“With the release of Mac OS X 10.4 ‘Tiger,’ Apple has added basic support for Raw images to its OS and to the iPhoto digital photo management application. Sadly, Apple, like Adobe, has decided to go its own route with Raw image support: The company is manually reverse-engineering each Raw image format so that photos in those formats will work properly in iPhoto. Therefore, iPhoto will also lag behind as new Raw image formats appear in new cameras,” Paul Thurrott writes for Connected Home Media.
“Raw image support in iPhoto has other problems. In its bid to keep things simple, Apple maintains two copies of each Raw image you import into iPhoto. One copy is the original Raw image. The other is a lower-quality JPEG image that the application displays to avoid a performance lag. However, when you edit a Raw image in iPhoto, you’re actually just editing the JPEG version—not the original. Thus, each edit you make will likely impact the overall quality of the finished product,” Thurrott writes.
“In short, Apple’s support of Raw images is half-baked at best, but it’s better than nothing. I advise photographers who use the Macintosh to skip iPhoto and instead use third-party tools such as Adobe PhotoShop or PhotoShop Elements to manage and edit Raw images,” Thurrott writes.
Thurrott covers Windows XP’s Raw image support and more in the full article here.
Normally I would take a review like this and file the information somewhere between my ears for later recall (if I’m lucky). But since the author is none other than Paul Thurrott, this info gets filed under “things that may be true but probably aren’t”.
He’s sort of correct. It isn’t really Apple’s fault though. The problem is there is no standard raw format. Adobe is trying to get one. Not sure though whether they are in agreement with an open spec raw format. But Canon’s raw format is different than Nikon’s raw format. Nikon has already come under fire for making quite a bit of their raw format proprietary which can only be read by their own software.
Hopefully, an open spec’d standard will emerge that will not require a license to use. This should be open enough that open source software can use the same format as well.
What I’d like to see from Apple is a professional image catalog application.
This guy is an idiot. Since Canon etc have moved to proprietary image file formats, the application developers HAVE to use their own formats.
His argument is also inconsistent : he slams Apple and Adobe for using their own formats, but then advises you to skip Apple and use Adobe. So I guess one “non-standard” format is okay.
Also, he needs to remember that not everyone can afford or needs Photoshop. iPhoto is perfect for most users.
Just another attempt to criticise Apple. What a turd.
Pros should use photoshop instead of iphoto? another thurrott stroke of genius.
I read some article last month about Longhorn’s support for RAW formats (which should be availably to the ‘real IT world’ sometime in 2007…..?)
Anyways, lets hope they don’t attempt to leverage their OS to develope and promote a proprietary RAW format for all the camera manufacturers to license. If that happens, I’ll give the ‘real IT world’ 2 weeks before someone spreads a virus via their CAMERA!
In other news, Microsoft launches another anti-virus services ($40/yr subscription) to counter the new RAW computer virus. Also Microsoft has updated their .NET product, which ironically was used to develope the RAW virus, that has crippled thousands of professional photographers cameras and computers. If you happen to have been smart enough to be using Mac OS X, you got spared these troubles.
Same comments as above.
People who know that they are using RAW are unlikely iPhoto users. iPhoto is very much a consumer app. People using RAW who don’t know they’re using RAW won’t care that they’re viewing and editing JPEGs.
This misguided criticism is like criticising GarageBand for not outputting 96KHz 24 bit audio.
I agree with Carl Carlson… Thurrott’s a tool.
Thurott in ‘critisizing a Mac app, being correct, but getting bashed by the blinkered zealots nonetheless’-shocker.
MDN, the only value of putting his reviews on here is to have a venting space for FanaticalMacZealots. If that is your purpose, keep on doing it. If it is not, why bother?
LOL Wingsy! I’m with you!
To Hmm and other (you know who you are)
This is a Mac oriented website. Don’t be suprised to find FanaticalMacZealots here.
Personally, I am an Anti-Microsoft-Zealot first, a FanaticalMacZealot second.
