Digital Photography on Macs
Editor’s Note: I’m planning on this topic spanning a series of 3, 4, maybe even 5 posts here on The Apple Blog. I hope that all you fine readers out there will add your 2 copper pieces to the mix here, as I would love to walk away with some better practices when all is said and done.
Among the regular things I use my Powerbook for, my photography hobby is near the top. I love taking photographs and snap away any chance I find. I shoot in RAW and so have somewhat of a processing workflow that I go through each time I download my latest round of pictures.
I suppose I’ll begin by laying-out my tools. I shoot with a Canon Digital Rebel XT dSLR. I’m not particular to the Canon RAW editing software, but have taken to Adobe’s Camera Raw for Photoshop CS2. I’m still on the iPhoto train, as it stores all my photographs. 99% of the time I upload to flickr and my private Gallery page from iPhoto, rather than from standalone apps. (iPhoto’s plugins for such things are probably what keeps me on board with it.)
My usual dis-jointed process is to go into Camera Raw and do my edits, Save those photos that I want to keep, out to a temp folder, and then run a Finder Plugin that I made from Automator to automatically upload those picture files to iPhoto. Then weekly I usually back up my RAW files to external drive to clear up some space on my hard drive.
As you can see, the process isn’t super streamlined. That’s kind of an issue for me – I like things automatic and simple. I like apps that take a lot of the leg work out of it for me. I’ve got some Automator ideas that I’ve been playing with, but I want to save those thoughts for a subsequent write-up.
So to start things off, I want to ask what your Digital Photography workflow looks like. What apps are you using? What process do you follow, getting the images from your camera to their final, ‘display’ place? What kind of archiving/backup methods do you use – RAW/photo files specifically here.
I’m certain you’ve got some slick setups, and I hope to poach some of those great ideas off ya, so let ‘er rip!
Chase Browder on December 22nd, 2005 at 1:52 am
1. Shoot RAW images with Nikon D2X with GPS connected to camera to embed GPS metadata into each image.
2. Download files to Powerbook with firewire card reader
3. Organize and Rename RAW files with Adobe Bridge and place in working folder
4. Convert all RAW files To DNG with original raw files embedded in DNG using Adobe DNG converter
5(?). possibly, i haven’t decided yet, recover edges using DNG Recover Edges Utility
6. Apply Custom Metadata templates using Bridge
7. Star and label DNGs using Bridge
8. Edit final picks using Adobe Camera Raw, I apply setting but I don’t create a new file yet
9. Archive all DNGs to RAID
note: Up until this point i haven’t had to open photoshop once because i process all my files with camera raw built into bridge instead of in photoshop.
10. When I am ready to print the photos I save the final DNG photos as tiffs
then I selectively sharpen the files using unsharp mask and a custom made edges mask and save files as a PSD to differentiate between the files that have been sharpened and haven’t been sharpened
11. Output on an Epson 7800 using Bill Atkinson’s Custom Profiles for the 7800/9800
12. Archive sharpened files to RAID
13. use custom actions to make thumbnails and correctly sized files for my website.
14. archive web files to RAID
15. Use iView Media Pro 3 to create a catalog of my archive so i can always view my archive from my powerbook even when i am not connected to my RAID
well i think i covered everything in my workflow.
Chase
Tony on December 22nd, 2005 at 5:59 am
How do you find the Powerbook performance-wise with such a workflow? How is iView Media Pro, for example?
I have put off setting up a decent workflow until now as I’m working mainly on a Powerbook which is sometimes a bit less than adequate performance-wise for this type of use. I’m hoping to get a G5 (or maybe Intel based) machine in the New Year before I dive in.
Twist on December 22nd, 2005 at 6:42 am
I also shoot with a Rebel XT. I download my images from a USB2 Card Reader onto my iBook and have a Automator Workflow setup that uses iView MediaPro to rename the files, attach better Finder icons to them, and embed the media thumbnails. From there I have to organize them myself into a folder that iView watches for changes. From there I decide which images I want to print or post to my gallery (I use a homemade system that uses MovableType to do most of the work). I haven’t been shooting RAW long but I am thinking about adding a step to my workflow to convert the Canon RAW files into DNG files since they are most likely more future safe.
blalor on December 22nd, 2005 at 7:34 am
I’m looking to buy a Rebel XT soonish; I want to get back into photography. I’ve been reading a lot of reviews of the XT lately. It’s probably been 12 years or so since I last did any kind of photography with a SLR, so I’m re-learning a lot of stuff. The capabilities of the DSLR platform (and SLRs in general) are exciting, but I’m put off by all the post-processing I hear about. I’m extremely ham-fisted with Photoshop, and really hope to confine my work to the *camera*, focussing on shooting pictures, not massaging them on the computer afterwards.
What are the disadvantages of just using JPEGs? What about using the XT’s RAW+JPEG feature? I have been thinking I’ll make use of that whenever possible, so that I don’t have to deal with RAW files unless I’ve got a great shot where JPEG isn’t good enough.
I currently have a Canon S200. Automator’s caused me more problems than it’s solved, but I do have a workflow that gets kicked off by Image Capture when I insert a card that moves the files to a folder and then imports them into iPhoto once they’re safely on the hard drive. I’ve played around some with GPS Photo Linker and my GPS, but that application isn’t AppleScriptable, so I’m less inclined to use it as part of my normal “workflow” (if you can call it that). iPhoto’s pretty stubborn about noticing new metadata once an image’s been imported, so you pretty much have to do that stuff before importing.
