[waxcrash]

Of all the new announcements at MacWord, I'm most psyched about iPhoto 5's ability to import RAW files.

http://www.apple.com/ilife/iphoto/import.html

Supported cameras:

Canon

EOS-1D MARK II
1DS
EOS 20D
EOS 10D
EOS D60
EOS Digital Rebel
PowerShot Pro 1
PowerShot G5
PowerShot G6


Konica Minolta

DiMAGE A2


Nikon

D100
D2H
D70
Coolpix 8700


Olympus

C-8080 Wide Zoom


Sony

DSC-F828

[cszar2001]

I hope they add Fuji soon. They have the worst image compression in the whole industry.

[Spheric Harlot]

That's brilliant.

I sold a Powerbook to a photographer a few weeks ago who needed it for a project with his Canon.

Though the Canon software works pretty well, having native iPhoto support for RAW images is great.

[vcutag]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
That's brilliant.

I sold a Powerbook to a photographer a few weeks ago who needed it for a project with his Canon.

Though the Canon software works pretty well, having native iPhoto support for RAW images is great.

Yeah, now I might actually use it. I've been using Photoshop's browser, but for people who don't have Photoshop, it's going to be great.

[Steve]

Adding RAW support is huge. The main other thing that I care about is if it's faster.

Reactions from anyone at MWSF?

[ManOfSteal]

iPhoto 5 looks incredible. I cannot wait for 1/22! And I'll finally start taking advantage of getting prints done now that they are $0.19/piece.

[ThisGuy]

i really hope that my D30 RAW files are read.

[Steve]

Originally posted by ThisGuy:
i really hope that my 30D RAW files are read.

I'm assuming that my RAW images from my G3 will work, just because it's the same camera as the G5. Is the 30D similar to the 10D/20D, or are they completely different?

[ThisGuy]

i meant D30. it is very similar to the D60.

[Miniryu]

would someone mind explaining what RAW is? Who will this support benifit?

[maxintosh]

Originally posted by Miniryu:
would someone mind explaining what RAW is? Who will this support benifit?

It's basically, as I understand it, a data dump from your camera's sensor. Whereas JPG -- what most camera users use -- is a compressed format, often post-processed by the camera's software, which can result in a loss of quality.

The only people that would really care about this loss is professional or hobbyist photographers.

[shabbasuraj]

Raw support means nothing if there is no performance (software/hardware optimization?) to back up those images. iPhoto chunks (read is slow as hell) on my RevC 12" PB and those were just 1.5 MB jpegs. Now with 3,4, or 5 MB RAW files lurking in the cataloge I can only hope that iPhoto 5 can handle such tasks.

The fact that performance is lacking for even medium sized catalogues, is why I use other 'pro level' media organizers.

[ThisGuy]

Originally posted by shabbasuraj:
Raw support means nothing if there is no performance (software/hardware optimization?) to back up those images. iPhoto chunks (read is slow as hell) on my RevC 12" PB and those were just 1.5 MB jpegs. Now with 3,4, or 5 MB RAW files lurking in the cataloge I can only hope that iPhoto 5 can handle such tasks.

The fact that performance is lacking for even medium sized catalogues, is why I use other 'pro level' media organizers.

do any of these 'pro level' media organizers support RAW format?

[starman]

Yeah, I just bought a Canon EOS-D20 and was pissed that I couldn't use RAW pics in iPhoto.

Mike

[ThisGuy]

Originally posted by starman:
Yeah, I just bought a Canon EOS-D20 and was pissed that I couldn't use RAW pics in iPhoto.

Mike

nice camera. have you gotten any lenses yet?

[jebjeb]

Originally posted by Miniryu:
would someone mind explaining what RAW is? Who will this support benifit?

Its not just a loss of quality that is the difference between a JPG and RAW. The main things is that you still have control over many more aspects of the file when it is a RAW.

The best things that a RAW file gives you over a JPG are

- Able to change white balance on computer
- Able to adjust exposure much more
- File has no permanent sharpening applied yet

The top two are very useful even to the casual snapper, especially the extra exposure latitude (means you can brighten up a picture without just using the brightness and contrast controls).

If your camera supports them and you have the space, RAW rocks. Its the only thing I shoot baby!

The new iPhoto is everything I could realistically ask for of this type of product.

[jebjeb]

Another thing. I wonder how it will deal with combo RAW/Jpg files like those out of a EOS 10D and earlier models? Will it just take the RAW?

