RAW workflow questions - image degradation over several edits with 08?

I currently use Aperture to manage (and edit) my digital photo library. After reading about iphoto 08, the only major thing I can see preventing me from using it would be the RAW editing.
An example would be a photo taken in RAW format and edited in iPhoto. It is saved as a JPEG. Any future editing ontop of that jpeg and the image begins degrading as levels of compression are added ontop of it (I think).
In Aperture, the raw file is maintained and any editing to the RAW file becomes non-destructive as the RAW format is retained in "real time" (so to speak).
I know iPhoto also retains the original RAW file, but not the edited RAW file.
My question is this: with the great extra features of iPhoto (such as easier integration with .Mac) I am seriously considering a switch, but am concerned about image degradation. For all the semi-pro users, what is your RAW workflow in regards to iPhoto? Do you edit the file once, then when editing is required in the future just re-edit the JPEG or go back to the original RAW?
For any former Aperture users who switched to iPhoto, was it worth it?
Thanks!!

Terence,
Once again, thank you for a most helpful answer. I was wondering about the same issue. I guess this means that when you edit RAW files in iPhoto, it uses a similar approach than Aperture and Lightroom now. With far less options of course, but if you just doing basic editing of white balance and shadow/highlight, iPhoto is an appealing alternative.
If I understand correctly the Raw conversion is done at the system level, so iPhoto and APerture even use the same conversion engine, right?
Thank you
Bo

Similar Messages

  • Image quality lost through editing with Photoshop?

    I find a number of professionals using Lightroom as their primary photo editor. 
    I did a search on Lightroom vs Photoshop.  I found the following listed as the first reason for choosing Lightroom: 1.  Nondestructive Editing.  Nothing is actually changed (by Lightroom) in an image until it is exported.  This means you can make an adjustment, change it again and again, but no quality is lost as it would be with Photoshp.  This is reported in Outdoor Photographer.
    My impression is there is no lost of image quality in Photoshop if you are working on a layer copy of the Background.  Photoshop tries to prevent degradation of the original image by requiring it be copied  or otherwise freed before the background can be changed.
    Image quality can be lost in downstream layers through processes such as changing image size. 
    Is my statement correct about loss of image quality and the 'analyst' from Outdoor Photographer misstating things?

    Hi Vince.
    I am just learning my way around Photoshp.  I have spent 18 months learning how to start and to stop it.
    Good point. But if we peg the learning curve of Ps at 10, Lr comes in around 2 or 3. Like learning to drive a car as opposed to learning to fly a jet.
    Smart Objects would make PS more re-editable.
    True, but still no match for Lr or Ps RAW.
    I have never before seens a comment that extensive work on an image in PS would deteriorate the quality of the image.
    Extensive work will do what the user asks it to do. In the first 18 months I had Ps, I asked it to do lots of things that I now realize deteriorated my images. Forever.
    Regarding LR, I have created for me a workflow that requires PS.
    So did everyone before Lr came out. And yet, Ps users by the thousands, if not millions, have adopted Lr. Many if not most with a greater time investment in Ps than 18 months. I dropped my Ps centric flo the moment I realized what Lr could do. I had been using Ps pretty heavily for about 5 years by that time.
    I feel LR works best for experienced photographers who are shoooting a lot of pictures.
    While it's true that experienced photographers might realize more benifit, maybe not. It works great for everyone.
    That person has good images, images that need little editing, to start the output process.
    This is not true in the sense that the majority of Lr users are mediocre photographers at best. For the simple fact that most photographers (even "pros") are mediocre at best. And Lr was conceived with these folks in mind. It has the true "pro" stuff, but in an amateur friendly environment. Judging by the images and questions posted on photo and Lr forums, there are many, many, low level photographers using it.
    I am an inexperienced photographer shooting just a few pictures.  So I put a lot of effort into getting a good print from my mediocre shots.
    You obviously care about your images. Care more when you are shooting them. This is boiler plate advice. Time spent mastering your camera will pay off better dividends than learning to fix bad photos. This was true before the digital age, and it's just as true now. Ultimately, no matter how hard you massage it in Ps, Lr, or any other app, the quality of your final image will be a function of the quality of the original pixels you captured with you camera.
    So far as masks and all the rest, Lr has an Local Area Adjustment Brush which does just that. You paint the mask, complete with any number or combination of adjustments, with a brush. The mask and the adjustments to it can be easily changed later. A good spot removal tool. A great red eye tool.
    File size isn't a huge factor these days, but it still counts. Instead of layers and the pixel data for each of them as in Ps, Lr has the pixel data once, and a sidecar file with the adjustments settings in a much smaller file. Not a big deal for storage, but when rendering, maybe a bigger deal. Lr also pre-renders previews at various sizes (you can program this, plus how long it keeps them). I could go on and on (and I have).
    Bottom line, it's a great tool for anyone who takes photos. For the price, it's a no brainer for $150. If you have the $150. Not true for many of us these days.
    Anyway, Vince,  I hope you don't think I'm picking on you. I answered you in detail because you made such good points. And the answers might be of general interest.
    Peace,
    Lee