I use Connected Flow’s Flickr Exporter to upload to Flickr, and I used to use the Gallery exporter for my local gallery install, but I’ve gotten away from that now that I’ve gone pro with Flickr.
Nick Santilli on December 22nd, 2005 at 9:38 am
CHASE -
Wow, you didn’t leave a thing out! Thanks for the details. I’ve considered getting into the DNG format, but haven’t made the jump just yet.
TONY -
I’ve only used a Powerbook (previously a G4 1ghz, now a 1.5ghz), so I’m just ignorant to the wonderful world I’m missing out on… It’s fine – though iPhoto can be somewhat sluggish when I get up around 4000 photos. I don’t use iView Media so can’t answer to that exactly. But for my RAW editing and everything else, it does well enough.
BLALOR -
RAW processing is just the same as film processing – but you’ve got more power with the former. So you spend time instead of money processing your shots. Everything’s a trade off.
With RAW, you get around a 10mb file, as opposed to a 2 or 3mb file in JPG format. Why? It collects a lot more data during the exposure, so in processing, you can really bring out the colors, lighten an underexposed shot, etc, etc, etc. When I first tried RAW, it took some getting used to, and I ’saved’ some otherwise poorly shot photographs. Now I’ve got a feel for my manual settings, and don’t have ’save’ as many as I do, tweak for best results.
The RAW images will only result from the manual settings on the XT (I can’t speak for other cameras), when you set to a RAW format. But your presets will only shoot in JPG. So try both. I think once you see the power that RAW holds, you’ll be hooked.
Boston's Hidden Restaurants on December 22nd, 2005 at 10:08 am
I keep it pretty simple. I take photos with my Kodak EasyShare, transfer them via a USB card reader, then place them in folders by the month after naming the files. I use Photoshop to do any color corrections or any other minor alterations. I also have a PC, and pretty much do the same process with that.
Boston's Hidden Restaurants on December 22nd, 2005 at 10:08 am
I keep it pretty simple. I take photos with my Kodak EasyShare, transfer them via a USB card reader, then place them in folders by the month after naming the files. I use Photoshop to do any color corrections or any other minor alterations. I also have a PC, and pretty much do the same process with that.
Andew on December 22nd, 2005 at 11:04 am
1. I shoot RAW with a Nikon D50, depends on which lens i am using also depends on the workflow. but i will tell you what is a norm for me.
2. I download them using a card reader to either my 17″Powerbook or my 15″ Powerbook in to a folder on my desktop.
3. then i upload them to Apple’s Aperture program. i do all of my actually editing in there, export them and then save them.
4. (if needed) i will open them up in Adobe and do what i need to in there to fine tune anything i need. (i use an automator action to do this.)
5. then its saving as jpegs to another folder and then uploaded to iPhoto. (another automator action)
6. then depending on what i am doing with them, i will resize the image and save for web in Adobe Photoshop. (also a automator workflow)
7. then i will upload to either flikr and/or photobucket for web displaying on my site.
8.if i am selling them, i will actually print the actual size of image or close to the original RAW image.
no thats not detailed but it is a quick summary of what i do.
Tony on December 22nd, 2005 at 11:26 am
Andrew: Can I ask why you’re using both Aperture and iPhoto, out of interest?
Andew on December 22nd, 2005 at 12:09 pm
Aperture works with Adobe Photoshop 1 in 1. So in uploading i use Aperture to edit my RAW files and then export them to Photoshop furthering my editing doing things i can’t do in Aperture. But Aperture does more than iPhoto ever could and I only use iPhoto to store and hold pictures on my computer nothing more. if you want to know more and need anything just let me know. you can visit me here: My Siter
Jesse J. Anderson on December 22nd, 2005 at 12:22 pm
As someone who’s wanted to get into a little bit more professional photography, at least profesisonal looking I’ve been thinking of getting a new camera for awhile but I don’t really know jack about them. I know I want a digital camera and I know that I want it to be of the more “prosumer” type with the exchangeable lenses, etc… but I have NO IDEA what is a good starter/nice/cheap/amazing camera would be.
Any thoughts to help a newbie? (I currently use an ultra-cheap Samsung variety, you know – the kind you find at WalMart… what can I say, christmas gift last year).
Andew on December 22nd, 2005 at 12:40 pm
Jesse I would suggest for just starting out, i would consider getting a Nikon D50 or D70. I am a Nikon man, so thats me being biased.
Chase Browder on December 22nd, 2005 at 1:26 pm
Tony-
I am using a new high resolution 1.67 GHZ powerbook with 2 Gigs of Ram, until about a month and a half ago i was using a 800mhz titanium powerbook with 1 gig of ram. i haven’t had any problem working with my raw files on my powerbook as i try to hold of as long as possible to actually making and opening a huge tiff file in photoshop and just use Camera Raw hosted by bridge. And compared to the jump from my old powerbook i am not complaining very much.
as far as iView media pro i like the newest version of it. I only really have one problem with it and that is a problem with writing metadata to the actual DNG or RAW file. all the XMP metadata is just xml and so you can open up an XMP file or a DNG in a text-editor and edit the metadata by hand(which is mainly useful when edit metadata templates) but when i sync metadata i have added in iView it makes the metadata unreadable in a text-editor. i know it probably doesn’t matter as it is still able to be read by photoshop, bridge and iviewmedia but i worries me in the long term not to conform to the standards that are set(and that iview says it follows.)
so you may not care about all i just said but for me as a photographer who shoots alot and needs to be able to view all of his images whether or not i am connected to my RAID i think it is necessary to using a browsing software to work with files and a cataloging software to make ..well a catalog. I used to use Extensis portfolio before CS2 came out but it is not really made for a single user but is geared for server and multiple user setups, as is most of the other digital asset management software.
