monitor to take advantage of it?

I'm looking at the Lenovo Flex 5 as the likely replacement candidate - similar form factor, decent specs with an i7 processor, price point is about right for what I'd like to spend (around $1k or so) - and Costco actually has two solid models (I have bought direct from Lenovo for my last 3-4 laptops for the family, and I typically prefer Lenovo products if all other things are equal)

• Option 1 @ $1150: i7-7500U, 16 GB RAM, Nvidia 940MX 2GB graphics, 15" 4k screen, 512 GB SSD + 1TB hard drive
• Option 2 @ $ 900: i7-7500U, 16 GB RAM, Nvidia 940MX 2GB graphics, 15" FHD/1080P screen, 512 GB SSD
• Option 3 - buy option 2 to save the cash, then use the extra money for a 4k monitor down the road, and force myself to start using the office when I need that resolution.

The biggest difference for me is the additional $250 for the 4k screen resolution, as I can use my external drives & NAS for that extra hard-drive space. Has anyone recently made the upgrade to a 4K laptop, and do you feel it's worth the price jump?

Thanks for the input!

[R3dliner]

only 4k laptop worth getting lol. that 940 gpu will be your downfall with 4k.
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...g&gclsrc=aw.ds

[GuidoK]

I think if you're into photo editing, its much more important what type of screen you get (so what kind of panel tech) instead of the resolution. Especially on a 15" screen.
So focus on panel tech (you know, TN, MVA (with its countless subtypes), PVA (again with all kinds of subtypes) and all the IPS variants.....)
That will give far more insight in colour representation, viewing angle etc. (and also decide how much glare the screen you want to have)
I dont know if OLED has already reached 15" and 17" laptops.

Panel resolution is probably the least important factor unless you get something really low on a large screen.

[GoHokiesGo]

Originally Posted by R3dliner

only 4k laptop worth getting lol. that 940 gpu will be your downfall with 4k.
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...g&gclsrc=aw.ds

Thanks for the link to a $3k laptop, haha! Outside of photo editing I mainly just surf the web or stream movies on my computer, so it doesn't need to be capable of intense gaming or anything like that. Good to know that the 940 is going to struggle with 4k content, which will probably come into play more over the next few years.

Originally Posted by GuidoK

I think if you're into photo editing, its much more important what type of screen you get (so what kind of panel tech) instead of the resolution. Especially on a 15" screen.
So focus on panel tech (you know, TN, MVA (with its countless subtypes), PVA (again with all kinds of subtypes) and all the IPS variants.....)
That will give far more insight in colour representation, viewing angle etc. (and also decide how much glare the screen may have)
I dont know if OLED has already reached 15" and 17" laptops.

Panel resolution is probably the least important factor unless you get something really low on a large screen.

That's a good point to consider too- I've liked the IPS display on my current laptop, and while not calibrated, it's been close enough color & gamut for my purposes with the prints I've hung in my house. We're starting to print more and more now that we've settled down in a house, and we're finding permanent spots for our favorite shots.

I had previously convinced myself that I needed 4k as one of the primary features in the new laptop, but then I started to think it might not be so important when using a 14-16" screen to have that much resolution. I might be stepping back and starting to think Option 3 is better- save the money a bit on the laptop screen, and invest in a proper monitor to edit when I actually have a group to cull through.

[metrickid]

I have a 5k screen and the biggest advantage for me when editing is that I can look at the photos at 1:1 and still see the whole photo (almost). So it makes it a lot easier. So a 4K screen on a laptop will help you with this too.

But as you said yourself. The best option is to have an external screen where you do the most edits and then have a portable yet powerful enough laptop for on the road edits.

[P1]

Before you upgrade to a new laptop, have you considered at least just wiping your laptop, throwing in an SSD and seeing if that improves performance? Then look at buying a nice external 4K or 5K monitor?

[Banana Hammock]

One thing people don't tell you when upgrading your screen resolution is the size of the user interface and scaling. Windows notoriously sucks at scaling the UI and Photoshops scaling leaves much to be desired.

