Hey Apple... why no RAW support for 5D MkIV

[rexone]

This has me baffled.
Canon's 5D MkIV is one of the most widely used pro-sumer DSLRs around yet Apple have not provided any RAW support for it.
I contacted Canon & they said it's not their issue, the problem is on Apple's side as Apple has ready access to everything they need.
I contacted Apple & they said the problem is Canon hasn't given them what they need.

In the meantime I've had to buy Lightroom to access my RAWs (please don't mention Canons appalling software bundle...)

They have RAW support for masses of other new cameras & Canon cameras yet they've decided not to support one of Canon's most popular models.
I mean seriously? What gives?

 

[chrfr]

This has me baffled.
Canon's 5D MkIV is one of the most widely used pro-sumer DSLRs around yet Apple have not provided any RAW support for it.

macOS 10.12.2 and later have support for this camera, so it's been supported for about 6 months. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT207049

 

[keysofanxiety]

macOS 10.12.2 and later have support for this camera, so it's been supported for about 6 months. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT207049

It's only up to Canon EOS 5D Mark III, not Mark IV.

 

[chrfr]

It's only up to Canon EOS 5D Mark III, not Mark IV.

Scroll down to the section labeled "Additional formats supported by iOS 10.2 and macOS 10.12.2".
The Mark IV is the first camera listed.

 

[keysofanxiety]

Scroll down to the section labeled "Additional formats supported by iOS 10.2 and macOS 10.12.2".
The Mark IV is the first camera listed.

Colour me apologetic. You're absolutely right.

 

[rexone]

Well... I can assure... I am running 10.12.4 and RAW format images from the EOS 5D MKIV are NOT supported using iPhoto.
If Apple are choosing to no longer support their own software they should be making this clear to users.
There are a hell of a lot of people who do not like & will not use the truly pathetic Photos app so the ongoing ability to use iPhoto is essential.
To not support formats in iPhoto is an intentionally bloody-minded action by Apple to force users to use software that does not suit their needs & is totally inferior to the application it replaced.

 

[fisherking]

photos seems like an updated iphoto, not sure why it's pathetic. either way, it replaces iphoto in the newer OS's... so you adapt... or not. if you choose not to, you're left with issues like this, where you want newer options for older software, not the way tech goes traditionally. apple has made it clear that photos replaces iphoto.

 

[rexone]

photos seems like an updated iphoto, not sure why it's pathetic. either way, it replaces iphoto in the newer OS's... so you adapt... or not. if you choose not to, you're left with issues like this, where you want newer options for older software, not the way tech goes traditionally. apple has made it clear that photos replaces iphoto.

Photos may be a better application 'under the hood' but as a library management & handling tool it is truly tragic.
It is nothing more than an iOS app (in function & style) ported to the OS & appears to be designed to cater for people whose lives revolve around social media & cloud.
iPhoto had a very 'organic' way of photo management & allowed immense flexibility in how you could use it.
Photos is linear - a desktop version of swipe in, swipe out - with very limited ability to customise how you manage, organise & work with images.
I use iPhoto for managing the image library for our small business, it has over 50k images in it, and have been using it since late 2003.
If Photos had similar library organisation functionality & flexibility I would switch in a heartbeat but it doesn't.
Photos allows me to import my existing organised iPhoto structure but then does not allow me to recreate that same structure with any new images/camera rolls. That is useless.
It is not a case of not wanting to change.
I, like many others, had been very excited about Photos while it was in development hoping that with the demise of iPhoto & Aperture that Photos might fall somewhere in the middle, an iPhoto + if you will.
It doesn't. For our purposes it's a retrograde step that is not suitable for use as it is not an adequate replacement.
It may suit some users but it doesn't suit others, I respect that, but I do believe that Apple has an obligation to ensure that users who have been locked into this app for nearly 15-years should be respected & they should at least maintain support for the application. Not application updates etc, just ensure that it still runs.
Excluding the latest cameras from their alleged 'system wide support' is, in my opinion, a bloody-minded & intentional action by Apple to try & force more users towards Photos.