  • RAW workflow question

    I have begun using the RAW format on my Canon dRebel and I am having some difficulties in figuring out what my workflow should be. I found the post below in this discussion group, but I am not sure I completely understand the process around converting RAW files in an external program.
    This is what I have tried to do:
    1. in Photoshop Elements 3 I click Open and navigate to the folder containing the RAW files (if I control-click the RAW file in iPhoto and select Edit in External Editor it opens a JPG version of the file in PSE3 bypassing the Camera RAW application)
    2. I make the necessary adjustments and convert the file to JPG at which point I "replace" the JPG in the iPhoto Library
    This does not seem to be working as I am either unable to read the file after or iPhoto will not reflect the new version.
    Any help would be appreciated.
    Michel
    PS: Bonus question: I copied all my old jpg files to the picture directory before launching iPhoto for the first time and importing them into the library. Do I now have duplicates of all files that were on the harddrive before doing the import? Can I delete these to free up space?
    Jan,
    I should have been more clear. Importing from the camera or a reader is the same. If the camera is not supported, it won't work from either as its the RAW file format that determines compatibility. If the RAW files imported into iPhoto the format is supported and you will now have an iPhoto generated JPEG for each RAW file imported.
    If you double click on a thumbnail, it will open in edit mode (or an external editor if configured to do so) in its JPEG form.
    To edit the RAW file you need to drag the thumbnail into your favorite RAW editor and save that converted file in your choice of format outside of the iPhoto library.
    If you double click an image and then want your RAW file back to drop into a RAW editor, you need to select the thumbnail, right/control click, and select "Revert to Original".
    Also, I believe the E1's RAW format is supported since the 10.4.3 update.
    Hope this helped!
    Sam

    Hi Michel,
    I don't do RAW but I can point you to an Apple article. Is RAW supported for your camera? Meaning does iPhoto import the RAW files and put them in an Originals folder in the iPhoto Library folder in the Finder?
    Supported RAW cameras
    iPhoto 5 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ): Working with RAW images
    Working with RAW in iPhoto 5
    For the bonus question. You can delete the jpg files you have in the Pictures folder as they were copied into iPhoto's database (the iPhoto Library folder in the Finder) when they were imported into iPhoto.
    Lori

  • Adobe Camera Raw workflow question #2901

    Now that I have my new digital camera-dedicated rig up and running I have been using ACR and CS2 to process my backlog of Canon 30D CR2 files. I am trying to get them ready for posting on the internet. Currently I am using ACR only to tweak Exposure and White Balance, then I move the file in 16 bits/AdobeRGB to CS2 where I do noise reduction, levels, curves adjustment, saturation then resize, sharpening then convert to an 8 bit, sRGB Jpg.
    I have adopted this workflow because it was similar to the one I used when my old creakin' PC required me to use DPP to do my RAW conversion (and I subsequently did PP in CS with a 16 bit TIFF)
    But I notice ACR has many choices and options such as contrast, shadows, saturation, sharpness, noise reduction controls that one can perform prior to RAW conversion. I have read in the past theoretical comments that adjustments are best made to a file during RAW conversion rather than while as a jpg. Does the same apply to a 16 BiT TIFF? In the workflow above, am I working on a TIFF?
    I am wondering if I am better off to make all of the adjustments in ACR window instead of the more lengthy process in CS2. Are there any advantages to doing these adjustments prior to RAW conversion? Or is it better to do PP on 16 bit files using layers?
    What are the relative merits of processing the file in either ACR window or as an 16 bit file in CS2?
    If it matters, I work on a PC and prefer to PP each file separately rather than in batches. But I DO use batch runs in CS2 to save time using Actions with around 10 file batches to do noise reduction and resize/convert to sRGB/save as.
    As always, thanks for the time you take to help me out!!