[benacto]

Besides nerding out on the tech specs of things, and the fact that all computers are going higher and higher res... like cameras. I think you'd have to ask what you're using your laptop for. Do you work and make money with it as your job? Do you only work with a laptop or do you also work on a desktop? And if your job involves graphic display quality / clarity, do you have to show your clients?

[GoHokiesGo]

I think I've talked myself out of 4K on the laptop screen - I don't think I'd really be able to take advantage of it with the small screen size. And as many of you have mentioned- I could put the difference towards a nice 4k or 5k monitor, color calibrate it, and then have a nice editing setup.

Originally Posted by P1et

Before you upgrade to a new laptop, have you considered at least just wiping your laptop, throwing in an SSD and seeing if that improves performance? Then look at buying a nice external 4K or 5K monitor?

I started there as a first step, but I don't think it'd really be cost effective. I already have an SSD, so it'd be another $100+ to add more SSD storage. Then this machine is limited to 8GB of RAM, so it would help a bit for another $100ish. Basically, I figured that $200 into a 5-yr old machine would be a very temporary band-aid, and just springing for a new laptop was a better investment.

[atwoody]

These laptops are designed for photo editing https://pc4u.org/best-laptop-for-vid...photo-editing/

[Anwarhossain123]

Originally Posted by metrickid

I have a 5k screen and the biggest advantage for me when editing is that I can look at the photos at 1:1 and still see the whole photo (almost). So it makes it a lot easier. So a 4K screen on a laptop will help you with this too.

But as you said yourself. The best option is to have an external screen where you do the most edits and then have a portable yet powerful enough laptop for on the road edits.

Thank you metrickid for your reply. Please suggest me a laptop under $150.

[Mutani]

Can I ask a question here, I saw the topic here similar to me, I really can't find other suitable categories.
Is such that, which monitor is best for photo and video editing? My Dell laptop screen seems to be ok, but when submitted to SS, sometimes they rejected as it is overexposed. I need 27" Desktop monitor, i saw lots online, but want to learn from you, experience people... I have both laptop and Desktop... It should be HDMI support....
Alternatively, you can refer to the monitor described in this article and tell me which one is the best. I am really confused. https://pc4u.org/best-monitor-for-ph...d-photography/
Thanks.

[chris719]

Originally Posted by Mutani

Can I ask a question here, I saw the topic here similar to me, I really can't find other suitable categories.
Is such that, which monitor is best for photo and video editing? My Dell laptop screen seems to be ok, but when submitted to SS, sometimes they rejected as it is overexposed. I need 27" Desktop monitor, i saw lots online, but want to learn from you, experience people... I have both laptop and Desktop... It should be HDMI support....Thanks.

For color critical work you should get an Eizo or NEC professional display.

[SD ///M4]

https://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-4k-monitors/

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by Mutani

Can I ask a question here, I saw the topic here similar to me, I really can't find other suitable categories.
Is such that, which monitor is best for photo and video editing? My Dell laptop screen seems to be ok, but when submitted to SS, sometimes they rejected as it is overexposed. I need 27" Desktop monitor, i saw lots online, but want to learn from you, experience people... I have both laptop and Desktop... It should be HDMI support....Thanks.

No matter what screen you used, you need to calibrate it. Some people think this is about color balance, but brightness is primary in getting an image looking "right." Have friends that are constantly posting shots that are too dark. This usually happens because they took the screen out of the box and left it set at the default "showroom" setting, which is too bright. When you process and image on a screen that brighter than calibration standard, it will look too dark on a calibrated screen. The contrary is true for images processed on a screen that's darker than standard calibration.

Color is important, but the most common error that I notice, when viewing on my calibrated screens, is that EV is out of wack, usually setting eV too low, because the screen is too dark.

[PaulPete]

The additional 4k display is the best. And calibration is totally needed, others are right.

[N420i]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

I think if you're into photo editing, its much more important what type of screen you get (so what kind of panel tech) instead of the resolution. Especially on a 15" screen.
So focus on panel tech (you know, TN, MVA (with its countless subtypes), PVA (again with all kinds of subtypes) and all the IPS variants.....)
That will give far more insight in colour representation, viewing angle etc. (and also decide how much glare the screen you want to have)
I dont know if OLED has already reached 15" and 17" laptops.