Chase
Chase Browder on December 22nd, 2005 at 1:30 pm
Nick
make the jump to DNG if you are serious about your images it’s the only option right now.
Chase
Nick Santilli on December 22nd, 2005 at 1:46 pm
JESSE -
As Andrew noted, The Nikon D50 and D70 are good choices, as are Canon’s Digital Rebel line – the 300 and the 350D (also called the XT).
My father in law got the D70 right before I planned to. I was set on it, but after playing with it (having no previous canon/nikon/photography biases what so ever) was not so sure. Then the Rebel XT came into the world, and I checked it out, and loved it. Everyone will have their own preferences, so go to a local camera store and hold them, play, and see what ultimately feels right for you.
CHASE -
Between your comments, and the bit I’m starting to read in “Real World Camera Raw with Photoshop CS2″ I think my mind is made up. Thanks!
Chase Browder on December 22nd, 2005 at 2:10 pm
Real World Camera Raw with Photoshop CS2 is the bible on the subject of raw conversion
Jon Glass on December 22nd, 2005 at 3:21 pm
I also shoot Canon, but I have a lowly D30, which is a 3mp camera, and its RAW files are much smaller at a mere 3mb each. When you mention that you don’t like Canon’s software, which software is it you don’t like? Like you, I have not liked, nor used Canon’s own software, and have been using GraphicConverter for my work, in conjunction with RawView. Just this past week, however, I discovered Canon’s “new” Digital Photo Professional. Have you tried it yet? It has some wonderful editing features that make their older software pale in comparison, and mostly eliminate Photoshop for me, and it has fit fine into my workflow, as far as organizing my photos. I’ve only been using it for a week or so, but am very happy with it. Here’s what I do.
First of all, I’m still using a G3 Powerbook (Pismo) upgraded to a 550mhz G4.
My RAW workflow.
First of all, I organize my photos by date. I use Canon’s own CameraWindow software to download. It’s pretty flexible, and automatically creates new folders for dates with images, or will add photos to folders that already exist. I also name my photo files with the date as well, but more on that later.
1. Open CameraWindow, and download the images into this year’s folder, inside my “Pictures” folder. (in this case, named “2005 Folder”). I download straight from my camera, as it is simpler, and the software automatically updates the date and time on my camera to boot.
2. As it downloads, it creates new folders, as needed, named for the date, in this format, “2005_12_22″. Inside are the raw files shot on that date, with their camera names.
3. Once finished, Canon’s own ImageBrowser utility launches, so I usually rename my files with it, again, using the date, in this format: “20051222_001.CRW”
4. Once renamed, I quit the ImageBrowser utility, and launch DPP. (Although, I could use DPP to rename my files–it’s just a tad bit less flexible than ImageBrowser)
Let me add here that, since I use a date-based filing system, with nested folders, I have a built-in catalog that is easily backed up to my 500gb external, as well as a smaller external the size of my internal drive. Even better, I can use the Finder’s own column view to browse my catalog. I find it often faster and easier to just use this than it is to launch another app to do my searching. If I were using Tiger, I could even search metadata, but I’m fine with what I have. In fact, I have searched metadata in Panther, but it’s much slower, and I have to remember to index my folders first. :-)
5. In DPP I sort and rank my photos. Obviously, not every photo is a “keeper” or worthy of extra effort, and I like to immediately pick those that I think are worth it, by giving them a ranking of 1-3. #1 rank is for perfect photos, #2, for those needing some work, but still quite good, and #3 for hopefuls that may or may not be worthy, but I will check out later. The rest just take up space on my hard drive. It is usually now, however, that I delete images definitely not worth keeping–really poorly exposed, or out of focus, or absolutely dumb (accidental shutter triggers, or other oopses)
6. Sorting by check mark,I look at the “1″ check marks in the editing window. Since Canon RAW files are very “soft” I apply sharpening in the RAW side of DPP, and save the “recipe” with all the files. Canon’s software really helps speed this up, by allowing you to copy recipes to the clipboard, and paste to all. Sometimes, I need to make white balance, exposure, or other adjustments, but typically, my #1s don’t need much.
7. I open my #2 series, and work on those. Usually I save the changes.
8. I open the #3 photos, but usually only to play with. I may keep a couple of them, but not always. I don’t like, however, to demote them.
9. Back in the browser, depending on what I want to do with the photos, I can print straight from there, or can do batch processing of photos– I can export to jpeg or tiff, for importing into iPhoto, or use for the web, or copy to a card for printing, or archive to a CD. It all depends, but I have that flexibility at this point. It all depends on the final destination of the file.
While I’ve only been using DPP for a week or so, it has quickly become a part of my work flow. I have used Graphic Converter in the past for this sorting process, but I much prefer DPP. If you shoot Canon and have not tried it yet, you owe it to yourself to at least try it. Since you save changes to your RAW files as merely “recipes” and you don’t actually change the file, You don’t risk your photos at all. Of course, DPP isn’t the only software that does this, but I like how it is implemented.