    >"What does Pixelgenius PhotoKit Sharpener do that I can't do, perhaps with more trouble, by applying what I've read in his book? And would I have a problem trying to use it with CS3? "
    I have a few observations and perhaps Jeff can comment. With images taken with a digital camera at high ISO, noise reduction may be necessary in the capture phase of sharpening. PhotoKit offers the sharpen and smooth option for this purpose. One can exert some control over the smoothing process by changing the opacity of the smoothing layer and the blend if sliders.
    In his sharpening book Bruce uses Photoshop's reduce noise and despeckle filters to reduce noise (sometimes using the despeckle filter multiple times), but I don't know what filter is used in the PhotoKit smoothing operation or what parameters are used for the reduce noise filter if it is used.
    If you use Bruce's book and the "roll your own" approach, you have more control over the noise reduction process and also the possibility of using a third party NR product such as the Noise Ninja plugin. Furthermore, just as an edge mask is used to restrict the sharpening to the edges, a surface mask may be used with NR to keep the smoothing away from the edges. The surface mask may be derived by inverting the edge mask used for sharpening, but Bruce says that some tweaking may give improved results.
    An alternative would be to use the third party NR prior to using PK sharpener. However, you would still need to make a surface mask for optimum results, but I doubt that many users take the trouble of doing this.
    In my own work with the Nikon D200 (which has rather high noise at high ISO), I find that I often get unacceptable noise and artifacts with PK Sharpener when used with high ISO images.
    Also, many landscape photographers mask off areas of clear blue sky and foliage that do not need sharpening, thereby avoiding accentuation of noise secondary to sharpening in these areas.
    >Bruce gave you the recipies...he didn't give you the exact numbers to use. So, you'll have to do what he and I did...trial and error, to arrive at optimum numbers...
    For output sharpening, the PK defaults seem to work quite well and the trial and effort of rolling your own is usually not worthwhile, IMHO.

  • Can't export images edited with external editor

    Images edited within iPhoto '11 export to the desktop without a problem but images that have been edited with an external editor (Photoshop CS4) will not export. The following dialog come up:
    Exporting...
    Unable to create /Users/<name>/Desktop/
    Cancel
    Don't know if this has any bearing but the problem is on my wife's iMac, not my MacPro.
    Any clues to the source of the problem will be appreciated.

    Thanks TD for your input. While I could not get the rebuild to work (it would show 97% done then hang up), it helped me isolate the problem. I ended up deleting all the images that were edited by PS CS4 then tried to do the rebuild again. Still no luck. I then opened the file sans the edited PS images and it worked.
    I then edited one of the images using PS CS4 as the external editor and that worked. I then exported the image to the desktop and that also worked. The only think I can think of is that the original edits were done in iPhoto 9.0 and I have since updated it to 9.1. Whatever - it works and the only loss were some edits on a dozen or so family candid shots.
    Your help in getting me headed is most appreciated.
    Ed

  • Faces issue when selecting 'edit with CS4' (or any other external editor)

    Ok, so I have a work flow where I effectively use Nik Plugins. I have the complete set so that i can use them in Aperture and CS4. I correct exposure and white balance and crop in Aperture but then have automators set up in CS4 to apply Nik plugin effects via a batch change process ie no manual adjustments needed, start the batch and come back 20 mins later. Anyway thats somewhat irrelevant....
    Once stage one is done in Aperture I select faces and see that all looks fine. Suggestions appear over faces etc as you'd expect. BUT if I then select edit with CS4 (via right click) on that image it creates a duplicate image (as its non-destructive) and opens it in CS4. Fine. But if you go in to Aperture the faces on this duplicate image are now all messed up. They are not at all over peoples faces but seemingly in random places. Right click and selecting detect faces does nothing. So in summary if I edit anything with CS4 and hit save so that the changes appear in Aperture then hit faces to tag people I have to effectively start from scratch and delete all the faces (not over peoples faces) and add new faces.
    The best way to illustrate this is with screenshots. See this link for 2 screenshots of the issue. http://adamlewis.zenfolio.com/screenshot
    Can someone else confirm they have this issue at all first off to see if it is a specific issue to myself or a generic Aperture issue?
    After that I guess we can proceed with troubleshooting and solutions.
    PS I have repaired my library and rebuilt it and have upgraded Aperture to the latest 3.2.2 (released today / yesterday but note the issue was found under 3.2.1 so its not a 3.2.2 specific issue).

    Maybe I should have made it clearer in my original post. The 1st paragraph was just for colour. The fact of using Nik has nothing to do with the issue. The below quote is the issue:
    "Suggestions appear over faces etc as you'd expect. BUT if I then select edit with CS4 (via right click) on that image it creates a duplicate image (as its non-destructive) and opens it in CS4. Fine. But if you go in to Aperture the faces on this duplicate image are now all messed up. They are not at all over peoples faces but seemingly in random places."
    Thus the issue is generated by merely selecting Edit with CS4. ie no editing done in CS4 and not even saved in CS4. Just selecting edit with CS4 in Aperture creates the duplicate image in Aperture (and sends it to CS4 but lets assume we do nothing with it there at all) but creates a duplicate with face tags in the wrong places.
    After further investigation I changed my external editing software option in preferences to Pixelmator and the same issue occurs.
    So to replicate the issue in my place there are 2 simple steps that I need to make (and would like tested by someone else):
    1. Tag some peoples faces in an Aperture image
    2. Select edit with (any external editor)
    Then go back in to Aperture (immediately) and select faces on the duplicate image created and see if the faces are in the correct position.
    Note I have my external editor set to TIFF 8 Bit 300dpi using Adobe RGB colour space.
    Thanks for your time.
    Message was edited by: loobola

  • Can't edit with Photoshop

    I'm having an issue trying to edit my images.  When I right click on an image and go to "edit with - photoshop CS4" nothing happens.  I've tried several times with several images and nothing.  The other day when I was editing it suddenly started opening IrfanView instead of Photoshop.  Now, I just tried again to doublecheck and Photoshop isn't even an option - only Illustrator CS4 and IrfanView.  This is getting frustrating.  Is anyone else having a similar issue with the "edit with" feature?  Any ideas on how to remedy this issue?

