 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / Digital Photo / January 2005Apple iLife supports RAW format of all popular Digital SLRs
While I've never been a Mac person, the fact that Apple includes iLife software, and the new Mac Mini is pretty reasonably priced (about $550 for the base unit with the 80GB drive) it's tempting. http://www.apple.com/ilife/iphoto/import.html I suspect that they'll add other D-SLR's raw format if they other D-SLRs get any real user base. > While I've never been a Mac person, the fact that Apple includes iLife > software, and the new Mac Mini is pretty reasonably priced (about $550 > for the base unit with the 80GB drive) it's tempting. > > http://www.apple.com/ilife/iphoto/import.html As I've said elsewhere here, the support is minimal. For most of it's internal operations it converts the image to JPEG, and seems to do so poorly (every attempt of mine so far results in an image with poor quality and heavy color bleeding, which I suspect is from no or poor antialiasing of the Bayer data in the RAW file). I'll try to grab some screen shots later.  SignatureRichard W Kaszeta rich@kaszeta.org http://www.kaszeta.org/rich > As I've said elsewhere here, the support is minimal. For most of it's > internal operations it converts the image to JPEG, and seems to do so > poorly (every attempt of mine so far results in an image with poor > quality and heavy color bleeding, which I suspect is from no or poor > antialiasing of the Bayer data in the RAW file). I'll try to grab > some screen shots later. Following up: Here's the original CRW file: http://www.giantspliff.org/iphoto5/CRW_3394.CRW If I import this into iPhoto 5, and zoom in all the way, here's what I see. Note the color banding. I see this if I print the image to my R800 as well: http://www.giantspliff.org/iphoto5/3394_crw_iphoto5.png For comparison, here's a screenshot of a tiff made from the same CRW (using the Canon tools), zoomed in near-identically in iPhoto 5: http://www.giantspliff.org/iphoto5/3394_tiff_iphoto5.png SignatureRichard W Kaszeta rich@kaszeta.org http://www.kaszeta.org/rich > > While I've never been a Mac person, the fact that Apple includes iLife > > software, and the new Mac Mini is pretty reasonably priced (about $550 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > antialiasing of the Bayer data in the RAW file). I'll try to grab > some screen shots later. That sounds interesting if you can manage to get a half decent jpeg. That''s all I need as I am starting to use iPhoto just to catalogue my work. I'll carry on using Photoshop to do the main editing / RAW conversion. I really like the smart folder options to build sub-sets of my images. Can you let us know if it is possible to view the image in iPhoto - but load the untouched RAW file into Photoshop for editing? iPhoto 5 hasn't been released here in the UK yet - so I can't experiment! > Can you let us know if it is possible to view the image in iPhoto - but > load the untouched RAW file into Photoshop for editing? iPhoto 5 hasn't > been released here in the UK yet - so I can't experiment! To edit the RAW in Photoshop you export it out of iPhoto 5. Share>export. Then open in Photoshop. SignatureCharles > That sounds interesting if you can manage to get a half decent jpeg. > That''s all I need as I am starting to use iPhoto just to catalogue my > work. I'll carry on using Photoshop to do the main editing / RAW > conversion. I really like the smart folder options to build sub-sets of > my images. I might suggest that you'd be happier with iView Media Pro, which is what I use. > Can you let us know if it is possible to view the image in iPhoto - but > load the untouched RAW file into Photoshop for editing? iPhoto 5 hasn't > been released here in the UK yet - so I can't experiment! Yes, it is. If you option-double-click on an image (and have set Photoshop as your editor) it loads it as a RAW for editing. If you just doubleclick it loads it as a JPEG. If you drag it onto any application, it's a RAW file. Workable, but not ideal. SignatureRichard W Kaszeta rich@kaszeta.org http://www.kaszeta.org/rich > > That sounds interesting if you can manage to get a half decent jpeg. > > That''s all I need as I am starting to use iPhoto just to catalogue my [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I might suggest that you'd be happier with iView Media Pro, which is > what I use. I really should look at that I guess. I'm not sure what the maximum number of images iPhoto can cope with, especially with regard to some form of archiving system. However - I really like the slide show options in iPhoto and the strong links with iDVD! I've heard mixed reviews about the other options, what is it you like about iView Media Pro? > > Can you let us know if it is possible to view the image in iPhoto - but > > load the untouched RAW file into Photoshop for editing? iPhoto 5 hasn't [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Workable, but not ideal. Thanks for that. > I really should look at that I guess. I'm not sure what the maximum > number of images iPhoto can cope with, especially with regard to some [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I've heard mixed reviews about the other options, what is it you like > about iView Media Pro? The best issue is the speed. My currently library in iView Media Pro has well over 30,000 files, and it moves just as fast as it did when I had 1,000 files. That, and it keeps the index separate from the folders, so I can still look up thumbnails, comments, EXIF data, etc for photos that I've long since moved to DVD-R or other backups. It's still not ideal. I like iPhoto for slideshows, actually (but it's pretty easy to get iView to export an album to iPhoto). Quoting from an earlier post (since Google Groups doesn't seem to give useful deep links anymore): I still haven't found a