Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mac Mini 2018 - good for photography?
- Thread starter ozone
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Smart Previews. Smart Previews. Smart Previews. On top of that, picking the proper resolution previews in your settings (or smallest if you don't utilize the full area of your screen in LR), and giving it a healthy cache to work with are all helpful. From my experience, SSD speed has been the biggest difference maker. My 2014 MBA with the PCI-E based SSD (~1200mb/s read/write) was flying through the catalog in the loupe view compared to my 2012 Quad Mini with a SATA SSD because of the increased SSD speed and the smaller res previews.
I havent had a situation where I could really compare different internal SSDs... This is good news that it makes such a big difference. Between the new CPU and faster hard drive I might not dread editing as much. Ordered myself yesterday after RAM DIY install was confirmed.
I can’t speak for Lightroom, but Photoshop is a resource hog. I have 40GB of RAM in my 2017 iMac and it’s not uncommon to find most of that RAM being utilized with a few projects open (42MP RAW files). The Mac Mini might run Photoshop fine with 16GB of RAM for now, but that program can and will use double that amount if it’s available.
Without an eGPU, the new Mac Mini is not a good choice for demanding visual work (photography, graphics, video, etc). The Radeon 580 in the 2017 iMac runs circles around the Mac Mini’s integrated graphics.
Are there many eGPU options available for Mac right now? And by the time you add an external GPU, is it really a value over an iMac with a 5K monitor included?
Some questions to ask yourself. Updated iMacs are probably in the works, too.
Last edited:
You're right when it comes to the performance for demanding visual work without an eGPU, except Lightroom (and to a lesser extent PS) totally sucks at GPU utilization. Capture One does a better job of utilizing the GPU, but even then it's only noticable
And yes, there's plenty of eGPU options, since all you really need is a TB3 PCI-E enclosure and a graphics card, be it a Radeon 580, Vega 64, or if you're ambitious, a GTX1080 or Titan XP (but not in Mojave at the moment). With the eGPU, you get the benefit of keeping up with the times, if you so desire, despite the reported 10-15% performance difference of internal vs eGPU.
Different needs for different folks. I considered an iMac for ages, but being content with my NEC QHD monitor for it's incredible color accuracy led me to stick it out for this Mac Mini.
As a professional photographer (nice portfolio on your web site), are you going with an eGPU immediately and, if so, which one?
Personally, I'm coming at this as someone who is currently using a 27" iMac with a 5K Retina monitor and 32GB of RAM. My main reason for purchasing a Mac mini is that I have seasonal residences in two countries and moving around an iMac is not fun. It's bad enough doing it by car, but flying with it, which would be ideal, would be a huge hassle and very expensive.
I'm going with an i7, 32GB RAM mini. For me, the most demanding tasks will be RAW photo and 4K video editing (Capture One and Final Cut Pro X). I want to find out what the limits are of the integrated graphics card, but that said I'm actually looking forward to using an external, and upgradable, eGPU.
I think it's important to take into account monitors when setting up a system. I have an older Eizo Color Edge at one residence, which I really like and intend to keep. For the other, I'm on the lookout for something less expensive than an Eizo, but that will provide excellent colour accuracy. It doesn't have to power anything, doesn't need speakers, and I don't care what the connection is. It just has to deliver good colour
Last edited:
As a professional photographer (nice portfolio on your web site), are you going with an eGPU immediately and, if so, which one?
Personally, I'm coming at this as someone who is currently using a 27" iMac with a 5K Retina monitor and 32GB of RAM. My main reason for purchasing a Mac mini is that I have seasonal residences in two countries and moving around an iMac is not fun. It's bad enough doing it by car, but flying with it, which would be ideal, would be a huge hassle and very expensive.
I'm going with an i7, 32GB RAM mini. For me, the most demanding tasks will be RAW photo and 4K video editing (Capture One and Final Cut Pro X). I want to find out what the limits are of the integrated graphics card, but that said I'm actually looking forward to using an external, and upgradable, eGPU.
I think it's important to take into account monitors when setting up a system. I have an older Eizo Color Edge at one residence, which I have no intention of replacing. For the other, I'm on the lookout for something less expensive than an Eizo, but that will provide excellent colour accuracy. it doesn't have to power anything, and doesn't need speakers, etc. It just has to deliver good colour
No, I'm not getting an eGPU right away, simply because the cost/benefit ratio in LR and PS is marginal at best. The only time I could use a boost in power in PS is intensive stitching or serious content-aware liquifying or image modification, which I rarely do. In those instances, I can wait an extra minute. If I find one cheap enough, I may just get a Gigabyte RX580 gaming box, since it's good enough for what I'd need it for.
For 4k Video editing, I'd imagine an eGPU might almost be a requirement if you want to scrub your footage at 1/1 or even 1/4, especially if you do a decent amount of color grading. If this were me, I'd be looking at a Vega 64 (or trying to hold out for some Nvidia drivers and get a 1080 Ti) in an enclosure
This is very helpful. I'll be able to directly compare the performance of my iMac (i7 4GHz, 32GB RAM,
AMD Radeon R9 M295X 4096MB) with the mini (i7, 32GB RAM, Intel UHD Graphics 630), so I'll know soon enough what the limits are, and aren't, of the integrated graphics card. I appreciate your eGPU recommendations.
Last edited:
I'm currently shopping for a new Mac to replace aging MacBook Air. Currently thinking iMac 27 or the new Mac Mini. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the new Mini and comparing with the iMac.
Very helpful posts. I'm thinking of a Mac Mini (moving from an ancient PC) for photo editing in LR and future PS use. I'll go i7, 8Gb RAM and upgrade myself (16/32Gb), 256Gb RAM (maybe 512Gb) then maybe add eGPU later. At the moment stuck on monitor choices, 4k fine with me.