    Yes, I've had the same problem using IDCS4 on Win XP. I got MS Paint opening and I vaguely recall what I did to fix it.
    Thinking it was a memory problem I know I 'Closed' and 'Re-Opened' IDCSC4 at least once. I must have closed Photoshop and Acrobat also to free up RAM prior to doing this. I think failing that, I rebooted (maybe more than once, and to a full, dead, shut down and wait for the RAM to fully discharge for 5 minutes, as I recall). Then I just started and launched ID only, and it went away, finally. It hasn't reared it's ugly head since.

  • Help - Finding images that I've edited

    Hi again,
    This is a contination of a prior post, but has narrowed in scope.  I have a case open with Adobe realted to my catalog going haywire at some point in the past (longer ago than my oldest catalog BU). In my dealings with Adobe on this now almost 2 month old case several things have been tried. Some have helped for some of the symptoms but we're left with one remaining problem.
    At this time the catalog has lost track of the CR2 half of CR2+JPG combos. The physical CR2 files are still on my HD, just the catalog now only knows about the JPG where in the past the catalog had showed CR2+RAW for those images.  I'm not going to go into all the gory details, but it looks like for situaitons where I had applied edits to my CR2+JPG combos before the catalog lost track of the CR2's, those edits are now showing on the remaining JPG (as the CR2 is no longer known to the catalog) and I need to get those edits over to the corresponding CR2 which I can re-import. So far Adobe has not been able to suggest anyting other than importing the CR2 (after setting the catalog preference to treat RAW next to JPG as seperate images) then copying the history from the JPG to the CRW one by one which is not a very exciting thought.
    I have over 22,000 images in the catalog, of which, maybe 15,000 were victims of the catalog problem that lost the CR2's. What I don't know is how many, and which, photos in the catalog are lone JPG's (ie are not part of a CR2+JPG combo) and have had one or more edits applied to the image. If that number is manageable I can copy the edits one by one. If that number is too large, then I need to keep encouraging Adobe to give me a way to do this.
    So, can one of you experts come up with a filter or smart collection method of isolating the lone JPG images (not CR2+JPG combos) where there are edits showing in the history. The filter or smart collection should only consider real updates and ignore history entries such as those that start with "Update to current process", "export to....", "Import...", "Publish...", Etc.
    Thanks -- Dan

    Hi Beat,
    The plugin you suggested was looking real good till I got to a FAQ on their web page stating that "History Steps" are not copied.  Oops, that's what I'm really after.   I guess just the final edited image pixels are copied rather than the edit stps.
    Thanks for the thought.
    Dan

  • Workflow Question - Recently moved from PC to Mac

    So, let me say that I'm a die hard Windows user -- in fact, in my "day job" I own a software development company and we're a "Microsoft shop". But, my side business is Photography and I'm making the switch to the Mac & Aperture. So, what I'm hoping to get from this post is a "yes, you can do that" or a "no, you can't do that" with Aperture. I'm happy to figure out how -- I just need someone to tell me if it's possible.
    Here's my current workflow (coming from the PC - which required several applications to accomplish these steps):
    1) Import images and rename "IMG_1234.CR2" to "1234.CR2" -- essentially dropping the "IMG_" from the name. Is this possible w/ Aperture?
    2) Do all of the processing on the images (No questions here yet -- got that pretty well figured out in Aperture).
    3) Create a black & white version of each image. Currently doing this by making a duplicate version in Aperture. But, I would like it to be named "1234-BW.CR2" rather than just have "version 2" tacked on the end. Is this possible in Aperture?
    4) "Develop" the pics into jpg's. Again, the final image names should be "1234.jpg" and "1234-BW.jpg" respectively. Again, the question has to do with renaming the original & duplicate version of the image.
    5) Choose all of the color versions of the photos and then selectively pick some of the b/w versions and export them to a "Web" size along w/ Thumbnail versions that will be posted on my web site. (Again, this should be easy if I can name things like I want them to be named in question 3 & 4.)
    So, right now I'm the biggest thing that I'm having a problem with in naming the images -- how flexible is Aperture with this? I've tried to customize the naming but can't see to figure out how to simply remove the "IMG_" when importing and then how to tack on "-BW" when creating a duplicate version.
    So far I really like Aperture -- it will ultimately save me from having to use 5 different applications on the PC and thus greatly improve the efficiency of my workflow. There are some things I've noticed that would be nice -- for example, on the PC I used a program called Bibble Pro to "develop" my Canon RAW files. Bibble is a little smoother (read faster) when making some adjustments. For example, when I'm in full screen mode and adjust the exposure, contrast or sharpening Aperture is not as smooth and "real-time" as Bibble. (And, the Mac I have is the top of the line iMac made today w/ 2GB of RAM. So, I would assume that processor speed is not an issue.)
    Anyway, if you have any insight into this post please let me know. Thanks in advance for any help you can provide... If you want to see my web site to understand what I'm doing the URL is http://www.level3photography.com/proofs.aspx
    Thanks again!
    TK Herman
    [email protected]
    iMac   Mac OS X (10.4.8)  