I would add that, having seen what Aperture can do, if you are a pro, you ought to give it serious consideration for its organizational capabilities alone. There are also others that have been mentioned, and I think that iView Media Pro is probably the best, but again, if you are a pro. If you are only doing this, like I am, for a hobby, then try DPP. Or, you might want to give Graphic Converter a whirl. It is very fast, and has far more capabilities, including ITPC captioning, etc. and it can do RAW conversions, as well (Just turn off the option ‘Don’t convert camera RGB to sRGB’ as checking that option will give you flat, muddy photos–and because of this, I don’t recommend it for RAW conversion, except for web work) But Graphic Converter ought to be in your arsenal in any case.
Those are my thoughts, and a culmination of my fray in digital photography of about two years (being a film photographer before that).
-Jon G.
Nick Santilli on December 22nd, 2005 at 3:48 pm
JON G -
Thanks for the exhaustive blow by blow.
I have actually used DPP – it was the first RAW editing tool that I used. As I’ve got over 10 years of experience with Photoshop, I simply felt more comfortable with the Camera Raw software that they provide. It does many of the same things as DPP, the work space is just more natural for me.
DPP is a great app, especially if you don’t already own Photoshop/Camera Raw. If you’re using DPP, check out these video tutorials to get you up and running – they’re terrific:
http://www.photoworkshop.com/canon/dpp/
Matt on December 22nd, 2005 at 4:23 pm
Since I travel alot, I catalog (download straight from my Canon Rebel XT to my PowerBook G4) to a folder that indicates the city or town I took the shot. Then, I use Bridge to pull the ones of interest and good quality for the various sets (folders) I have created. The photo sets include various architectural designs, people, furniture, etc…
mike doan on December 22nd, 2005 at 5:41 pm
1. Shoot with Canon 10D in RAW
2. Import into an iView MediaPro catalog (each year gets its own catalog) via a card reader. This creates a link between the catalog file and the CF Card
3. Transfer files and reset links from CF Card to 160GB external firewire harddrive (now the iView Media Pro associates the files to the external hard drive in the catalog). Folders on the external hard drive arranged by year/month/
3. Using iView MediaPro, review and delelte unwanted files
4. Using iView MediaPro script, batch rename files using the files EXIF date.
5. Selection files that I want to process to tif or jpg
6. Create folders in external hard drive called /processing/project_name/raw/ and /project_name/tif/, and /project_name/jpg/
7. Duplicate selected files to the same external hard drive into a folder called /processing/project_name/raw/. This is done via iView MediaPro’s transfer file feature
8. Start up Capture One and set the “capture” folder to point to /processing/project_name/raw/ and the “output” folder to /project_name/tif/
9. Use Capture One to do all RAW processing, color correction, exposure adjustment, focus, and croping; run the batch process to convert these into TIFs (at 300 dpi)
10. Run Capture One batach process again to convert into JPG (dumps files to /project_name/jpg/)
11. Processed images are burned to cd/dvd segregated by file type (TIF or JPG).
I also do a monthly mirror of all RAW files to a second 160GB external hard drive. In addition, all RAW files to burned to cd/dvd by year and month.
This is all done on a G4 12″ Apple Powerbook, 60GB hard drive, 1 GB of RAM.
Wow, that took longer to type than it does to do.
mike doan on December 22nd, 2005 at 5:51 pm
How do you find the Powerbook performance-wise with such a workflow? How is iView Media Pro, for example?
Tony, I use a G4 Powerbook with 1GB of RAM. Managing my photos with iView Media Pro 3.0 is not a problem. I have read that iMP has performance issues when you’re catalog gets into the 30K range. My 2005 catalog is approximately 10K images and I have noticed any performance issues.
The performance issue is with Capture One. Depending on how much I’m tweaking the RAW files, it can take awhile to convert RAW to TIF/JPG.
Tony on December 22nd, 2005 at 5:58 pm
Thanks Mike, Chase & everyone else. I have been torn between getting a PowerMac or an iMac to use as my Photography machine, but the fact that you’re doing most things well on a PowerBook probably suggests an iMac should be well up to the task. Although having said that, I’m planning on using Aperture for as much as possible from what I have seen of it, and it does have some fairly hefty requirements.
Daniel on December 22nd, 2005 at 6:35 pm
I’ve been looking into Aperture for camera RAW use but have read some less than favorable reviews lately. A comparison posted yesterday by Powerpage.org was quite negative about Aperture. Has anyone else here compared RAW conversion between Adobe ARC and Aperture? Of the four links in the article, two were dead, though links #2 and #4 quite clearly show the differences. With Aperture there was severe banding in the shadows and a pronounced lack of sharpness.
[link]
Andew on December 22nd, 2005 at 7:22 pm
Daniel
i have used both and now i am stuck on Aperture because i would pick aperture over adobe anyday, that is just for RAW files. but remember one thing, Aperture works with Adobe not against it. but if you were to ask me i would say forget reviews man, i am actually using it and i would say use Aperture.