I became a Mac user not because of what Apple did to attract me Macintosh, but what Microsoft did to drive me away from Windows. Once I took the jump, my eyes where opened to what a shell Microsoft keeps PC users in. Balmer may be yelling Developers, Developers, Developers but what he means is Control, Control, Control. I just couldn’t support a company with the ethics of Microsoft anymore, and had to move to something different. I tried Linux, thought is would OK but I wanted to try a Mac, too. Once I used it, I knew I could pitch everything else. What Apple did with OS X (with a much smaller budget) is a world beyond what Microsoft can muster. Just goes to show that money can’t solve your problems.
I think I’ll change my screen name to Verbose. Is anyone who frequents this site using that name?
I’m a computer consultant. A real consultant, not like the Thurrot kind. In addition, I’m a photographer. I own high end Canon equipment. EOS 1D Mark II, and an EOS 1Ds Mark II.
You never, ever, ever edit the original RAW image. DUH! Think of RAW as a digital negative. A RAW file is a fundamentally a record of the raw sensor data from the camera along with additional metadata supplied by the camera (name of the photographer, date, shutter speed, aperture, white balance, etc.) You don’t edit this file. You keep this file untouched.
RAW files are powerful because you can make adjustments based on the raw sensor data. If your shot was a little under exposed, you can adjust exposure. You can adjust white balance. You can adjust black levels, color temperature, etc. You can do all this, and afterwards your adjusted image is converted to something else and your RAW image REMAINS untouched.
Apple did not “go it’s own way like Adobe,” either. Camera manufactures REFUSE to settle on a single RAW format. Each time Canon or Nikon comes out with a new camera, there’s another new RAW format. Then EVERYONE, not just Apple and Adobe has to scramble to update their software to deal with the new RAW format. Adobe is trying like crazy to create a single RAW format that everyone uses, but the Camera vendords have so far decided to thwart these efforts. NIKON has even created a new RAW format that can only be edited by NIKON’s software. No one knows what Nikons goal is except to force people to have to buy their software.
Blaming Apple for this is nuts.
In fact as a photographer, I feel that Apple has done a splended job of building RAW support into the OS and making it almost invisible. I had no idea Tiger was going to natively support RAW images. It wasn’t until after upgrading to Tiger that I noticed my RAW images had visible icons. I double-clicked on one and was blown away when Preview was able to open it, REALLY FAST, and let me see inside.
Now, when I dump a bunch of RAW images down from the camera into a folder on OS X, I can use Preview to browse them, before even going into Photoshop.
In fact THE FREAKING FINDER allows me to browse them!
As far as iPhoto, 99% of Photographers won’t shoot in RAW anyway. Most low end digital cameras don’t provide RAW image formats. Most digital photographers want to snap some pics, plug the camera in, and e-mail those pics to family and friends. Some want to put them on websites.
Even pros don’t automatically generate prints from everything they shoot. I often e-mail a client selections back within hours of taking photographs and iPhoto handles this beautifully. iPhoto imports all of my RAW images and places them nice and safe in a folder. I like this. I can go in and back them up, which I do immediately. When I open one or more images in iPhoto I can have them sent to the client in e-mail right then and there. It takes minutes to do what used to take me an hour or more.
I’d have to open the Adobe Photoshop Browser. I’d have to select the RAW images I want, convert them down to JPEGs, reduce the image sizes, then e-mail them. A much slower process even when automated.
On this one, as usual Thurrott is way out of his league.
You can’t even begin to compare iPhoto to Photoshop. iPhoto is for the basic user and is geared more toward cataloguing, not editing. That is why there are only basic editing tools.
Its APPLES to oranges.
MDW: Give — Give me a real editorial that is not designed to make MS look good.
I’m a pro photographer too and while I like iPhoto for generating quicktime slideshows, iPhoto is simply a consumer app that doesn’t come close to comparing to something like iView or Photo Mechanic. It’s nice to have and often useful but nothing more.
Actually, the Mac supported RAW through iPhoto 5 on OSX 10.3, so Thurrott is a little late to the party to discover this. The fact that the OS can open them as well is not a big deal. It is just a slight evolution.
I’m a pro photographer as well. iLife is great for quick, just-for-fun stuff. Even though it is an apples-oranges situation, I actually think it spurred Adobe’s Photoshop development a little too, because I have to admit, CS2 is Adobe’s best work yet.