    ...the Mac I have is the
    top of the line iMac made today w/ 2GB of RAM. So, I
    would assume that processor speed is not an issue...
    Many folks from other disciplines think that applications should, well, just run on any computer. Not so with graphics apps. Photoshop, for instance, slows if not provided a second physical hard drive for scratch disk; Aperture craves GPU hardware; both gobble RAM; etc. Existing PSCS2 Photoshop performance improves up to 8 GB RAM, and we have not yet empirically determined the max amount of RAM Aperture will benefit from but it certainly is more than 2 GB.
    iMacs are consumer machines, not pro graphics boxes, even though many folks successfully use them as such. And, "top of the line iMac made today" would include not the 7300 GT graphics but the 7600 GT graphics card and 3 GB of RAM rather than 2 GB.
    All that said, your iMac should run Aperture well if you keep the box well maintained. Just don't be surprised if you do see some hardware imposed limitations.
    -Allen Wicks

  • Raw workflow in Aperture 3

    I just switched to shooting raw. I'm trying to figure out how to export my raw files after I've tweaked them in Aperture 3. When I export masters, I get the raw version but not the changes. When I export versions, they're jpegs. I'd like to be able to export toned raw files. Is that possible?

    lindseydeb wrote:
    I am a wedding photographer so I have to put my files in several places for backup, I can't just leave them in Aperture. As it is now, I burn DVDS of all images shot before I edit and tone as well as back them up in a RAID system. I am just looking for a way to have finished versions of the photos in a format other than jpg stored in the same external hard drives.
    The short answer is save 'em as 16 bit TIFF files.
    But, with deepest respect, you still don't understand RAW and more importantly, you may have wasted your money on Aperture. For the workflow you are describing, you would be better off with Adobe Bridge and Photoshop Elements. And, I would submit, you are losing time and energy that you could use to shoot more weddings. There are a lot of folks on this forum who really "get" Aperture and would really like to help.
    As noted by others, you need to read and understand the opening chapters of the Aperture manual, or better yet, find a copy of Ben Long's old book "Real World Aperture." You are looking at Aperture as a mere RAW "converter" and maybe a file browser - it is much, much more. Ben Long called Aperture an image "appliance" and he is right - imagine an automated library that holds all of your images, all the time, can find any one or group in an instant, and produce an endless stream of JPEGs, CDs, prints, or whatever you want. All the time keeping your old images future proofed - better RAW developer, all of your old images just got better.
    In simplest terms, you DO want to leave all of your RAW images in Aperture. (You do want to back these data up using Time Machine, the Aperture Vault, and probably a clone program as well. I use SuperDuper! I keep thirty years of images and memories from some of the more difficult places on earth and I don't want to lose a single one. That is precisely why they are kept in Aperture and not scattered across a bunch of disks. And yes, my Time Machine runs on a RAID.
    I can't see why you would insist on converting your nice 12/14 bit images to 8 bits for eternity. What happens when the bride comes back two years from now and wants new prints? And could she have them in B&W and cropped for 13x19, not 4x6. And then she asks if you have any images of one of the bridesmaids, the one you ignored. Faces to the rescue, in seconds.
    It is your time and money, but you haven't yet realized how much power Aperture gives you and how much easier it is to use Aperture than to do what you are doing now. D.C. is a tough market, you owe it to yourself to use the best tools you can.
    Best wishes!

  • Workflow question - which codec to use?

    Starting a project and want to get a quick check before I possibly do something really dumb:
    • Shooting on Canon t2i, importing footage off cards via Image Capture
    • Taking the resulting .mov (h264) and converting it in compressor to Apple Intermediate Codec (AIC)
    • Edit AIC files in Final Cut Pro 6
    • Once editing complete, make all clips Offline and reconnect original H264 files
    • Render out Final project to self-contained file
    • Final color correction in Color
    I'm a bit rusty in the video production arena and this is my first project shooting on a t2i. I am a bit unsure about the codec situation and finishing editing with the smallest amount of transcoding. I tested a few codecs and I found AIC to be the fastest and easiest to edit with minimal file size, but I have never used it before. Should I just convert the footage to ProRes and be done with it? I'm expecting a high shooting ratio on this project, so I would like to utilize an offline workflow if possible without crating a bunch of headaches down the road, though with drive prices what they are now, it's not a big deal anymore. I'm really just want to edit as quick as possible (minial rendering utilizing RT) while maintianing good quality (I know the client will be worried if I presented them a 50% quality Jpeg version of the current edit).
    Mac Pro 8-core 2.26 w/ 24GB RAM and 3 drive 3TB Internal RAID