Chase Browder on December 23rd, 2005 at 3:04 am
ok Tony i haven’t used Aperture but i wouldn’t not use it. The conversion i have seen are very far superior from any other raw convertor out there. Also most people are not thinking about he longevity of their files and the archivleness of them. it really has not been an assure lately but so many more film companies have gone out of business and their are only like two or three places in US to get Kodachrome processed in the US. Who knows when that is the way it will be with the RAW files that you are using, This goes for everyone, shooting RAW is the only way to shoot with a DSLR because if you are shooting with a DSLR you want control. RAW gives you complete control, even more than when you shoot film. The problem with shooting raw right now is all the format except DNG are closed formats. You may not think matters to you but when you camera brand stops making there own software and you are using a computer that uses the old software doesn’t run the software(for alot of reasons, like the program doesn’t run on Power PC or doesn’t run on the lowly intel processor that the computer you are running uses.) So using DNG makes complete sense. DNG is an open format. but actually this sucks about aperture is that even though aperture is an open format and every other RAW converter that supports DNG supports all flavors of DNG, Aperture doesn’t. Aperture doesn’t even support all the RAW format it supports, and does support EXIf metadata in RAW files(which is built in) and doesn’t support XMP metadata with is totally documented and an open format. Hey, I love the mac platform and i am not switching but their are some major problems with the way Apple is developing their software. Aperture shows that they are not even extensively testing their software. they are just realizing bad software and expecting you to say “oh, their will be an update soon to fix it”. I have a new hi-res Powerbook and there is a bug where iTunes and it looks like anything that plays in mpg format including quicktime skips and echos randomly but when i asked a genius at the genius bar, they told me that they hadn’t heard anything about it and that apple would probably included an update very soon. That was a month an a half ago, and nothing. My iTunes has skipped twice while writing this post. I guess what i am saying with this post is that you can not rely on the software companies that are not supporting the formats that are open or the ones that are not that you are using are not worth using because they are just hindering you, as a user, creating what you want to with your photographs.
I just want people to realize what is going on in the digital photography world and not be short sided because things are happening very fast right now.
Chase Browder on December 23rd, 2005 at 3:08 am
Aperture is all Apple hype. They have all these catch phrases about not editing your original RAW file. But no RAW conversion software edits the original RAW file. It is all apple hype they don’t really support RAW just like I said before.
Chase Browder on December 23rd, 2005 at 3:20 am
mike doan- i have i used Capture 1 on a job where i was shooting with a Phase One 45 and my Nikon D2X and Capture one was so slow to make previews of files. I know the output from it is good but it took way too long for me to even consider it. I felt like i needed a Quad G5 with 16 gig Ram. and I think ACR’S output is on par to Capture 1’s or equal even though that is very subjective.
Chase Browder on December 23rd, 2005 at 3:26 am
mike doan- i have i used Capture 1 on a job where i was shooting with a Phase One 45 and my Nikon D2X and Capture one was so slow to make previews of files. I know the output from it is good but it took way too long for me to even consider it. I felt like i needed a Quad G5 with 16 gig Ram. and I think ACR’S output is on par to Capture 1’s or equal even though that is very subjective.
Jon Glass on December 23rd, 2005 at 6:13 am
Nick-
I understand what you are saying. I suppose that if I had CS or CS2 and Bridge, I would not think about using DPP, but I’m stuck with lowly PS 7. Beyond that, I really like working in RAW, and saving out only when I must. I also have a number of years in Photoshop, but cannot afford to upgrade. Thanks for the heads-up on the tutorial. Nice site! It’s helped me grasp more of DPP.
Chase-
I think that you are 1. overstating the case for DNG. I’m afraid you have been reading Michael Reichmann too much. ;-) There is a case to be made for DNG, but I don’t think that the situation is really all that bad. The time may well come that certain RAW formats will be lost with time–for instance, if Minolta or Pentax fall by the wayside, and there is the issue with Nikon closing off parts of its RAW format as well. You shoot Nikon, I believe. If I were you, I would be frightened–very frightened–about what _Nikon_ are doing. However, since both Apple and Microsoft have begun including RAW support into their systems. I do not expect RAW support–even for older cameras to go away any time soon. And beyond that, _should_ DNG become the standard, which I have my doubts, the option is always there. Not only that, but there are open source converters for RAW conversion, which virtually guarantees that RAW support–even for older files–will not go away. Since the work has been done of creating the converts for older files, it’s a simple matter of keeping the software up to date. And there is too much vested interest on the part of too many photogs for these formats to just die.
Furthermore, it is an issue that the manufacturers are also well aware of, and it is in their vested interests to keep their own RAW formats supported. They cannot say “We won’t support the D30 any more because we want you to upgrade” because even if I did upgrade today, I still have my images. If they decided to drop my camera, I would be far more likely to jump ship to Nikon or Pentax or Minolta… It is not in their best interest to appear to abandon older cameras. Therefore, I am not as concerned as you and Michael are. :-)
Not, mind you, that I think it a waste of time to use DNG if you can. Go for it. You are certainly safer than not. It’s just that I do not think that DNG is really where it’s at, but time will tell. When Canon or Nikon start using it as their native format, then I will reconsider.
-Jon
Andew on December 23rd, 2005 at 12:34 pm
Chase-
I am going to have to say you are very wrong, i do professional photography and i just started using Aperture and its not all apple hype. It does edit RAW and yes it does support RAW files. but hey i guess everyone has a right to opinion.
Paul D on December 25th, 2005 at 12:14 am
I shoot RAW with my Nikon D-50 and use the following tools:
1. iPhoto for importing, organizing, and exporting to Flickr.
2. I have an Automator workflow that converts selected Raw photos to DNG using Adobe’s converter. I have to do this, since Photoshop CS doesn’t work with D-50 Raw files otherwise, and Nikon’s plug-in has some issues.
3. Photoshop CS for editing the DNG files. Finished TIF files are imported back into iPhoto.
I’m really looking forward to trying Aperture. Despite what Chase seems to think, Aperture does indeed apply all edits non-destructively to your original Raw (converted) image, in a way no other app does.