Maybe it is time to just shoot pure RAW as I only shoot dual RAW/JPG to have the jpgs for iPhoto.

[ThisGuy]

Originally posted by jebjeb:
If your camera supports them and you have the space, RAW rocks. Its the only thing I shoot baby!

i just got a 1GB compact flash card for this very reason.
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/mul...amp;print=true

[starman]

Originally posted by ThisGuy:
nice camera. have you gotten any lenses yet?

No. I got hit with a big project at work so I haven't had time to really do much with it yet.

Mike

[jebjeb]

Originally posted by ThisGuy:
i just got a 1GB compact flash card for this very reason.
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/mul...amp;print=true

Cool. I have two 1GB Sandisk Ultra II CF cards. I get about 110 or so RAW+JPGS per card but that should rise to about 140 if I go to just RAW.

I am looking at 2GB or bigger cards now as some shoots I can do 10GB or more. Sometimes it is not particualrly convienant to pull out the TiBook to transfer them. At least I have a Firewirse card reader now which has sped things up a bit.

[ThisGuy]

Originally posted by starman:
No. I got hit with a big project at work so I haven't had time to really do much with it yet.

Mike

i can see it becoming an addiction for me.
the only one i've gotten so far is this:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...142&is=USA
it does nice close-ups and picks up a ton of detail.

(these forums need a digital photo only area)

[ThisGuy]

Originally posted by jebjeb:
Cool. I have two 1GB Sandisk Ultra II CF cards. I get about 110 or so RAW+JPGS per card but that should rise to about 140 if I go to just RAW.

I am looking at 2GB or bigger cards now as some shoots I can do 10GB or more. Sometimes it is not particualrly convienant to pull out the TiBook to transfer them. At least I have a Firewirse card reader now which has sped things up a bit.

damn that's a lot of pictures! i have only seen my RAW files get to 3.5MB or so each.

[waxcrash]

Originally posted by ThisGuy:
i can see it becoming an addiction for me.
the only one i've gotten so far is this:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...142&is=USA
it does nice close-ups and picks up a ton of detail.

(these forums need a digital photo only area)

I bought this baby for my Nikon D70. It does nice close-ups and picks up detail from far away and has vibration reduction.

[ThisGuy]

FYI, i added a post in the feedback forum about adding a digital photography *only* section to the Art & Graphic design section.

[jebjeb]

Originally posted by ThisGuy:
damn that's a lot of pictures! i have only seen my RAW files get to 3.5MB or so each.

I have a 10D which is double the res of a D30 so I guess that explains the difference.

My record number of gigs shot in one day on my 10D is about 13. This was at a wedding. I think it comes down to the fact I don't touch the delete button on the camera. Two of the bridesmaids out of 5 had a habit of pulling funny faces so for each setup involving them I would take 10+ shots. Lucky I did as sometimes there would only be 1 or 2 usable shots out of the bunch.

I'm sure some people would say "why not check the review to see if the photo is ok" but when you have that many people to organise and shoot, the last thing you want to be doing is reviewing photos on a 1 and a half inch screen. The only thing I do is check my histogram after most shots. I would maybe do a bit more checking if I had a 1D Mk II or a 20D (due to the faster write and review times) but it doesn't really phase me.

iPhoto with RAW support is going to speed up my work flow so much. Currently I have to copy the contents of the card to a folder. Review this folder in Photoshop or this other piece of shareware I have (what was that called again??) and then trim out the crud. With the new iPhoto I will be able to import them straight in to there off the card, have nice quickly resized thumbs and chuck the good ones into folders. Plus, much of my post processing is upping the exposure as I tend to shoot a stop or so under exposed (I would always rather under expose then over expose - it is difficult to get any detail from overblown highlights) and this looks easy to do now.

The final thing that it will help me with is my laziness. After I have done my post processing, I tend not to re-import these processed photos back into iPhoto (I just leave the original jpgs that I captured with the RAWs in the camera). This means that if I publish a quick .mac website or email some photos around, they are not really the final product. Everything in iPhoto will kick arse.

[ThisGuy]

Originally posted by waxcrash:
I bought this baby for my Nikon D70. It does nice close-ups and picks up detail from far away and has vibration reduction.

nice. are you guys professional photographers or hobbyists?

[jebjeb]

Originally posted by ThisGuy:
nice. are you guys professional photographers or hobbyists?

It's not my day job, mainly a hobby but I have done a bit of paid work (weddings).