I’ve had my 2018 Mini for a week or so now. I immediately had to test the photo editing performance this past weekend.
I currently use ON1 Photo Raw 2019 and DxO Photo Lab as my main editors. I also have Luminar and Aurora HDR for creative edits. I use Graphic Converter for a DAM. Everything seems to work smooth and quick compared to the Late 2012 iMac 27” I was using. I haven’t encountered any lag, no hangs (32gb ram installed), and at 3840x2160 4K res on a 32” monitor the interface is smooth running.
I had my concerns before purchasing this Mini, but they’ve been alleviated. I’m happy with my choice...
I currently use ON1 Photo Raw 2019 and DxO Photo Lab as my main editors. I also have Luminar and Aurora HDR for creative edits. I use Graphic Converter for a DAM. Everything seems to work smooth and quick compared to the Late 2012 iMac 27” I was using. I haven’t encountered any lag, no hangs (32gb ram installed), and at 3840x2160 4K res on a 32” monitor the interface is smooth running.
I had my concerns before purchasing this Mini, but they’ve been alleviated. I’m happy with my choice...
Got confused now. I have a MacBook retina 12” late 2016, intel m7, 8gb of RAM. And that has being my main machine to edit all my photos in Lr and Ps. I work as a wedding photographer. It has accomplished wonders and only a few times it gets slow and do some delays in the editing.
Then I was willing to get a Mac Mini 2018 baseline but based on what you are saying seems to say that it’s basically impossible to edit on it. How could I have being able to fully edit thousands of photos on Ps and Lr with a (theoretically) slower and less powerful machine? (Honest question)
[doublepost=1544468589][/doublepost]
Is it the baseline?
@stillcrazyman is using an i7/32GB/1TB: https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...your-photography.2135641/page-4#post-26890007
It is unclear to me what in my post is causing you a problem. There are two base models, an i3 and an i5. Which one are you thinking of purchasing for wedding photography?
I´m planning on getting an i7/1 TB/64 GB but I´m still hestitating because of the lack of dGPU. eGPU doesn´t seem to be worthwhile for Adobe apps yet. Most people seem to be getting on well with the iGPU. But if you use GPU demanding processes like resizing (not so much and honestly, and I can wait) and smart sharpening (very much and going in and out of preview a lot) in PS? Anyone using smart sharpening on MM 2018 iGPU?
I work professionally in Lightroom, Photoshop, InDesign and somewhat Illustrator. Nikon D850, RAW.
Anywhere in these programs you feel the lack of dGPU?
I work professionally in Lightroom, Photoshop, InDesign and somewhat Illustrator. Nikon D850, RAW.
Anywhere in these programs you feel the lack of dGPU?
I have used a 2018 i5 mini and a 2018 i7 mini, both with 8GB of RAM, to edit RAW photographs, and scans of 4x5 large format photographs, in Photoshop and Lightroom. They both work fine, but I don't do batch processing or make extensive use of Photoshop layers.
I haven't tried an i3. I don't know how it would perform or whether it would perform significantly better than your current computer.
Looking at the base models, it would appear that your other, least expensive, CPU options, at an additional cost of US$300, are an i5 base model with a 256GB flash drive or a custom i7 with a 128GB flash drive.
Last edited:
In Geekbench benchmarks, I don't see a late 2016 MacBook (?). The most powerful one I see from 2016 scores 3335:
3,335
MacBook (Early 2016)
Intel Core m7-6Y75 @ 1.3 GHz (2 cores)
Is this possibly the one you have?
If you're used to that MacBook, I would suspect that any of the current mini's are quite capable - if not much faster, than what you're currently using. If there's one near you, I would take a few files over to an Apple Store and see what you think.
The problem is that Apple stores don't have computers loaded with Photoshop and Lightroom. He's probably best off to purchase a mini that he thinks will perform adequately, test it in his Photoshop/Lightroom workflow and exchange it if it turns out to be insufficiently powerful.
I would personally want at least an i5, preferably with 16GB of RAM, but I can't say that an i3/8GB won't work.
I guess it comes down to what he's trying to accomplish. He seems pretty content with his m7/8GB MacBook, about which he says:
"I work as a wedding photographer. [The MacBook] has accomplished wonders and only a few times it gets slow and do some delays in the editing."
What problem, if any, is he trying to fix by purchasing a mini?
Last edited:
Hi, you already explained that in post #42. There are comments in posts 44-46.
So a tiny bit off topic, but related to the question about the importance of the GPU and the role of an eGPU. I’ve been doing photography (mostly using Canon’s DPP rather than LR though) on a 2017 MacBook Pro (i7, 16GB) and last week bought the LG 5K monitor to use with it. It was immediately obvious to me that the GPU in the MacBook Pro isn’t up to the task of driving the monitor fluidly, and it’s most obvious when scrolling through folders of photos in DPP. And even just general usage of DPP is slower, presumably because the MacBook Pro is simply having to draw more pixels.
So this suggests to me that if you want to use a high-resolution external monitor (like the 5K) for photo editing etc that the GPU *is* important, and an eGPU might make a difference. That said, I don’t know how the GPU in the 2018 Mac mini compares to the 2017 MacBook Pro - it may be that the mini can drive this display just fine.
So this suggests to me that if you want to use a high-resolution external monitor (like the 5K) for photo editing etc that the GPU *is* important, and an eGPU might make a difference. That said, I don’t know how the GPU in the 2018 Mac mini compares to the 2017 MacBook Pro - it may be that the mini can drive this display just fine.