    Thanks Mr. Ross and Mishmumken for the advice, will definetly do the ProRes route. A few final questions though:
    1. I watched the tutorial link a few times which was helpful, but am still fuzzy as to why I need to ingest via FCP. Is there anything wrong with importing from Image Capture and using Compressor to get the footage into ProRes? I see the positives about it, logging the clips, trimming the fat, having it all in the program, avoiding compressor, but does my original method cause any degradation?
    2. Can you elaborate a bit, not sure what you mean by Roundtrip and what do I need to prep?
    mishmumken wrote:
    Just roundtrip your timeline but make sure you prep it before sending to Color: there are limitations ....
    Thanks again guys, you have been extremely helpful and probibly saved me a lot of future problems!

  • I need your help with a decision to use iPhoto.  I have been a PC user since the mid 1980's and more recently have used ACDSee to manage my photo images and Photoshop to edit them.  I have used ProShow Gold to create slideshows.  I am comfortable with my

    I need your help with a decision to use iPhoto.  I have been a PC user since the mid 1980’s and more recently have used ACDSee to manage my photo images and Photoshop to edit them.  I have used ProShow Gold to create slideshows.  I am comfortable with my own folder and file naming conventions. I currently have over 23,000 images of which around 60% are scans going back 75 years.  Since I keep a copy of the originals, the storage requirements for over 46,000 images is huge.  180GB plus.
    I now have a Macbook Pro and will add an iMac when the new models arrive.  For my photos, I want to stay with Photoshop which also gives me the Bridge.  The only obvious reason to use iPhoto is to take advantage of Faces and the link to iMovie to make slideshows.  What am I missing and is using iPhoto worth the effort?
    If I choose to use iPhoto, I am not certain whether I need to load the originals and the edited versions. I suspect that just the latter is sufficient.  If I set PhotoShop as my external editor, I presume that iPhoto will keep track of all changes moving forward.  However, over 23,000 images in iPhoto makes me twitchy and they are appear hidden within iPhoto.  In the past, I have experienced syncing problems with, and database errors in, large databases.  If I break up the images into a number of projects, I loose the value of Faces reaching back over time.
    Some guidance and insight would be appreciated.  I have a number of Faces questions which I will save for later. 

    Bridge and Photoshop is a common file-based management system. (Not sure why you'd have used ACDSEE as well as Bridge.) In any event, it's on the way out. You won't be using it in 5 years time.
    Up to this the lack of processing power on your computer left no choice but to organise this way. But file based organisation is as sensible as organising a Shoe Warehouse based on the colour of the boxes. It's also ultimately data-destructive.
    Modern systems are Database driven. Files are managed, Images imported, virtual versions, lossless processing and unlimited editing are the way forward.
    For a Photographer Photoshop is overkill. It's an enormously powerful app, a staple of the Graphic Designers' trade. A Photographer uses maybe 15% to 20% of its capability.
    Apps like iPhoto, Lightroom, Aperture are the way forward - for photographers. There's the 20% of Photoshop that shooters actually use, coupled with management and lossless processing. Pop over to the Aperture or Lightroom forums (on the Adobe site) and one comment shows up over and over again... "Since I started using Aperture/ Lightroom I hardly ever use Photoshop any more..." and if there is a job that these apps can do, then the (much) cheaper Elements will do it.
    The change is not easy though, especially if you have a long-standing and well thought out filing system of your own. The first thing I would strongly advise is that you experiment before making any decisions. So I would create a Library, import 300 or 400 shots and play. You might as well do this in iPhoto to begin with - though if you’re a serious hobbyist or a Pro then you'll find yourself looking further afield pretty soon. iPhoto is good for the family snapper, taking shots at birthdays and sharing them with friends and family.
    Next: If you're going to successfully use these apps you need to make a leap: Your files are not your Photos.
    The illustration I use is as follows: In my iTunes Library I have a file called 'Let_it_Be_The_Beatles.mp3'. So what is that, exactly? It's not the song. The Beatles never wrote an mp3. They wrote a tune and lyrics. They recorded it and a copy of that recording is stored in the mp3 file. So the file is just a container for the recording. That container is designed in a specific way attuned to the characteristics and requirements of the data. Hence, mp3.
    Similarly, that Jpeg is not your photo, it's a container designed to hold that kind of data. iPhoto is all about the data and not about the container. So, regardless of where you choose to store the file, iPhoto will manage the photo, edit the photo, add metadata to the Photo but never touch the file. If you choose to export - unless you specifically choose to export the original - iPhoto will export the Photo into a new container - a new file containing the photo.
    When you process an image in iPhoto the file is never touched, instead your decisions are recorded in the database. When you view the image then the Master is presented with these decisions applied to it. That's why it's lossless. You can also have multiple versions and waste no disk space because they are all just listings in the database.
    These apps replace the Finder (File Browser) for managing your Photos. They become the Go-To app for anything to do with your photos. They replace Bridge too as they become a front-end for Photoshop.
    So, want to use a photo for something - Export it. Choose the format, size and quality you want and there it is. If you're emailing, uploading to websites then these apps have a "good enough for most things" version called the Preview - this will be missing some metadata.
    So it's a big change from a file-based to Photo-based management, from editing files to processing Photos and it's worth thinking it through before you decide.