Andew on December 25th, 2005 at 12:36 am
Paul -
would you mind sharing your automator actions with me?? ;)
and yes i have aperture and i have to say you will like alot.
visit me here: Click Here
Kevin Broderick on December 25th, 2005 at 11:48 am
Jumping in a little late, my workflow is as follows:
1. Shot in RAW with 20D
2. Move images from CF card, one card at a time, into a subject-specific directory under ~/Documents/Photos; e.g. I have ~/Documents/Photos/Bolton/VistaProject/Opening for photos of the opening of the new Vista Lift at Bolton Valley Ski Resort; I use a simple shell script to do this (it simply looks for any mounted volumes with a DCIM folder and then iterates through all subfolders of DCIM, moving their contents into the desired target directory)
3. Load target directory in Bridge (CS2)
4. Go do something else while Bridge loads thumbnails for all images
5. Rename images, prepending ISO-format date string (e.g. _MG_1234.CR2 becomes 20051225_MG_1234.CR2 so any file should have a unique name for future reference)
6. Append my standard metadata (© 2005 me, location, and a generic caption for all images) to entire folder
7. Load images into Camera Raw, about 30-40 at a time, to rate and adjust (primarily exposure)
8. If desired, convert all or some subset of images for the web with either a Photoshop batch action or by downconverting in Camera RAW; I prefer the former because it handles cropped images better, not further downsizing them
8a. Upload with ncftp to my web server
8b. Import into gallery2
9. If printing is desired, determine size and crop as appropriate, then load into Photoshop CS2 for final touches and printing
If you noticed the lack of an archival step, I’m working on that. Currently, I do back up pseudo-periodically to DVD and my 250GB external drive, but I need to come up with a good system for truly archiving stuff–the 80GB replacement drive in my 800mhz tibook is getting rather full.
I’ve thought about Aperture, and it looks cool, but it’s far too costly for me right now–I’d need to spend the $500 on the software and $3000+ on a new Mac, which isn’t in the cards.
Daniel2 on December 26th, 2005 at 9:01 pm
I shoot with a D70 in raw mode and use Aperture. I stalled buying it because I read some negative and biased reviews but I had regrets about that stalling the minute I started using it. It is superior to anything Adobe has for my needs and, unlike Adobe’s products, Apple lets Aperture integrate with non-Apple products so I can use Photoshop CS2 for the heavy lifting. That feature was important for my needs. Of course this is my opinion and I am sure there are people who work differently and maybe Aperture isn’t for them. But those criticizing Aperture haven’t really used it I am sure–I am sure because they deride it as not doing things it actually does. In truth I think the criticism is often (but not always–there are bad software products) more personal ‘fit’ critique than objective review. I see the same thing in the language forums discussing .NET versus Java or Perl versus Python or for that matter Canon versus Nikon. Advocacy instead of honest appraisal is the norm in technology talk and it is a shame. Just filter it out. In truth I think some of those people are put off by the expense and therefore rationalize. A flaw of human nature. It is expensive but for me it is worth it. Your mileage may vary. There are many ways to organize your workflow using many different tools.
Walter on December 30th, 2005 at 5:12 pm
Since buying my first Mac 8 months ago, digital image management, I’m afraid, is the one area I’ve found the Apple platform to be sorely lacking in. iPhoto is great for slideshows and photo books, but it’s a horrible image management tool, mainly due to its slow speed, insistence on importing and duplicating images to a central image database, and its dangerously unorthodox methods for saving changes.
I simply refuse to limit myself to a single application (iPhoto) and a single platform (Apple) for the storage and management of my image collection, yet that is precisely what Apple expects me to do.
What happens when I want to manage my existing collection of thousands of images? In Windows, I merely copy the images (which are neatly arranged in folders named with the subject matter and date) to the local hard drive and then work with them using my software of choice (ACDSee for Windows). ACDSee generates thumbnails at blazing speeds so I can instantly start viewing, managing, and editing any desired images. In iPhoto, it would take hours just for iPhoto to import the images, without preserving the simple yet functional organization system inherent in my original file folders. Then I’d be stuck with the molasses slow performance and confusing array of Library/folders/albums/rolls.
Believe me, I put in countless hours to try to adapt to this system and make it work. In then end I was just frustrated and angry that I wasted so much of my time on such a moronic product.
Sadly, nothing on the Apple platform, and I mean NOTHING, comes even close to the simplicity, flexibility, efficiency, and speed of ACDSee for Windows.
After spending so much money on my Powerbook, I now have a notebook computer that I consider worthless for working with my images.
Nick Santilli on December 30th, 2005 at 5:33 pm
Walter -
Everyone’s got unique experiences and opinions. it’s a shame yours has been so bad.
There are a few alternatives to iPhoto – iView Media being the number 1 replacement it seems. I’m sure there are some other options you could look into that may sway you to give it another look.
But I do agree – iPhoto is slow. It is what it is. I personally like it for the export plugins I can use to update my online galleries – whether it be flickr, Gallery, or whatever. and the fact that it’ll load photos to my iPod.