Panel resolution is probably the least important factor unless you get something really low on a large screen.

This, for sure.

4k is certainly nice, and the difference in a 15" screen up close can be noticed if you reaaaaally squint, but what's gonna make or break your photo editing is the color accuracy of the display.

I'd go for option 3... And get a nice external monitor. I currently have a decent laptop with a screen I really like and a really, REALLY crappy desktop monitor I'm using right now and the difference kills me even just when web browsing. There's a nice monitor coming to this well-behaved boy's house for xmas...

[Duckysaurus]

Color rendition matters more than it being 4K.

Assuming you're using LR and then PS afterwards, go with one that has a decent sized monitor (at least 15 inches, up to 17 inches if you can manage) and runs off a SSD.

If you edit more at home, the money is better spent on a desktop.

There's really no advantage to having a 4k monitor unless you're shooting with at least a 36-48+MP camera with super-sharp lenses to go with the set-up.

[N420i]

Originally Posted by Duckysaurus

Color rendition matters more than it being 4K.

Assuming you're using LR and then PS afterwards, go with one that has a decent sized monitor (at least 15 inches, up to 17 inches if you can manage) and runs off a SSD.

If you edit more at home, the money is better spent on a desktop.

There's really no advantage to having a 4k monitor unless you're shooting with at least a 36-48+MP camera with super-sharp lenses to go with the set-up.

4k is in fact a only hair over 8 megapixels... So you could be shooting with your phone and still not be able to fit the images on the screen at 100% magnification...

4k is worth it in screens over 15-17 inches where you can start seeing individual pixels and jagged lines when looking at the screen up close.

But yeah I agree he should probably be looking at a desktop for photo editing, or at the VERY least a 17" laptop, if only because with the editing software open more than 50% of the available screen real estate is gonna be taken up by menus, toolbars, sidebars, histograms... And then you're looking at a VERY small picture. I mean in a pinch I will edit on my 13" laptop, which has a great 1080p screen with excellent color accuracy, but it's a nightmare because the picture itself is so small...

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by N420i

...

But yeah I agree he should probably be looking at a desktop for photo editing, or at the VERY least a 17" laptop, if only because with the editing software open more than 50% of the available screen real estate is gonna be taken up by menus, toolbars, sidebars, histograms... And then you're looking at a VERY small picture. I mean in a pinch I will edit on my 13" laptop, which has a great 1080p screen with excellent color accuracy, but it's a nightmare because the picture itself is so small...

If you carry your laptop all the time, a 17" becomes a burden. I know two or three guys that went that route and all regretted. A nice, accurate 27" desktop is a much better way to go.

About 4k, for judging eye, feather and fur detail, nothing beats it. I look at my images at 100 and 200% when trying to select the best of the best. If there's a problem with an image, you'll see it with 4k. Still, I agree, 4k is much less important than color rendition and proper calibration for color, gamut and EV.

[Duckysaurus]

For editing, I try to keep my photos in 2k resolution. It speeds up everything, especially when I shoot anywhere from 200,000-300,000 photos a year (I'm an event/corporate/wedding photographer in NYC.)

Higher resolution means it slows down your processor and also your graphics card. More heat, more power used, slower rendering. It's not preferred to edit in 4k unless you need to (billboard posters or two-sheet spreads in a quality magazine) + you have the eye to recognize the resolution. I run a 1080Ti card on an Intel 4.0Ghz Octa-core with SSDs and 64GB DDR4 RAM, and rendering Nikon D850 files takes a few seconds in LR at 2k resolution.

I'd take a 2k monitor with 99%+ Adobe RGB + SpyderPro over a 4k with 60% Adobe RGB. (Even though pretty much most people + websites only use sRGB.)

[Mach550]

I have a dell XPS 13" with a 3200x1800 screen. More than enough for photo editing on the go. When I'm at home I have a 27" 4k on my office PC. I wouldn't bother with those gaming laptops as they are way too big to me to be mobile and their batteries don't last long.