Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Keda · Nov 8, 2004, 03:41 PM

When the camera is attached to an iMac G5, iPhoto can see the files, but it says that they are unrecognizable. Is there any way around this?

Image Capture doesn't seem to like the raw files either. Any ideas? Is this a setting?

all2ofme · Nov 8, 2004, 04:19 PM

It might be that iPhoto doesn't convert .crw files. Quite likely, actually. Your best bet is probably to get them onto your machine with Image Capture or a card reader and then convert them in Photoshop (or something else). After that you can use them in iPhoto.

Hopefully Adobe will do well with their new digital negative format as then Apple would be better placed to put support for that into iPhoto:

http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/main.html

Originally posted by Keda:
When the camera is attached to an iMac G5, iPhoto can see the files, but it says that they are unrecognizable. Is there any way around this?

Image Capture doesn't seem to like the raw files either. Any ideas? Is this a setting?

aaanorton · Nov 8, 2004, 07:43 PM

Yup. You're shooting RAW files (as you described in your other thread), so you need to process them before iPhoto can see them. If you don't like this workflow, set your camera to capture JPEGs. Of course, you'll lose all the benefits of shooting RAW, but it doesn't sound like that is important to you anyway.

Keda · Nov 9, 2004, 08:09 AM

I would like to keep the images RAW. The only reason I was using iPhoto is that I wasn't aware of any other method to get these off the camera. I am away from the D30 and Mac for a few days, so I can't try any of these solutions.

Am I reading this correctly? Will Image Capture allow me to DL the pics from the camera in RAW format?

TIA

aaanorton · Nov 9, 2004, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by Keda:
Am I reading this correctly? Will Image Capture allow me to DL the pics from the camera in RAW format?

Sure. But you can also just drag and drop them in the finder to any folder you want. This will be a much faster way to copy them as well.

all2ofme · Nov 9, 2004, 09:38 AM

Image Capture is nice (I use it with my Canon digital SLR) because it lets you tag the files with proper colour profiles.

I tag my files with AdobeRGB on import using Image Capture because the 300D doesn't seem to do it properly on its own. Works perfectly. Decent enough speed-wise, too.

aaanorton · Nov 9, 2004, 10:15 AM

RAW files are untagged; they have no color space.
If you're not doing tons of pictures, Image Capture should be fine. But try a speed comparison some time. It is considerably slower than a simple finder copy (even when you're not having IC do anything to the files).

OreoCookie · Nov 9, 2004, 10:30 AM

Try iViewMedia (Pro). Usually those raw files have .jpgs embedded in them so you can get a preview. iView can display them (I tried that with my Olympus E-20 and according to their website, it works with .crw's and Nikon's raw files, too.) Canon also offers a tool for free to convert .crws (it's called Canon File Viewer Utility, just google for it).

One question: why do you use raw files? Usually there is very little advantage using raw files except for a few exceptions �

aaanorton · Nov 9, 2004, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
One question: why do you use raw files? Usually there is very little advantage using raw files except for a few exceptions �

D'oh! For snapshots and family photos, JPEGs are fine. For anything mission critical where you need the finest image quality, it's all about RAW.

And Photoshop CS can display and process these RAW files in the Image Browser too.

OreoCookie · Nov 9, 2004, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by aaanorton:
D'oh! For snapshots and family photos, JPEGs are fine. For anything mission critical where you need the finest image quality, it's all about RAW.

And Photoshop CS can display and process these RAW files in the Image Browser too.

Not necessarily. My cousin was a professional photographer once and he used a D30. JPEGs are fine in many professional applications as well. Then there are situations where you need .jpg for another reason: speed. He was into sports photography and making `the' picture was important, so raw was clearly too slow.

I cannot think of many situations that force you to use raw instead of .jpg.

all2ofme · Nov 9, 2004, 05:44 PM

Ahhh, of course. Right you are. I remember that I tag them for a good reason, but that can't have been it

I think it might be because I have the colour response of the 300D set to AdobeRGB, or is that not a reason either? Hmm. Anyway, didn't mean to hijack the thread.

A Firewire card reader will transfer things quickly, as will something like this:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...388&is=REG

Originally posted by aaanorton:
RAW files are untagged; they have no color space.
If you're not doing tons of pictures, Image Capture should be fine. But try a speed comparison some time. It is considerably slower than a simple finder copy (even when you're not having IC do anything to the files).

aaanorton · Nov 9, 2004, 08:06 PM

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
I cannot think of many situations that force you to use raw instead of .jpg.