 

[fisherking]

Photos may be a better application 'under the hood' but as a library management & handling tool it is truly tragic.
It is nothing more than an iOS app (in function & style) ported to the OS & appears to be designed to cater for people whose lives revolve around social media & cloud.
iPhoto had a very 'organic' way of photo management & allowed immense flexibility in how you could use it.
Photos is linear - a desktop version of swipe in, swipe out - with very limited ability to customise how you manage, organise & work with images.
I use iPhoto for managing the image library for our small business, it has over 50k images in it, and have been using it since late 2003.
If Photos had similar library organisation functionality & flexibility I would switch in a heartbeat but it doesn't.
Photos allows me to import my existing organised iPhoto structure but then does not allow me to recreate that same structure with any new images/camera rolls. That is useless.
It is not a case of not wanting to change.
I, like many others, had been very excited about Photos while it was in development hoping that with the demise of iPhoto & Aperture that Photos might fall somewhere in the middle, an iPhoto + if you will.
It doesn't. For our purposes it's a retrograde step that is not suitable for use as it is not an adequate replacement.
It may suit some users but it doesn't suit others, I respect that, but I do believe that Apple has an obligation to ensure that users who have been locked into this app for nearly 15-years should be respected & they should at least maintain support for the application. Not application updates etc, just ensure that it still runs.
Excluding the latest cameras from their alleged 'system wide support' is, in my opinion, a bloody-minded & intentional action by Apple to try & force more users towards Photos.

i mostly disagree, and prefer organizing my photos in the newer app. either way, you move forward... or fall behind. apple is not going to amend it's process to accomodate you; for better or worse, it's the other way around. 15 years! it's an old model, and there's no reason why any tech company would support old tech... not when they're offering something newer.

i respect your right to prefer iphoto, but it's a moot point; that was then, and this is now.

 

[rexone]

i mostly disagree, and prefer organizing my photos in the newer app. either way, you move forward... or fall behind. apple is not going to amend it's process to accomodate you; for better or worse, it's the other way around. 15 years! it's an old model, and there's no reason why any tech company would support old tech... not when they're offering something newer.

i respect your right to prefer iphoto, but it's a moot point; that was then, and this is now.

@fisherking I'm taking from your comments that you really don't do much with photography beyond play with pictures from your iDevices & with happy snaps.
The fact is a simple one - Photos is a very poor photo library management tool. It is linear & rigid in operation & has been designed around the iOS & people using cloud features.
As I have pointed out I have been encouraged by Apple to use their app for 15-years. I have over 50k images organised & sorted using methods that iPhoto allowed.
Apple then removed all of those features & has left me without a quality library management application.
This is not just a little hissy fit over my personal preferences, learned behaviour & workflows and a perceived reluctance to embrace change.
This is a serious business issue for me as Photos does not allow for flexible library management that I need for work. It is a linear iOS style of app lacking the organic flexibility & navigation that made iPhoto so useful.
If Photos had a 'smart' library structure that allowed the user to have decent control then I would switch tomorrow. Happily.
Photos may be smarter under the hood but in virtually every other respect it is a very dumbed-down application that was a retrograde step.

 

[fisherking]

@fisherking I'm taking from your comments that you really don't do much with photography beyond play with pictures from your iDevices & with happy snaps.
The fact is a simple one - Photos is a very poor photo library management tool. It is linear & rigid in operation & has been designed around the iOS & people using cloud features.
As I have pointed out I have been encouraged by Apple to use their app for 15-years. I have over 50k images organised & sorted using methods that iPhoto allowed.
Apple then removed all of those features & has left me without a quality library management application.
This is not just a little hissy fit over my personal preferences, learned behaviour & workflows and a perceived reluctance to embrace change.
This is a serious business issue for me as Photos does not allow for flexible library management that I need for work. It is a linear iOS style of app lacking the organic flexibility & navigation that made iPhoto so useful.
If Photos had a 'smart' library structure that allowed the user to have decent control then I would switch tomorrow. Happily.
Photos may be smarter under the hood but in virtually every other respect it is a very dumbed-down application that was a retrograde step.

right now, am working with a successful pro photographer; she has a library of around 40,000 images, and we find that Photos handles this much better than iPhoto. and we're getting her work organized. we've used smart albums for each year she's been shooting (digital), and custom albums to get pictures into categories. and all is well.

you're talking about an app that you've used for 15 years; i hear you. but it's the present, so you make choices; to adapt, or hang on to older tech. and whatever you do is fine with me.

