Raw files and iPhoto

[murrays 0]

I am so-o-o-o close to heading out and buying a Nikon D70S it isn't even funny. (It's just a matter of if, not which camera I get) But.....

I want to do lots of nature, landscape and portrait photography and use RAW for that type of shooting. Has anybody on here used iPhoto or Photoshop Elements to work with RAW files? Has anybody done this on an older Mac? (I have an 800 mhz G4 flatpanel iMac)

--
Murray

"No tyranny is so irksome as petty tyranny: the officious demands of policemen, government clerks, and electromechanical gadgets." - Edward Abbey

[freeflydrew 0]

it works... i have a couple canons and shoot exclusively in RAW. My desktop runs Aperture, but I only have iphoto on my laptop. Its kinda slow, but iphoto accepts the files no problem

[ltdiver 3]

Thanks for asking the question. Nice to know that answer. Thanks, freeflydrew.

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[murrays 0]

And I thank you too. Will soon let you know how it works for me...I'm just charging the battery for my new camera!!!

--
Murray

"No tyranny is so irksome as petty tyranny: the officious demands of policemen, government clerks, and electromechanical gadgets." - Edward Abbey

[DSE 3]

once you start working in RAW, regardless of whether you use Ulead, Photoshop, or even iPhoto, you'll wonder why you ever used compressed formats in the past. Significant difference, especially if you're color correcting or manipulating the pixels in any way.

[ltdiver 3]

Quote

once you start working in RAW, regardless of whether you use Ulead, Photoshop, or even iPhoto, you'll wonder why you ever used compressed formats in the past.

Except for the need for a fast frame rate. I would still use large format .jpg for tandems and AFF. You need to at -least- give them the same number of pictures (i.e. 36) that you used to give them with 35mm film. Kinda hard to do with RAW in a less than 60 second freefall.

Everything else....yeah, use RAW. :^)

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[DSE 3]

maybe I'm wrong, but thought the D70 can shoot RAW 1 per sec?
E20's are slower, 1 every three sec, so I can see that won't work...

[ltdiver 3]

Quote

maybe I'm wrong, but thought the D70 can shoot RAW 1 per sec?
E20's are slower, 1 every three sec, so I can see that won't work...

How ya gonna 'burst' on exit for those few increadible frames?

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[DSE 3]

good point, understood. (remember, i'm a ground DP, not an aerial cameraman, yet)
This will be less and less of an issue as time rolls on, thankfully. The need for still + video is rapidly diminishing.
Canon has a buffered cam (S80) that will shoot 15fps at 4.0 MP, and I'm sure that will jump.
Sony's HCR HC3 and HVR A1 will shoot 2mp simultaneous to vid, so unless you're printing larger than 8x10, these work quite well.

[freeflydrew 0]

Canon 20d 5 frames per second and the 350d (XT) is 3 frames per second... more if you don't shoot in RAW.

The problem with shooting tandems with RAW is that you can't really hand someone a cd with RAW images on it and assumen that they can open them. (unless they have a mac). You should convert to jpeg and then deliver which equals additional post processing time.

[ltdiver 3]

Quote

2mp simultaneous to vid, so unless you're printing larger than 8x10, these work quite well.

Work quite well? Not really. First you go ape on RAW, then you say that 2MP works quite well for printing? Sorry. 2MP is not -anything- I'd hand a customer for printing. Perhaps e-mailing to friends, but not printing.
ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[DSE 3]

Perhaps you wouldn't, but the wedding and technology industries are doing very well with these at 5x7 and 8x10. I've seen what they're doing with them on dozens of occasions, and if you haven't seen it, don't knock it.
*I* (like most professionals) prefer as much res as possible. But I'm also not arrogant enough to believe that the average Joe can see the difference.
2MP sized images have been used for years for newspaper print, POP media, etc. Certainly isn't the best, but with CMOS where it is today, you get more bang for your buck.
No, I didn't go "Ape" over RAW. I simply love what I can finally do with it. It's a tool. Nothing more.
If you'd like to *see* some of the differences rather than make judgements based on specs, I'm happy to send you one of our training DVDs on RAW and other image manipulation technologies.
Have you ever sent an image aquired by HDCAM to an offset or for manipulation to be printed on a large format printer? I'd guess not if you're thinking it's only good enough for webmail.

[freeflydrew 0]

the problem, or rather one of the problems with shooting 2 mp is that for 8x10 prints, there's no room for cropping... I'm under the impression that the wedding/event industry shoots with 4-17megapixel cameras as standard, not 2 megapixel cameras.

[DSE 3]

Quote

the problem, or rather one of the problems with shooting 2 mp is that for 8x10 prints, there's no room for cropping... I'm under the impression that the wedding/event industry shoots with 4-17megapixel cameras as standard, not 2 megapixel cameras.

1. There are no 5-17MP video cameras, which is where the thread became about pixels.

2. I'd only advocate 2mp for 5x7, (All HDV cams are a min of 2MP) or 4MP for 8x10. However, with Algolith, Magic Bullet, and several other tools, the 2MP can also be upsampled quite nicely. I saw a full bodyboard (Advertising punch) made from a video camera still function that was incredible, knowing the source and seeing the size of the print.

http://www.vasst.com/HDV/hdv_z1_images.htm has images you're welcome to download and print on your printer, thus allowing you to decide for your self. These shots are screengrabs from HDV, so they're only 1.7MP. I haven't uploaded any of the still images captured by the cams, will try to get around to it later today. The HDV still image captures range from 1.9MP to 4.2MP, depending on the make/model of the video cam.