  • Help with managing RAW and jpeg images and installing iphoto 9

    Greetings: Fist, let me make the neophyte apology and plea - I'm sorry, I should have come here first; I didn't and now I need your help.
    I have just purchased a macbook pro (still in its box) with updated software for my older imac os x. I have a number of Canon related photo editing programs (that came with my 40D digital SLR) and Adobe photo elements 6 for mac on the imac. Following some erroneous advice I have made a complete mess of the pictures folder's content by trying to delete images directly from that folder (there are now 6000+ images in the folder, many of which are duplicates(?). Most of the images are not tagged or labeled and some have been organized in/by iphoto (I corrupted the iphoto's library structure very early on by disrupting and editing its images - which might explain why iphoto had a difficult time 'finding' and displaying some of my photos). The picture folder now holds jpegs, smallRAW images (a Canon 40D photo format) and various duplicates of the orignal images - (some of the duplicates don't display as images, but as jpeg logos, which, when opened contain duplicate image or are completely black) The first time I downloaded RAW images into iphoto 6 the RAW data displayed as a black image. When shooting in smallRAW on the Canon 40D, the camera produces a jpeg image for 'easy viewing and editing in the camera' but it looks as though iphoto 6 made duplicates of the jpeg and the RAW data and stored them in different locals in the picture file. In an attempt to get the number of images down, I have been trying to delete them from the picture folder. (My daughters both download images rather indiscriminately in hopes of 'editing them on the computer' which inevitably does not happen) and there is a lot of experimental bracketing of images - shooting raw and different Camera formats etc., all of which need to be cleaned up before I proceed.
    Sometime in the not-too-distant future I would like to have iphoto 9 running on my imac with a clean library of images and a seamless way of downloading, editing and storing images (including the RAW data).
    The macbook pro is for my highschool-aged daughter, who will run iphoto 9 but not have any RAW image data on her system. She would like to copy some of the old iMac's images to put into her own iPhoto 9 library (probably using a disk, email or on-line photo service - ideally, I would like to be able to copy and remove a number of those images from my HD and give them to her for the macbook)
    A few questions and queries: Can I 'dis-able' iphoto 6, while I delete images (RAW and jpeg) from the picture file? (and is this even a good idea).
    Once I have edited the # of images down to a reasonable size, should I re-launch iphoto 6, rebuild the iphoto library and then update to iphoto 9 or skip v6 and rebuild with v9?
    And now for the 'how stupid is this guy question' - I really had planned to purchase an external backup; but between new the macbook, car repairs and braces it has never come to fruition. So, I have never properly backed up my images. What is the bare-bones, least expensive method for me to do this? I'd even consider burning everything to disks if that works. I can't afford the $ to purchase a new external hard drive right now (really). Budget is set aside mid-November for one though.
    I've been looking through some other discussion boards and it looks like I'm not the only one having RAW image issues. I know that shooting smallRAW with the companion jpeg is probably not helping things but I take my camera equipment on extended canoe trips - and we like the ease of on-the-spot editing with this format.
    Thanks in advance for your help - Mark

    Terence, Is the picture folder the primary source for the images or does that data reside somewhere else?
    If you gathered them there, then yes.
    I really don't want to have to go through 14,000 images looking for the pictures that I want to keep (or is that my only option?).
    Only you can decide what you want to keep.
    Why does the computer keep making copies of the images and filing them under date and events?
    That's how iPhoto works. It's not a problem usually, only you did go in there and make a problem, and now we are trying to fix it.
    You advise not to muck around in the picture file via preview,
    No I don't. I advise not to much around in the iPhoto Library Folder.
    but if I download images through a program other than iPhotos - image capture or adobe aren't I doing that anyway?
    Adobe what? Adobe is a software manufacturer who make many excellent applications, you need to be more precise. And no, if you import photos with Image Capture or “adobe” no you are not interfering with the iPhoto Library Folder.
    Can you edit a base image file somewhere and remove it from the HD without iphoto making a copy of it and storing it somewhere else?
    This is stunningly easy. Don't use iPhoto. Use an image editor.
    I want to look the negatives, decide which ones I want and throw the rest away. Can that be done or am I way off course?
    Yes, and iPhoto (or similar apps) make this really easy.
    Hook up your camera. Import the pics to iPhoto. Go through the imported pics. Trash the ones you don't want. Then process the ones you do. But you must learn how to use iPhoto to do this successfully
    To trash: put the pic in the iPhoto trash and empty it. This removes the file from iPhoto and the Hard Disk.
    Process it: If you want to use another editor: You can set Photoshop (or any image editor) as an external editor in iPhoto. (Preferences -> General -> Edit Photo: Choose from the Drop Down Menu.) This way, when you double click a pic to edit in iPhoto it will open automatically in Photoshop or your Image Editor, and when you save it it's sent back to iPhoto automatically. This is the only way that edits made in another application will be displayed in iPhoto.
    Regards
    TD