[ThisGuy]

Originally posted by jebjeb:
I have a 10D which is double the res of a D30 so I guess that explains the difference.

My record number of gigs shot in one day on my 10D is about 13. This was at a wedding. I think it comes down to the fact I don't touch the delete button on the camera. Two of the bridesmaids out of 5 had a habit of pulling funny faces so for each setup involving them I would take 10+ shots. Lucky I did as sometimes there would only be 1 or 2 usable shots out of the bunch.

I'm sure some people would say "why not check the review to see if the photo is ok" but when you have that many people to organise and shoot, the last thing you want to be doing is reviewing photos on a 1 and a half inch screen. The only thing I do is check my histogram after most shots. I would maybe do a bit more checking if I had a 1D Mk II or a 20D (due to the faster write and review times) but it doesn't really phase me.

iPhoto with RAW support is going to speed up my work flow so much. Currently I have to copy the contents of the card to a folder. Review this folder in Photoshop or this other piece of shareware I have (what was that called again??) and then trim out the crud. With the new iPhoto I will be able to import them straight in to there off the card, have nice quickly resized thumbs and chuck the good ones into folders. Plus, much of my post processing is upping the exposure as I tend to shoot a stop or so under exposed (I would always rather under expose then over expose - it is difficult to get any detail from overblown highlights) and this looks easy to do now.

The final thing that it will help me with is my laziness. After I have done my post processing, I tend not to re-import these processed photos back into iPhoto (I just leave the original jpgs that I captured with the RAWs in the camera). This means that if I publish a quick .mac website or email some photos around, they are not really the final product. Everything in iPhoto will kick arse.

i just learned the under-exposing trick and i have been using it with much success. photoshop CS is nice and i like the image browser, but i really hope my RAW files are read by iPhoto for the reasons you mentioned and the ability to get prints made for 19¢.

(did i mention that this place needs a digital photography *only* section? heheh)

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by jebjeb:
I'm sure some people would say "why not check the review to see if the photo is ok" but when you have that many people to organise and shoot, the last thing you want to be doing is reviewing photos on a 1 and a half inch screen. The only thing I do is check my histogram after most shots. I would maybe do a bit more checking if I had a 1D Mk II or a 20D (due to the faster write and review times) but it doesn't really phase me.

Apart from this, it's really hard to tell on that tiny screen whether there might not be that lower-left one-third of the image where you inadvertently caught some solid gold moment.

[ThisGuy]

Originally posted by jebjeb:
It's not my day job, mainly a hobby but I have done a bit of paid work (weddings).

i'd like to to do that someday. either that or porno. heheh what?

[jebjeb]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Apart from this, it's really hard to tell on that tiny screen whether there might not be that lower-left one-third of the image where you inadvertently caught some solid gold moment.

So true. It is cool when you find a little detail hiding off to the side that really makes the shot (like a cute kid sticking there head in the frame).

[jebjeb]

Originally posted by ThisGuy:
i'd like to to do that someday. either that or porno. heheh what?

I reckon both subjects must be pretty similar!

Face this way, turn your head that way, need more light, smile! It works for both!

[villalobos]

Originally posted by jebjeb:


- Able to change white balance on computer

Agreed. that alone makes is worthwile to shoot RAW. PSE 3.0 does a pretty good job with RAW and makes these adjustements a breeze.
Also when printing a 8.5*11, this makes a difference.

[jebjeb]

Originally posted by villalobos:
Agreed. that alone makes is worthwile to shoot RAW. PSE 3.0 does a pretty good job with RAW and makes these adjustements a breeze.
Also when printing a 8.5*11, this makes a difference.

I can't recall if I have ever manually set a white balance preference on the camera. I just keep it on auto and do it later.

Actually there was one time when I was doing some photos under some flouresent lighting and the auto setting was still leaving a distinct green cast. I set it to the fluro WB setting so it didn't look quite so bad on the camera display. Still ended up tweaking on the machine later.

[Miniryu]

Originally posted by jebjeb:
Its not just a loss of quality that is the difference between a JPG and RAW. The main things is that you still have control over many more aspects of the file when it is a RAW.

The best things that a RAW file gives you over a JPG are

- Able to change white balance on computer
- Able to adjust exposure much more
- File has no permanent sharpening applied yet

The top two are very useful even to the casual snapper, especially the extra exposure latitude (means you can brighten up a picture without just using the brightness and contrast controls).

If your camera supports them and you have the space, RAW rocks. Its the only thing I shoot baby!