[ltdiver 3]

Guess I need to be more specific.

From my first post: I love RAW as well and will use it for *professional* prints. It's the best the digital SLR's can produce at this time.

Also from my first post: Every format has its use, and for freefall students (ones that like alot of quality prints to show their friends) Large Format .jpg works great.

From my last post: 2MP prints are not what neither you (from your last post) nor I would use as a *professional* to represent what we would offer.
If the 'average joe' wants to produce for themselves a lower quality print, have at it. My sister does this for her newsletter and it works just great for that. However, it isn't what I'd call a quality product that I would want to represent a business with. Yes, software can enhance it, and even make it a bit more pallitable, but you can't upgrade a poor product too much. You have what you start with as a base and work up (or down) from that.

Sorry that my posts didn't show the agreement that we have and only seemed to point out the differences. You obviously have alot of training in the digital realm. I'm trying to apply it to functional applications.
ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[DSE 3]

Quote

Guess I need to be more specific.


Sorry that my posts didn't show the agreement that we have and only seemed to point out the differences. You obviously have alot of training in the digital realm. I'm trying to apply it to functional applications.
ltdiver

Thanks for the clarification. Yeah, we're both in total agreement. Regarding training, FWIW, I'm the only Sony Broadcast Professional-certified trainer for the HVR Z1u and HVR-A1U at this point in time (no I don't work for Sony).
While I'd never consider any videocam acquired print for putting in a coffee table book, I'm quite comfortable using them for small prints. SLR CMOS chips, particularly the HADs, are significantly more balanced and even voltages across the plate, and we'll likely never see that in the video realm, even with the new 4K res RED or Dalsa Origin cams. It's just not necessary.

[MB38 0]

Though I may agree that it's not "necessary," there's no reason to think that we won't ever get to that point. Perhaps it won't be present or usable at a consumer level, but at a professional level [I don't so much mean the 'film industry' as I do more specialized situations] it will certainly come about. Though, for all we know, we could be buying little Canon Optura 4K cameras in 10 years.

It will be interesting to see what becomes of the RED camera in the future. While at NAB, I got a chance to talk to Ted about RED's potential application in the freefall cinematography world. Interestingly, it wasn't a perspective that he'd really ever thought of. His description of the RED flash's integration into the unit makes it seem nice and snag-free. I'm interested to see the first frames taken with RED's sensor, particularly to see how it reacts to different [read: not $30,000] glass. Hopefully it won't be limited to the Joes and Normans of the sky.

But, to return to the question at hand, iPhoto loves RAW images. You won't have the control you'll get with a professional application [remember, it's a program designed for moms and their point-and-shoot cameras], for merely importing and storing the data... you're in business. But please, put it into a high-end piece of software if you're doing work that warrants it.

Cheers.

I really don't know what I'm talking about.

[DSE 3]

For clarification, what I meant by "not necessary" is that vid cams, whether they're 1/6" or 4", CCD or CMOS, don't have many of the same frame requirements as do still cams.
RED looks very promising, but...
iPhoto is a good lil' program, but if you can afford aperture, photoshop, you'll be better off.
iView isn't too expensive, and Canon's Digital Photo Professional is very impressive (If you've got a Canon cam)

[MB38 0]

Thanks for the clarification.

I really don't know what I'm talking about.

[volo 0]

Adobe Lightroom (Beta 2 version)........this is a really nice program that is FREE and it controls workflow very well (especially with RAW format photos). Give it a try.

Jason Jerusalem
[email protected]

[Laszloimage 0]

I'm using RAW and the difference is unbelievable...
Of course it's takes longer to process and requires a bit more understanding of photography but worth it.
Personally I'm converting my RAW files with Canon's Digital Photo Pro which is available for free on
www.canonusa.com For other photo editings I'm using
Ulead's PhotoImact-10 which is very similar to PhotoShop (some aspects even more capable!!!) except lot cheaper only approx. $100 Unfortunately it doesn't run on Macs I hope I helped...
-Laszlo- http://www.laszloimage.com/

[MB38 0]

One website to check out if you're just looking for random Mac [sorry, I gotta point it out... Mac, not MAC] freeware/utilities is www.versiontracker.com. Do a search for RAW to see what they have there... but eventually you'll learn to swear by the site. Need some random little task done that you've never needed to do before? Somebody's probably written an application to do it for you.

I really don't know what I'm talking about.

[murrays 0]

I scan VT daily for new releases. It's a great resource. As I type this I am downloading 454 mb of Photoshop Elements 4 from the Adobe on-line store. I think it will do what I need...which isn't too much as I don't have the time to devote to properly learning Photoshop et al....but it's going to be nice having the higher res files that permit far more latitude in producing a better image.

--
Murray

"No tyranny is so irksome as petty tyranny: the officious demands of policemen, government clerks, and electromechanical gadgets." - Edward Abbey

[avenfoto 0]

d70s is decent camera, but as far as i know, doesnt shoot raw...

also, the extra time involved in post, isnt really worth the time or (lack of) money involved in tandem fotos..imo

[murrays 0]

It shoots RAW in Nikon NEF format.

--
Murray

"No tyranny is so irksome as petty tyranny: the officious demands of policemen, government clerks, and electromechanical gadgets." - Edward Abbey