photo library manager that allows me to easily keep track of my digital workflow---for a typical image, I have multiple versions of the same image. Usually a set like 1. The raw .CRW 2. One or more .tiff files from the raw conversion (often I discard these) 3. A .psd file chock full of adjustment layers, etc, representing the results of my digital manipulation, cropping, etc. (iView reads .PSD's, too) 4. Various "output" files such as JPEG, JPEG's of reduced size for web galleries, watermarked photoes, etc. iView Media Pro has worked decently with this (it can read all these formats), in that it filters quite nicely, and I store my files in a nice hierarchical structure with each image having a directory with subdirectories for each of the above images, but it's still a bit of a headached but sometimes it would be nice to have something more elegant. In other words, I find iView Media Pro to be much, much more capable and faster than iPhoto, but still not ideal. SignatureRichard W Kaszeta rich@kaszeta.org http://www.kaszeta.org/rich >>I really should look at that I guess. I'm not sure what the maximum >>number of images iPhoto can cope with, especially with regard to some [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > In other words, I find iView Media Pro to be much, much more capable > and faster than iPhoto, but still not ideal. Thanks for suggesting iView MediaPro (Win & Mac). I am checking out version 2. It states that it has slide show presentation and version control. Let's see if it works for you. > > I really should look at that I guess. I'm not sure what the maximum > > number of images iPhoto can cope with, especially with regard to some [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > In other words, I find iView Media Pro to be much, much more capable > and faster than iPhoto, but still not ideal. I've downloaded the manual, I'll try goingthrough it later. Are you saying you can catalogue and index, etc, files that have been archived off onto other media? That is what I would find useful. > > In other words, I find iView Media Pro to be much, much more capable > > and faster than iPhoto, but still not ideal. > > I've downloaded the manual, I'll try goingthrough it later. Are you > saying you can catalogue and index, etc, files that have been archived > off onto other media? That is what I would find useful. Yes. I use it to index my DVD-R's of photos, and I only need to dig out the DVD-R once I find a need to use the full image. SignatureRichard W Kaszeta rich@kaszeta.org http://www.kaszeta.org/rich Why would anyone buy the overpriced/underpowered Apple mini, add memory, a keyboard, a mouse, a monitor and then purchase Photoshop? What am I missing? OT rant: I have never understood the Apple mystique, having used Apple and Windows machines from the beginnings of both. They both have arbitrary rules and irresolvable limitations. I have an iPod mini which only runs on some of the least intuitive software ever written (not allowing the iPod to show up as a drive in Windows Explorer is just sheer nastiness on the part of Apple programmers). The iPod mini has a control wheel that requires 5-10 tries to get any operation accomplished--changing the volume setting on the iPod mini is less certain than betting on a roulette wheel: there is no consistent response to touch or direction of stroking the wheel. > Why would anyone buy the overpriced/underpowered Apple mini, add memory, a > keyboard, a mouse, a monitor and then purchase Photoshop? > What am I missing? the mini is targetted at someone who already has a keyboard, mouse and monitor from a previous system, and was curious about a mac. or someone who just wants something super tiny. the typical mac mini user is *not* a hardcore photoshop user. > OT rant: > I have never understood the Apple mystique, having used Apple and Windows [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ever written (not allowing the iPod to show up as a drive in Windows > Explorer is just sheer nastiness on the part of Apple programmers). that is because if it showed up as a hard drive in explorer, anyone could easily copy songs on and off the device, making sharing music illegally far too convenient for the music industry. and, since apple has its own online music store and has numerous agreements with record companies and artists, they have to take steps to make it at least somewhat difficult. plus, itunes manages music substantially better than explorer ever could (although it could be a little faster) and automatically syncs with the ipod including playlists and other information that explorer does not handle. finally, you can set the ipod to show up as a hard drive which will show up in explorer; it works like any external hard drive. you just can't add music that way. > The iPod > mini has a control wheel that requires 5-10 tries to get any operation > accomplished--changing the volume setting on the iPod mini is less certain > than betting on a roulette wheel: there is no consistent response to touch > or direction of stroking the wheel. perhaps yours is defective somehow. on all the ipods i've used, it works first try. >>Why would anyone buy the overpriced/underpowered Apple mini, add memory, a >>keyboard, a mouse, a monitor and then purchase Photoshop? [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > perhaps yours is defective somehow. on all the ipods i've used, it > works first try. Better not be Photoshop users because 1GB upgrade is a whoopee $325 and this is after $150 price drop. I have the 2nd Gen. iPod, the wheel is so sensentive that it always does something I don't want accidentally. I got it because it had a deep rebate, $200, making it $75. I happily gave it to kids. > Better not be Photoshop users because 1GB upgrade is a whoopee $325 and > this is after $150 price drop. so buy a 1gig ram chip after market and put it in yourself. it isn't that tough. i just checked dell's site - 1 gig of memory there for one of their desktop systems is $380. > I have the 2nd Gen. iPod, the wheel is so sensentive that it always does > something I don't want accidentally. I got it because it had a deep > rebate, $200, making it $75. I happily gave it to kids. like i said, maybe it is defective. i also have a 2nd gen, and it works great. >>Better not be Photoshop users because 1GB upgrade is a whoopee $325 and >>this is after $150 price drop. