x200 - photo editing

Just wondering how good the x200's screen is for photo editing. I'm a red carpet photographer and I'm looking for a new laptop to take on the road.

Thanks!

 

It is not usable for photo editing in my opinion. Even calibrated...it looks okay...as far as laptops go and not very good as far as monitors for editing go. Plus the viewing angles are pretty bad vertically. I just use the digital output of the ultrabase. Perhaps the x200s with the LED screen is a bit better. But I havent read any opinions from other photographers (or people who've mentioned calibration).

 

What about the X200t? That is one of the few (only?) notebooks with an IPS display.

 

That's really a shame.

 

What sucks is even though it is IPS, all notebook panels are still 6-bit. If anyone is serious about color proofing or adjusting white balance in photos, they simply need an external monitor to get proper D65 2.2 gamma calibrated output (or D50 1.8 gamma if you have weird non-overdriven tungsten lights.)

Someone who just loads Photoshop to correct red-eye, or relies on auto-levels for their touch up will be absolutely fine on nearly any modern notebook panel though. Even the 13.3" MacBook, which fails black and white levels, still has relatively good color spectrum for outdoor photography work that was already grey-card calibrated before the shoot. So I'd imagine the X200T would perform similar if not better.

 

I wouldn't use this for photo editing. Maybe x200t you're right. Most likely, go with a macbook for photography. easy as pie.

 

I don't understand why people constantly recommend macbooks for photo editing. Am I missing something or are so many people really that duped by Apple's advertising? AFAIK Macbooks have the same crap displays as all other notebooks. Fine for regular web use or watching movies but they don't display colours accurately for professional photo editing.

What about the Lenovo W700? That thing is a beast but apparently is supposed to be good for mobile photo editing.

 

Don't waste your time with this argument. There are the people that know the truth and the sheep that follow the marketing. Just let them be...

 

I own the regular X200 and my personal opinion is that it is completely unusable for photo editing. The X200 has some of the WORST viewing angles I have ever seen on a laptop. I know it sounds harsh but I am stuck with it so I am not happy at all.

 

I have to agree. The screen on my x200 is pretty mediocre at best. Viewing angles suck, I'm constantly adjusting it to see if I can get it better. I'd avoid for any photo editing really.

 

I had an x200 and returned it for an x200t due to the screen quality. If you are looking for a lightweight computer with a quality screen, the x200 Tablet is almost certainly your best bet. The screen is LED backlit, IPS (actually AFFS+), extremely bright, has ridiculously large viewing angles, good color reproduction, a matte coating, and is even useable in direct sunlight.

The x200 tablet screen may only be 6 bit (what is the best way to check?), but it is still fantastic. It will be extremely difficult to find a better screen in ANY notebook computer (w700 might have a slightly wider color range, but it is twice the weight and not IPS). Aside from the screen the x200 and x200 Tablet are very similar (same chipset, keyboard, port selection, SD reader, etc.), the processor is a little slower but this is not noticeable in most applications. You may also find the tablet input effective for photo editing. It effectively gives you a 12" Wacom digitizer with subpixel precision and 256 levels of pressure sensitivy that you can use in Photoshop, GIMP, or your preferred application for touching up photos. You will pay a moderate price premium for the tablet, but if it is for your work, the price difference is easily justified.

 

Ya I think we can all agree about the x200 for photo editing. Jonlumpkin have you calibrated your x200t screen? Thanks for the comparison.

 

I haven't bothered to attach a colorimeter to calibrate it. I ran a software calibration aider and it looked fantastic out of the box. Whites are bright, blacks are true, the image has an appropriate blue level (most LCDs are too blue by default), gradients were smooth, and it was generally good enough that I don't feel the need to calibrate it further.

If you need true color calibration and/or pantone accuracy, I am sure you could tweak the screen and make it look even better with some time/tools. The one caveat I found is that it has some trouble with really bright greens (brighter than the green screens used for film production) and doesn't display a full gradient in this color range. I have read that this is the one failing of AFFS panels, but the display is otherwise spectacular (you probably won't even use this color anyway, it is highly artificial and doesn't blend with anything).

 

I can take Jackboot's comment because it's a matter of personal opinion. I don't agree, but it's absolutely fine. But I won't take insults. A macbook is better for photo editing because of its software and hardware. It is so much easier to switch windows quickly and preview different panels, as well as colour match using a mac from my experience. The previous macbook had a very acceptable display (the one I use), and in all honesty the new one isn't bad. It might be reflective, but it still displays colours better than an x200. Truth. So if the screen is worse and the software is worse, then I wouldn't recommend the OP select an x200. Perfectly reasonable.

Walk around art college campuses. Who uses a macbook? Everybody. Even the multimedia departments in two post-secondary institutions that I visit are filled with macs instead of PCs. There has to be something said about a macbook if everybody who deals with photo editing prefers it. It's not just following a crowd. There are people who know the truth, and there are sheep that go against all popular opinions because they think being different is more intelligent. Just let them be.

 

everyone also prefers ipods, which dont have FM tuners, have no line-in, cant record from FM, cant record from line in. cant play OGG or FLAC or Xvid, and have that wonky spinwheel ui.

and now with the new 'mirrorbooks' they prefer the unit that seeing the person behind you is easier than whats on the screen.

dont trust crowds

 

btw its been a bit, but last time i was in SVA, they had mainly SGI-knockoffs from Intergraph, and Windows machines, running XSI.

they had some Macs, for photoshop making 'textures' to throw on the 3D models. not that they needed macs for photoshop, but im sure the designers wanted them

 

Okay we don't need an apple flame war...

The x200 does not have a great screen. And apple screens are pretty decent. But I don't think we can say photo editing is really applicable on any laptop screen...

 

lol.........

 

Just because all of the arts students are using Macs doesn't necessarily make it a better platform. Windows PCs have all of the software that is necessary for arts and photo editing. Colour management can be done with both XP and Vista. The choice of an OS is personal. Just because arts students uses it doesn't make it better.

 

We were talking about the x200...please do not start this crap.

 

W700 is what you want for photo editing.

 

I agree that the w700 is great for Photo Editing. However, it is hardly portable. At 8 pounds and only about 2 hours of battery life it won't let you do much on the road. An x200 tablet is half the weight, has 4 times the battery life, and a very good screen. You can also dock it in the ultrabase and connect it to a 30" high quality display when you need to do work for which any laptop would be inadequate.