The new iPhoto is everything I could realistically ask for of this type of product.

With my crappy Sony Cybershot 3.3 mpx camera is sounds like I have no way to take advantage of this. More and more I am realizing what a lame company Sony is, and that they are going down for trying to take on Apple head on in the portable music market (I mean, can think of a stupider basket to throw all your eggs into? Hopefully they saved some for the PS III).

[Judge_Fire]

I was kinda hoping for DNG conversion, but perhaps it's too early.

J

[shabbasuraj]

Originally posted by ThisGuy:
do any of these 'pro level' media organizers support RAW format?

iView MedaiPro is equipped to handle Nikon NEFs. I believe it utilizes Nikon's PciturePrroject to display the file. Regardless it works on my machine.

[Sandbaggins]

Originally posted by waxcrash:
I bought this baby for my Nikon D70. It does nice close-ups and picks up detail from far away and has vibration reduction.

That's a lens on my list of toys to get. I also have the D70.

Nice choice


must get glass. VR, with the ED elements and G for in camera f stop control :drool:

[jebjeb]

Originally posted by Miniryu:
With my crappy Sony Cybershot 3.3 mpx camera is sounds like I have no way to take advantage of this. More and more I am realizing what a lame company Sony is, and that they are going down for trying to take on Apple head on in the portable music market (I mean, can think of a stupider basket to throw all your eggs into? Hopefully they saved some for the PS III).

I assume your Sony is a smaller point-and-shoot type. Very few of these types handle RAW. It is more the bigger manual/fixed lense (Canon G5 etc) or digital SLR's that support RAW.

The point-and-shoot cameras could well benefit from RAW but I think added complexity as well as file size is what makes the manufacturers not include it. I would imagine that most people would not touch it on these cameras anyway.

[ThisGuy]

i just read that the d30 and d60 have identical RAW files.

[jebjeb]

Originally posted by ThisGuy:
i just read that the d30 and d60 have identical RAW files.

Yeah, I think the change in RAW type happened between the 10D and the 20D. One of the big differences is that the RAW+JPG option is not an embedded JPG in the RAW anymore but two discrete files.

It says it supports both of these camera's RAW files so most Canon stuff should be fine.

[Xeo]

So here's a question, does RAW have advantages over TIFF? Also, does iPhoto handle TIFFs?

[jebjeb]

Originally posted by Xeo:
So here's a question, does RAW have advantages over TIFF? Also, does iPhoto handle TIFFs?

Yes, as far as I know, RAW is a lot more versatile than TIFF. Excuse any misunderstandings I may have but TIFF is basically just a uncompressed or lossless compressed image format. Any action you apply to the file is permanant.

RAW is the actual info effectivly direct off the sensor. This means that no processing within the camera has been done on the file. Tags will be attributed to the RAW from what the camera was set at (things like white balance, Sharpness setting...) but these are able to be changed or disabled. So rather than applying, say, some shappening to an already sharpened image, you are able to apply the required sharpening to the RAW, unsharpened original.

This is the main thing distinguishing RAW's to JPG's and not really the quality of the image due to compression. In most DSLR's the difference in image quality due to the lossless (or no) compression of RAW and lossy compression of JPG (at the highest quality setting) is negligable. It is the versatilitly of RAW that is the huge benefit.

Also, off the top of my head, I think iPhoto does handle TIFFs.

[Spheric Harlot]

Thank you for that excellent explanation, jebjeb.

I was wondering, too.

[Nivag]

Originally posted by jebjeb:
Cool. I have two 1GB Sandisk Ultra II CF cards. I get about 110 or so RAW+JPGS per card but that should rise to about 140 if I go to just RAW.

I am looking at 2GB or bigger cards now as some shoots I can do 10GB or more. Sometimes it is not particualrly convienant to pull out the TiBook to transfer them. At least I have a Firewirse card reader now which has sped things up a bit.

which firewire card reader do you have? i've been looking for a decent one for awhile.

[jebjeb]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Thank you for that excellent explanation, jebjeb.

I was wondering, too.

No probs.

For all of you that have cameras capable of capturing RAW, give this a try. Find a scene which has some dark shadow areas as well as some bright areas. Expose it so that most of the scene looks pretty good (let the camera do the work or do it in manual). The main thing is not to over expose any area you want some detail out of. Take two photos of it, one with the camera set to RAW and the other as a Large/High Quality JPG. Better still, use the RAW+JPG feature if you have it. This will mean it is the exact same photo with the exact exposure etc. If you do take two separate shots, ensure that they both have the same exposure (Shutter speed, aperture, ISO).