Well, this is getting a little far afield of the subject, but the original poster seems to be set now so...
RAW capture allows for the highest image quality. Period. I'm not saying that there is no use at all for JPEGs, but doing so involves trade-offs. One such trade-off may be image quality for speed. If the need for shooting speed is greater than the benefits of a RAW workflow, then so be it. This does not mean, however, that the resulting JPEGs will be as high quality as the files from RAW. JPEG capture, by definition, means relying on the internal algorithms of the camera to convert the RAW data to compressed JPEG image files. Doing so categorically throws away information. Once gone, this info can not be recreated. It is gone. RAW allows you to keep exactly what you need and get rid of what you don't on a file by file basis. Or it allows you to combine multiple processed files to keep highlight and shadow info unavailable to a single file. Shooting JPEG is the equivalent of shooting on auto: If it works, great, but if it doesn't, you'll need to prevent it manually.

Ahhh, of course. Right you are. I remember that I tag them for a good reason, but that can't have been it

If you shoot JPEGs, it would make sense to tag your files with a color space on import. I wish iPhoto allowed this for my snapshots.

OreoCookie · Nov 10, 2004, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by aaanorton:
Well, this is getting a little far afield of the subject, but the original poster seems to be set now so...
RAW capture allows for the highest image quality. Period. I'm not saying that there is no use at all for JPEGs, but doing so involves trade-offs. One such trade-off may be image quality for speed. If the need for shooting speed is greater than the benefits of a RAW workflow, then so be it. This does not mean, however, that the resulting JPEGs will be as high quality as the files from RAW. JPEG capture, by definition, means relying on the internal algorithms of the camera to convert the RAW data to compressed JPEG image files. Doing so categorically throws away information. Once gone, this info can not be recreated. It is gone. RAW allows you to keep exactly what you need and get rid of what you don't on a file by file basis. Or it allows you to combine multiple processed files to keep highlight and shadow info unavailable to a single file. Shooting JPEG is the equivalent of shooting on auto: If it works, great, but if it doesn't, you'll need to prevent it manually.

If you shoot JPEGs, it would make sense to tag your files with a color space on import. I wish iPhoto allowed this for my snapshots.

Well, all I'm trying to suggest is that Keda probably shouldn't use RAW anyway ...

Keda · Nov 11, 2004, 05:57 AM

Thanks for all the comments. Image capture worked great. I really need to get a card reader so I can use the finder (the D30 isn't showing up).

I work w/graphics all day, so I always like to start w/the highest quality possible. I probably don't need the raw files, but I want just want them.

thanks again.

OreoCookie · Nov 11, 2004, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by Keda:
Thanks for all the comments. Image capture worked great. I really need to get a card reader so I can use the finder (the D30 isn't showing up).

I work w/graphics all day, so I always like to start w/the highest quality possible. I probably don't need the raw files, but I want just want them.

thanks again.

Why don't you shoot in .tiff? Readable by any app, extremely high quality and they don't necessarily need post-processing to the degree .raw files do.

all2ofme · Nov 11, 2004, 04:32 PM

They're also much bigger than raw files, sadly. And they still don't allow you the freedom of choice post-exposure that raw files do.

OreoCookie · Nov 12, 2004, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by all2ofme:
They're also much bigger than raw files, sadly. And they still don't allow you the freedom of choice post-exposure that raw files do.

Don't get me wrong, but what difference does it make? It's a 3.3 MP digicam, not quite state of the art. The latest equivalent has more than 8. So I don't think it'll hurt too much shooting in superhigh quality jpg mode.

all2ofme · Nov 13, 2004, 06:20 AM

Here are a couple of links that describe the differences:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...aw-files.shtml
http://www.photo.net/learn/raw/

I don't think many people would disagree that if you do next to no post-processing of your shots that shooting in raw become less advantageous. This is seldom the case for me, though, so I shoot in raw for some of the reasons listed above.

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Don't get me wrong, but what difference does it make? It's a 3.3 MP digicam, not quite state of the art. The latest equivalent has more than 8. So I don't think it'll hurt too much shooting in superhigh quality jpg mode.