 

[dyn]

Sounds like someone who has only tried Photos at day 1 when it was released. Photos has changed quite a lot since then and now is very much like iPhoto. You have albums, smart albums, folders, the sidebar, tags (which combined with smart albums are great), etc. You really should have another go at Photos, just make sure to enable the sidebar and only stick to using folders, albums and smart albums (as well as tags, or keywords as iPhoto and Photos named it). Since macOS 10.12 I'm back to Photos because of all that (and I'm not using any cloud stuff in Photos at all just like I never did in iPhoto).

 

[flowrider]

I use PS CS6, released after iphoto. Adobe has not issued RAW updates for CS6 for 2 years now.

Lou

 

[thekev]

I use PS CS6, released after iphoto. Adobe has not issued RAW updates for CS6 for 2 years now.

Lou

That's because it's considered EOL. Apple pulls support from legacy applications faster than that. You could use the DNG converter, but that isn't really an ideal workflow.

 

[rexone]

right now, am working with a successful pro photographer; she has a library of around 40,000 images, and we find that Photos handles this much better than iPhoto. and we're getting her work organized. we've used smart albums for each year she's been shooting (digital), and custom albums to get pictures into categories. and all is well.

you're talking about an app that you've used for 15 years; i hear you. but it's the present, so you make choices; to adapt, or hang on to older tech. and whatever you do is fine with me.

And I AM a pro-photographer/photojournalist/magazine editor who is struggling to find a sensible and practical way to make the Photos library manage images. The main library & importing being the most inhibiting & frustrating issues.

Let me give you an example of how I need to operate, I gave this exact same example to an Apple Product Specialist when I spent nearly 2-hours on the phone with them yesterday -
I come back from a location with, say, 500 images.
I need them to neatly download so I have my library in Events view in iPhoto.
All of the images then download and are hidden behind one index tile/thumbnail.
I can display the whole shoot by clicking the tile & the shoot displays as images. No fluff like cutesy photo album style layout or suggestions of similar material or maps or 'on this date'.
I can rename the tile to whatever I need, in this case 'Melbourne Garden Show 2017', and that effectively keywords the group of images.
Then I decide that I need some garden images from that shoot/camera roll stored/displayed by designer. So I spilt those images off from the general shots & name them by garden designer.
Their tiles then sit chronologically beside the tile of general images but they have their own name, if I want a 'hero' shot as the key-image I can change that as a visual trigger. If I want to see the contents I just move over the tile.
When I need to access those images it is fast and easy. They are all in one place displayed and stored neatly and chronologically with a visual trigger and a unique name no switching of views required.
And all in the same place I imported them into.

Contrast that with Photos.
I download my images.
In Photos view all 500 appear on my screen broken only by date.
I need them concealed so that I can scroll through my library looking for other things. I can't. I have to have them all displayed. As far as I can tell there is no way to hide imports behind a 'key' image or tile without manually converting every import into an Album.
I need to apply a name to that imported camera roll. I can't.
I need to view the imported roll on its own just as images not as a cute photo gallery with maps, suggestions & 'on this date'. I can't.
I can only do either by manually creating an Album or Smart Album which then appears in the sidebar as a folder and I then have to switch views.
I want to split off individual aspects of the shoot. Likewise. Can only be done by creating sidebar folders. To view these I then have to switch across to Album view where I can get a 'tile' view.
I want to change the main view to sort by 'Newest First'. I can't. New imports are at the bottom.
You want to scroll through a 50,000 image library to search for a camera roll/event? Then you have to display 50,000 images.

The point is this... iPhoto had a very, very efficient, effective & intuitive way of organising images.
For no explicable reason Apple elected to reinvent the wheel rather than take the best lessons from iPhoto & build on them. They've thrown the baby out with the bathwater.
What used to be a simple step or two where no switching of views was needed is now unnecessarily convoluted involving multiple steps & switching back & forth between views.
When it comes down to it the single greatest issue for me with Photos that totally messes up my work-flow & makes library management a serious chore is all down to the main library window.
Forcing you to display EVERY image on import & not being able to switch to see just that import without it being in a cutesy photo gallery style with associated maps etc is just ridiculous.
I'm sorry but I do not understand how you see this as an improvement in work-flow and efficiency.
It is form-over-function.

And for the record... both Apple staff I spoke with yesterday agreed that Photos was seriously lacking in its library management, organisational & work-flow capabilities when compared to iPhoto.

 

[flowrider]

That's because it's considered EOL. Apple pulls support from legacy applications faster than that. You could use the DNG converter, but that isn't really an ideal workflow.