Now, chuck it into PhotoShop CS or the new version of iPhoto if you have it (over here we still have to wait for a while grrrrr). In the RAW file, increase the exposure level a little (with the Exposure slider in either the iPhoto popup controls or PS's RAW tool). Do it by maybe the equivalent of 2 stops (or a fair bit so you can see much more detail in the darker areas). Don't blow out (overly brighten) the image. Now, try and replicate this with the JPG file. You will have to use a combination of the Brightness and Contrast controls or levels or curves in PhotoShop. Do you find it is much harder to get a good balance? Are your blacks still black and your whites still white? I'm not saying you can't get a decent result with these controls (we have been doing it for years with scanned images) but with the RAW exposure it is much quicker with a much higher chance of great results. The only negative to increasing the exposure in a RAW is it introduces noise. Not much really (basically none if you are only pushing it a stop or two) and nothing that would really bother you if you found you had a photo that you had to push this far (at least it will be usable).

Shooting RAW will not magically let you see that crow sitting in a pit of charcoal at dusk or a dove flying through a blown-out sky. You still need to shoot so that what you want to capture is within the exposure latitude of your camera. However, it can sometimes make a poorly exposed shot into a winner.

The other advantage is something we have mentioned before. White balance or colour balance. Camera sensors these days do a bloody good job at working this out but they are not always on the money or have not done what we were thinking for the shot. There are two cases main cases where I can see this being really useful to the average photographer;

- Ever notice how flash photos seem a little fake or flat? Most of the time they are missing a bit of warmth. By changing the white balance (it is generally just a slider) you can instantly give someone a bit more colour and add a bit of punch to a photo.

- One of the great things about most of the cameras that support RAW is their high-ISO performance. This means that you can get natural/available light shots much easier by boosting the ISO. A classic example of doing this might be doing some family snaps or at a party indoors. There is a good chance that the photos will be very warm or nearly orange. This is due to the colour of the lighting. You camera has probably done an alright job at counteracting this or maybe you have even manually set the white balance yourself before you took the shot. If you have shot RAW you would be able to alter this effect (it is basically an effect) to either give it much more whiter (cooler) light just like if you had shot it outside. On the other hand, you might want to inject that warmth back into the photo. I took a shot of a couple having a candlelight dinner (at a wedding). The camera had noticed that the light was very warm so counteracted that. When I saw the shot on my Mac it just didn't have the impact. Warming up the colour balance really made the photo much more intimate and turned it into a keeper.

The three things I have mentioned above (Exposure and the two examples of white/colour balance) are things that a required a lot but only take a couple of seconds to do. That's why RAW rocks.

Note to the detail people: I know one should not imply that white balance and colour balance are the same but for this level and purpose they basically are.

Hope I haven't bored you guys too much but I think these relatively simple concepts can really improve the photos that we all take. The other thing is it means we can concentrate more on what we are shooting rather than every single setting on our cameras. Getting things perfect or as close to perfect in the first place makes life easier but that's not always possible

Please feel free to correct me if I have made any mistakes or also ask if you have any more questions. My next lecture will be on Exposure Latitude if anyone wants to hear about it.

[jebjeb]

Originally posted by Nivag:
which firewire card reader do you have? i've been looking for a decent one for awhile.

I have a Sandisk one. It takes about two minutes to transfer 1GB off my Sandisk Ultra II cards.

[Nivag]

cheers jebjeb and thanks for all your explanations and advice, nice one!

[hayesk]

Originally posted by Nivag:
which firewire card reader do you have? i've been looking for a decent one for awhile.

I have a Sandisk - it's a silver plastic disk. It's really quick, but there is a bottleneck with iPhoto - iPhoto takes time making preview thumbnails. If I copy the images to the Finder, it's really fast.

[jebjeb]

Originally posted by hayesk:
I have a Sandisk - it's a silver plastic disk. It's really quick, but there is a bottleneck with iPhoto - iPhoto takes time making preview thumbnails. If I copy the images to the Finder, it's really fast.

Is that on the old version of iPhoto or the new one? I have found that before as well but as I copy the card straight to the desktop and then extract the JPGs it has not been a problem.

What I was thinking is that as most cameras generate a small thumbnail in a seperate file for each RAW if the RAW enabled version of iPhoto will use this thumb when it is importing thus speeding up the transfer.