I’m hoping 06 brings a severe upgrade to iPhoto…
Jon Glass on December 30th, 2005 at 6:41 pm
Walter-
If you are basing your opinon of the Mac situation based soley, or heavily upon iPhoto, then I would say that you are making a mistake. First of all, find my original post in this thread, and you will see that I mention that what you do is _exactly_ how I do things, except I sort and store my photos by date, with each year getting a folder, and individual dates inside that. There are various Mac apps that can browse this structure. Some can be slow in creating thumbnails, and others are better at it. My favorite is GraphicConverter at . It has a file browsing option that is quite snappy and powerful. In fact, you can even batch change ITPC info within GC’s browser. It also offers rudimentary image adjustment, which can actually server you quite well. On top of that, if you shoot RAW, it can even do fair RAW conversions, however, with my Canon D30, I have found that I need to allow GC to convert my CRW files to the sRGB color space in order to get decent color and saturation. Howevr, since I primarily use it for a file browser, saving DPP for editing, this is no real issue with me. If you seriously want something fast and cheap to browse _your_ folder structure, then GraphicConverter can hardly be beat. Give it a try. I think you’ll be satisfied. Oh, and did I mention that it costs a mere $30? Let us know what you think of it…
-Jon
Walter on January 1st, 2006 at 12:14 pm
Jon,
I’ve tried every image software I can find on the Mac platform and they’ve all had some fatal flaw (speed, stability, interface, or a combination of all of the above). The fastest one I’ve found is ViewIt, but it requires you to first select a folder before browsing said folder. No good for file management without a dual pane interface so I can see a folder tree next to the thumbnails. Every other software I’ve tried that DOES have such an interface has been way too slow and/or highly unstable or crash-prone. My ideal solution would combine the best functions of iPhoto, Finder, and Preview (& GraphicConverter).
Let me describe how wonderfully ACDSee works… pretending for a moment that it exists on the Mac platform (so you can relate to it better…) Imagine, without starting any application, double clicking any image file on your desktop or in the Finder and having the image quickly appear in a single viewer window. The software’s settings allow you to customize the interface so that viewer window contains no toolbars or menus – nice and clean interface. Also, the viewer window automatically displays the image at full resolution. That is, unless the image is too large to fit. In that case, the viewer automatically scales the image down just enough to fit your display.
If you tap the + or – keys, you can zoom in and out as desired, while the window frame always resizes automatically to a best fit. No need to use the Mac window resize buttons every time. Tapping the F key, the window toggles between the windowed and a full screen display. Either way, tapping either the space bar, or arrow keys, or page up and down keys will advance to the next of previous image in the same folder. Again, this is very fast – virtually instantaneous – no matter how fast you tap the keys, how many images are in the folder, or how large the images are. (In my experience, on a 2 year old Dell computer, it’s THAT fast even when browsing 5 MP images. With much larger images, naturally, it will slow a bit, but never as slow as the programs I’ve used on a MAC.) Hitting the ESC key instantly closes the viewer window and viewer program.
I’ve just described how the Mac’s “Preview” program and Finder SHOULD work. Fat chance.
Now, while viewing any single image, tapping the Enter key or double clicking the image toggles from the single image view to a Windows Explorer-like interface, with a folder tree on the left, and a window full of thumbnails on the right. The thumbnails are generated automatically, extremely quickly, and they are updated dynamically if the image file itself ever changes. Select a folder on the left, and the images contained within are displayed as thumbnails on the right.
If you want more power and flexibility, it’s there. You can select multiple folders simultaneously to display all their thumbnails together. You can also filter the display using dates (EXIF, or file dates), keywords, or any available metadata fields. All of the above works flawlessly, extremely quickly, and without requiring a brand new $4000 computer with a top of the line video card, 4 gigs of RAM, or the fastest available processors.
I imagine some of the software I’ve tested would be quicker on a dual G5, but seeing as ACDSee has accomplished this for years on a “crappy” Windows machine, I expect at least the same on an 8 month old PowerBook.
Above all, I refuse to IMPORT images before I can work with them. And I need something with a powerful, elegant, and flexible interface that can handle thousands of images without choking. Nothing comes even remotely close to this on the Apple platform. I am a big Apple admirer in general, but iPhoto, Aperture, and the Mighty Mouse have taught me that Jobs’ ego sometimes far exceeds his intelligence.
Walter on January 1st, 2006 at 12:29 pm
Speaking of GraphicConverter, I hadn’t tinkered with it in months, so I needed to refresh my memory why it sucks. I just opened it, and it took almost a minute for the “wait” pointer to go away and allow interaction with the program. What was slowing it down? Aparently, a folder containing 244 JPG files, each an 8 MP image about 2 MB in size. It might have taken much longer, but apparently this is the last folder I viewed with GraphicConverter so I imagine the thumbnails were already cached.
Even with this modest folder, the vertical scroll bar responds VERY sluggishly and not at all smoothly. This sluggishness alone renders this software unusable for me.
Double clicking an image opens it in a single window, but that window appears ON TOP of the main interface instead of replacing it. This wastes system resources and clutters your work space needlessly. Once in this single window mode, tapping an arrow key does absolutely nothing. As usual in all things Apple, a two button operation is required for the simplest of tasks, and so I need to press COMMAND arrow to advance to the next or previous image.
In ACDSee this would be instantaneous, as fast as I could tap the key. Here, it takes about 2 and a half seconds for EACH IMAGE! This is reason #2 why this program is unacceptable.
I’m using an 8 month old PowerBook 15″ with 1 GB or RAM, and 30 GB of free disk space. ACDSee could handle this effortlessly on a 4 year old Sony notebook (not known for their performance) running Windows Me with 512 MB of RAM!
Of the Mac programs I’ve tried, GraphicConverter comes closest to having the interface I want, but it’s very slow and rather crude in appearance in many places. The speed alone makes it unusable. If this program makes you happy, I suggest you try out a copy of ACDSee 8 on any Windows machine and see what speed is all about. On the other hand, if someone cleaned up GraphicConverter, gave it some real performance and smoothness, and added the polish and elegance of iPhoto/Aperture, THEN you’d have a winner on your hands.