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > like i said, maybe it is defective. i also have a 2nd gen, and it works > great. I finally had a chance to test drive iPhoto 5 from iLife 2005. Luckily, I didn't have to pay $80 for the upgrade. Although I have older version of iPhoto on my Powerbook, I never used it or paid attention to it. Considering the new version has so many improvements, I gave it a try. It's a disappointment to me. After playing with it for 10 minutes, I still could not figure out how to title a picture, write a description, or put in keywords. As for simple organization tasks like that, even the old "free", somewhat clumsy, Adobe Album was better. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in news:250120051618099803% nospam@nospam.invalid: > that is because if it showed up as a hard drive in explorer, anyone > could easily copy songs on and off the device, making sharing music > illegally far too convenient for the music industry. and, since apple > has its own online music store and has numerous agreements with record > companies and artists, they have to take steps to make it at least > somewhat difficult. <shrug> Combined with many other useability issues, this is why I won't touch an iPod. Way too many better products on the market. > Why would anyone buy the overpriced/underpowered Apple mini, For one thing, it's a great "appliance" machine for the Mac set. I'm not too jazzed by it, but a lot of the Macheads I know are thrilled to have such a thing themselves. Neither a G5 nor an iMac do well in this role by virtue of simple ergonomics, and the setup on an established network is surprisingly easy. > Why would anyone buy the overpriced/underpowered Apple mini, add memory, a > keyboard, a mouse, a monitor and then purchase Photoshop? > What am I missing? A clue. > OT rant: > I have never understood the Apple mystique, having used Apple and Windows [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > than betting on a roulette wheel: there is no consistent response to touch > or direction of stroking the wheel. I didn't know they sold 'em to retarded people. > Why would anyone buy the overpriced/underpowered Apple mini, add memory, a > keyboard, a mouse, a monitor and then purchase Photoshop? > What am I missing? You wouldn't. It wasn't made for your sort. > OT rant: > I have never understood the Apple mystique, having used Apple and Windows > machines from the beginnings of both. They both have arbitrary rules and > irresolvable limitations. Well, so does life. It's a choice, see, simply a choice. Your choices are right for you. SignatureJohn McWilliams > While I've never been a Mac person, the fact that Apple includes iLife > software, and the new Mac Mini is pretty reasonably priced (about $550 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I suspect that they'll add other D-SLR's raw format if they other > D-SLRs get any real user base. I am going to laugh at you that you can drool over on some little descriptions. It's not a pro tool such as Photoshop's RAW import or CaptureOne. It's mainly added on to decode RAW files so that iPhoto can handle the pictures. It's best be used as organizer, but wait, it's useful only if all your pictures are on the HD. Don't you save your pictures on CD/DVD for safekeeping? Then iPhoto is useless. And each RAW file is big, a 100 RAW files can take over 80MB of space. The whole iLife suite is quite attractive for newbies but soon they would be left to find better alternatives. On 1/25/05 4:41 PM, in article XWzJd.9798$rp1.7509@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net, "chris" <someone@somewhere.net> wrote: >> While I've never been a Mac person, the fact that Apple includes iLife >> software, and the new Mac Mini is pretty reasonably priced (about $550 [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > iLife suite is quite attractive for newbies but soon they would be left > to find better alternatives. What he said.... Yeah, the Apple stuff is great and I have done some nice, even impressive (gasp!) things with it but you do hit a frustration wall with it if you want to do something really professional or "serious." Sort of great "as far as it goes." I wouldn't hesitate to put a student on it or any other newbie since you can learn the ground rules of organizing, composition, thinking out a project and come up with a nice-looking product in the end, but, well....bring on the Adobe and the FinalCut! > I am going to laugh at you that you can drool over on some little > descriptions. It's not a pro tool such as Photoshop's RAW import or > CaptureOne. It's mainly added on to decode RAW files so that iPhoto can > handle the pictures. Sorry, my ignorance. Guess I'll stick with Photoshop on the PC, rather than a Mac Mini. > While I've never been a Mac person, the fact that Apple includes iLife > software, and the new Mac Mini is pretty reasonably priced (about $550 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I suspect that they'll add other D-SLR's raw format if they other > D-SLRs get any real user base. Yes, but only in iPhoto. iPhoto is almost a great organization tool but it has so many limitations that it's useless to most people with large photo collections. All disk based organization is lost when importing. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.