Yes, I realize that. I posted just to show the OP, that Apple's really not the bad guy here for withdrawing support for legacy applications.

Lou

 

[thekev]

Yes, I realize that. I posted just to show the OP, that Apple's really not the bad guy here for withdrawing support for legacy applications.

Lou

Ahh that makes more sense. Photoshop CS6 is quite a bit older than OSX 10.11 though.

 

[fisherking]

And I AM a pro-photographer/photojournalist/magazine editor who is struggling to find a sensible and practical way to make the Photos library manage images. The main library & importing being the most inhibiting & frustrating issues.

Let me give you an example of how I need to operate, I gave this exact same example to an Apple Product Specialist when I spent nearly 2-hours on the phone with them yesterday -
I come back from a location with, say, 500 images.
I need them to neatly download so I have my library in Events view in iPhoto.
All of the images then download and are hidden behind one index tile/thumbnail.
I can display the whole shoot by clicking the tile & the shoot displays as images. No fluff like cutesy photo album style layout or suggestions of similar material or maps or 'on this date'.
I can rename the tile to whatever I need, in this case 'Melbourne Garden Show 2017', and that effectively keywords the group of images.
Then I decide that I need some garden images from that shoot/camera roll stored/displayed by designer. So I spilt those images off from the general shots & name them by garden designer.
Their tiles then sit chronologically beside the tile of general images but they have their own name, if I want a 'hero' shot as the key-image I can change that as a visual trigger. If I want to see the contents I just move over the tile.
When I need to access those images it is fast and easy. They are all in one place displayed and stored neatly and chronologically with a visual trigger and a unique name no switching of views required.
And all in the same place I imported them into.

Contrast that with Photos.
I download my images.
In Photos view all 500 appear on my screen broken only by date.
I need them concealed so that I can scroll through my library looking for other things. I can't. I have to have them all displayed. As far as I can tell there is no way to hide imports behind a 'key' image or tile without manually converting every import into an Album.
I need to apply a name to that imported camera roll. I can't.
I need to view the imported roll on its own just as images not as a cute photo gallery with maps, suggestions & 'on this date'. I can't.
I can only do either by manually creating an Album or Smart Album which then appears in the sidebar as a folder and I then have to switch views.
I want to split off individual aspects of the shoot. Likewise. Can only be done by creating sidebar folders. To view these I then have to switch across to Album view where I can get a 'tile' view.
I want to change the main view to sort by 'Newest First'. I can't. New imports are at the bottom.
You want to scroll through a 50,000 image library to search for a camera roll/event? Then you have to display 50,000 images.

The point is this... iPhoto had a very, very efficient, effective & intuitive way of organising images.
For no explicable reason Apple elected to reinvent the wheel rather than take the best lessons from iPhoto & build on them. They've thrown the baby out with the bathwater.
What used to be a simple step or two where no switching of views was needed is now unnecessarily convoluted involving multiple steps & switching back & forth between views.
When it comes down to it the single greatest issue for me with Photos that totally messes up my work-flow & makes library management a serious chore is all down to the main library window.
Forcing you to display EVERY image on import & not being able to switch to see just that import without it being in a cutesy photo gallery style with associated maps etc is just ridiculous.
I'm sorry but I do not understand how you see this as an improvement in work-flow and efficiency.
It is form-over-function.

And for the record... both Apple staff I spoke with yesterday agreed that Photos was seriously lacking in its library management, organisational & work-flow capabilities when compared to iPhoto.

i hear you, really. but what do you want? nothing is going to change... except possible options in Photos, as iPhoto is no longer supported. so, figure out how to best serve your needs with the options available. what else is there?

 

[dyn]

One piece of advise: be extremely careful with basing things on time and date. It is better to see things as a project and create a folder (or whatever the app calls it) and use that to store the data.

The other thing is that you need to understand the principle of "garbage in = garbage out". It requires that you are very strict in what data you are importing into whatever app. In other words, do the sorting before importing, not afterwards.

Another very important piece of advice: know your tools. Both iPhoto and Photos are meant for the average consumer, not for a professional who requires the use of projects, assignments, etc.

Btw, the workflow of the OP is the same in Photos when albums are used. The only thing that is necessary to do is enabling the sidebar as the sidebar gives you a quick overview of all your separate folders and albums. One of those is called "Last import" which can be used to quickly see only those that you just imported. You can quickly select the ones you want and create a new album that will hold them (select the pictures and then create a new album, name it and done; if the album already exists than simply drag the pictures; in both cases you don't leave the current view). That's also exactly how you'd do it in iPhoto so no difference there.