Back to performance, though, I’m not one of those geeks that only cares about speed, but this is ridiculous. This is a performance issue that is too intrusive to ignore or tolerate in exchange for a pretty computer. I don’t see why Apple is so damn stubborn about making Finder and iPhoto work they way most people want them to – the way they should. As with the MightyMouse, Jobs insists on being different even when it means delivering a flawed and inferior product.
Nonetheless, I do love my Mac and OS X – but not for image management, which is highly frustrating. This is like having a beautiful girlfriend who’s nice and funny and smart and fun and wealthy, but is totally frigid in bed. You can’t bear to part with her but something very important is missing… :(
Walter on January 1st, 2006 at 12:50 pm
Nick,
Regarding iView Media Pro, I’m sure I tried it before but I don’t remember the details. I’m downloading a copy now to refresh my memory. At a glance, though, their website seems to indicate that it works by “importing” images and maintaining a central database. If this is the case, then we’re back to square one. I refuse to import images or rely on a central, application-specific, proprietary database of my images.
If this central database/image importation is strictly optional (as it is in ACDSee) and the software can be used entirely in “browse” mode, viewing and organizing images residing in existing locations and folder structures, then it will boil down to the interface and performance. I’ll write back once I’ve reacquainted myself with iView Media Pro.
Walter on January 1st, 2006 at 3:09 pm
Nick,
On IView Media Pro…
Hmm, impressive. The interface is refined and well thought out – almost as pretty as iPhoto. Thumbnail generation is very quick and software interaction is not affected while thumbnails are being created. Functionality is intuitive and logical. Lightbox mode similar to ACDSee in full screen mode with simple, single-button, forward and backward navigation and zoom in and out. The slideshow function is elegant and very similar to iPhoto’s (which is great) yet with superior navigation control and no need to create a slideshow file. Speed is good – much better than iPhoto – though not quite as fast as ACDSee. However overall performance is definitely acceptable.
Now on the bad side, the program DOES import images. Not clear yet if just for organizational data or whether images are actually duplicated, which I would consider a big no-no.
Though the import process is VERY quick, simple and painless, you can’t simply browse existing folders, so importing IS required. Another thing I don’t like very much is that by default, as in iPhoto, ALL images are shown jumbled together, unless you select one or more folders to view. I think that if no folders are selected, NO images should be displayed. This would be a more logical interface response. Plus here are times when you may want to keep some images private, and the current design makes it all too easy for a casual observer to accidentally reveal such images. I think thumbnails should only be displayed for selected folders, with a blank screen if no folders are selected.
Overall, though, I’m very impressed. This is a huge help. I think I never gave this app a good looking over because I probably wrote it off the moment I saw it required importing images. That was back when I first started hunting for an iPhoto replacement. Now that I realize how deeply flawed everything else is, IView’s advantages are better appreciated.
What exactly are the differences between the Pro and non Pro versions, aside from price?
Nick Santilli on January 1st, 2006 at 3:53 pm
Honestly, I don’t use either at this point – I’ve just heard all the hype. But Read Josh’s review of it here.
I think I’m going to move to iView Media for viewing my archived photos (on external drives… So we’ll see how that goes. Hope iView helps out some
Jon Glass on January 1st, 2006 at 6:29 pm
Walter-
I’m a bit puzzled by your reactions to GraphicConverter. I run it on a 2000 model G3 Pismo (ok, I have just recently put a G4 into it as a Christmas present to my computer). 576 megs of RAM. GraphicConverter is the fastest photo app I have found, with the exception of iView Media. It does slow down a bit when it it thumbnailing a large photo of RAW files for me, but it is usable during this time. Maybe I changed some settings that helped speed it up, but I don’t remember. Maybe, also, you are using some _large_ image files. I only have 3mp images from my D30, but I often have folders of 100-200 images, all RAW, and it deals with them. In fact, I find it faster and easier to simply launch GC, than to look in the Finder.
Aso for multiple windows, I guess that’s a matter of taste. I am not a fan of the unified view. I prefer having multiple windows open. In fact, with GC, I can open the same image in two different windows, and compare them. I consider that a good thing. :-)
For me, I can’t justify the expense of the Pro version of iView Media, and iView Media doesn’t do RAW. In the end, I’m happy with GC, but I can understand your not being happy. If you are willing to pay for iVew Media Pro, I think you will find it a more-than-acceptable substitute for AcDSee. I have a friend who loves the app, although I’ve never seen it in action. I hope that iView makes you happy. :-)
-Jon
John Terrell on January 3rd, 2006 at 7:07 pm
Walter,
What iView Media Pro is doing when it’s “importing” is reading all the metadata from the photos and storing them in its database (for quick searches and organization). It also extracts thumbnail images from the photos into its database – this allows you to take the media with the actual photos offline and still be able to peruse them by thumbnail.
Hope this clarifies things.
-John
Jon Glass on January 4th, 2006 at 9:21 am
This post is primarily for Walter, but hopefully it will be of interest to others as well.
Walter, you were complaining about the dearth of Mac apps. Have you tried Photo Mechanic? I haven’t seen it mentioned on this thread, so I don’t know if you have seen it. I mention it because I was just reading about it on Luminous-landscape
He is bragging about its speed. It may do much of what you want it to do. You can read his article about it here:
HTH
-Jon
Danielle on April 2nd, 2009 at 7:13 pm
The quality of the info is what keeps me on this site, thanks!