  • Is there a way to import images that have been edited and assign them to the original?

    I am transitioning to mac and aperture. Is there a way to import images that have been edited and assign them to the original? I have 10,000 originals and about 2,000 edited images. The originals are named img_XXXX and anything modified img_XXXX_modified. I would like to be able to import the originals and then import the edited versions and assign them to the original masters. Instead of starting from here and going forward with 12,000 masters, some of which are actual originals and others not. Thanks for the help.

    Ah, the vestiges of a destructive workflow! Once you "get" Aperture, (specifically Masters and Versions) you are going to love it, as all of this work goes away - the relationship that you seek to retain is automatic in Aperture; it is simply done differently.
    The short answer to your question is EVERY image file that is Imported into Aperture will create a new Master and one Version. Assuming that your images are PSD/TIFF/JPEG that you created in something like Photoshop, then each one that your import will be a new Master. You have many options:
    -- Stick the originals in one Project(s) and the edited versions in another Project(s).
    -- Stick them all in the same Project(s) and "Stack" them.
    But here is the real question: Why are you doing all of this work and what are you trying to accomplish? Seems you are trying to preserve old things that don't need preserving in a non-destructive workflow.
    So, what is most valuable to you?
    -- The original, out of camera files? (That is, the fear/need to revert.)
    -- The edited versions? (That is the hours of work that it took you to get there.)
    If the former, import the originals and ignore the edited versions. (Either simply leave them out on disk or import them into their own Projects which you ignore.) Use Aperture to recreate the work you had done previously. This will always give you the ability to revert to the original Master and create as many Versions as you want. This is the best idea if your edits are relatively simple crops and exposure adjustments,
    If the latter, then import the edited versions and do as above with the originals. This makes more sense if your work uses lots of layers and, perhaps lots of clone tool type corrections.
    Of course, you can do a bit of both.
    Others may have better suggestions, but you will find it easy to answer your own question when you understand an image based, as opposed to a file based, non-destructive workflow.
    Good luck!

  • Voice Over Recording Edit view vs Multitrack View

    Hi Guys, need some advice here.
    I have always recorded Voice Overs in edit view with Audition 3.0 (Windows 7 64bit)
    Recently I purchased a Creative sound card (X-Fi Titanium HD) which sounds great and records 24/96Khz with great results using several different microphones, mainly a EV RE20.
    I have the main outputs of my mixer left and right coming out using 1/4 inch cables and going into the soundcards Aux left and right inputs via RCA..
    In Auditions audio hardware setup edit view, there is only a choice for either Aux left or Aux right but not a mix of both as a input. (using Aux left)
    Not using the mic input on the card because I wanted to use the RCA ins (Left/Right) on the soundcard and the mic input is a single 1/8 input which would require another Y 1/4 to 1/8 cable and the fact that I have had issues with 1/8 inputs before.
    So, when I record Voice Overs in edit view, I think I"m really getting only half the signal (Aux left) which means I need to up the gain on the preamp more than I would like to get a good level.
    Recently, I have been recording in multitrack view using Track 1 Aux left and Track 2 Aux right and then doing a mixdown to mono which results in a nice strong level without having to boost the gain to much.
    So I guess my questions would be am I in fact only recording half the signal in edit view by just using Aux left
    and if that is true, should I just continue to record in multitrack view using the setup I decribed above.
    Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

    gdg444 wrote:
    I have always heard that if you just raised the level using gain you take the chance of also introducing more noise in the signal and I was wanting to avoid that.
    The short and sweet answer to this is that once you've recorded the signal, the amount of noise is fixed. But what you have to do to optimise this is called 'gain staging'. In the case of your preamp, this invariably means that you set the gain so that the clipping indicator (I take it that it has one?) indicates that you've got it just lower than it takes to light it on the loudest sound you want to record. With these signals present, you then set the input level control on your sound device (not the same as gain) so that it records these signals at around -5 to -10dB, in a controlled environment. In a non-controlled environment you'd allow a bit more than that. This gap between the -10dB and 0dB is called 'headroom'.
    So basically, you are recording the best signal to noise ratio you can get from your preamp at the best level you can with your sound device. And that, by definition, is optimum.

Maybe you are looking for