From what I can see all of the things you want is available in Photos in macOS Sierra when you use albums. Something you also have to do in iPhoto since all the other things are annoying (they are still there in Photos but they are named differently). You are simply using Photos in the wrong way. However I do not recommend the use of iPhoto nor Photos for any professional. Tools like Lightroom and Capture One are far better suited. Not only because of integrations with other tools, available plugins (tethered shooting comes to mind) and editing options but also because of the better file management and the ability to hold a large amount of pictures (iPhoto can't do that at all, it crashes and is dead slow when it doesn't crash; Photos improved on this, it doesn't crash and is still fast but going through all those pictures...). These tools are made with the workflow of professionals in mind whereas iPhoto and Photos are created with workflows from consumers in mind.

TL;DR: I'm baffled by the fact that someone who claims to be a professional doesn't know his tools and due to that is using the wrong tool for the job and pointing at the wrong party. Tools for consumers are built around consumer workflows and those can be very different from workflows used by professionals. This is the case with imaging tools where the consumer tools are very basic in both editing functions as well as file management. At least the professional tools have something called DAM. Lightroom and Capture One are far more suited for professionals than iPhoto and Photos are. Apple's RAW support is a nice addition because you can use quick look in Finder to preview the picture (I'd still use a proper DAM tool for that though).

 

[rexone]

i hear you, really. but what do you want? nothing is going to change... except possible options in Photos, as iPhoto is no longer supported. so, figure out how to best serve your needs with the options available. what else is there?

Cool, so your approach is 'Apple giveth & Apple taketh away' and we should just tolerate inadequate software that is a retrograde step?
Sorry, but I make noise about such things especially when it directly impacts on my livelihood.
If you're happy to be a passive consumer of whatever rubbish a corporate wants to tell you is best then that's your prerogative.
[doublepost=1496027208][/doublepost]

In other words, do the sorting before importing, not afterwards.

And how pray tell does one do that? Sit down & create folders on your camera back before importing? Seriously.
I have never had an issue with my importing & sorting process.

Another very important piece of advice: know your tools. Both iPhoto and Photos are meant for the average consumer, not for a professional who requires the use of projects, assignments, etc.

Okay... so I have never had any problems with using iPhoto for DAM. Ever. So I'm really not sure why you say it's not suitable.
It has a fast, simple and flexible management system. I can quickly and easily split a huge shoot off into separate components, create smart albums for clients, events, keywords etc.
If an application fulfils all of your needs then why would you then look to use something massively more complex & expensive with a steep learning curve?

However I do not recommend the use of iPhoto nor Photos for any professional.

Why? I am not being a smart-arse here. I'm curious to know your reasoning on this.
In my case I don't ever shoot tethered (as per your example) as I'm a field editor/photographer.
Most of my images require very little editing as I shoot 'properly' to start with. Old shooting habits that come from starting out back when expensive transparency film was the weapon of choice tend to do that to you. The 'shoot-the-sh*t out of it & fix it on the desktop' approach is not one I apply.
To me iPhoto is an importing & library tool. I might occasionally straighten or crop but that's is pretty much it.
When I do have need for major editing I just open the original image in LR or PS but it's rare that I do that for the reason above but also because I know the reality of print media.
Having previously worked in-house with a major magazine for nearly a decade I would see images come in from snappers & the first thing most pre-press operators do is open the image & remove all the PS layers so they can be tweaked to suit the print needs of that particular publisher...

...but also because of the better file management and the ability to hold a large amount of pictures (iPhoto can't do that at all, it crashes and is dead slow when it doesn't crash...

I have heard this argument many times & all I can say is... not in my experience.
I have over 50,000 images in my library, a huge number of which are RAWs, and it will open to the main library window in under 5-seconds and opening a 300 image Event takes less than 2-seconds.
The biggest delay is quitting, that takes about 4 to 5-seconds (yes, I just timed all).
And I really couldn't tell you the last time it crashed. I won't say it hasn't but it certainly has not done so in the last 6-months at least.

TL;DR...

If you are not going to bother reading what someone has written then why are you being professionally insulting?
I use what I use because it works for me. What is wrong with that?
Should I modify how I work because of some mistaken perception that you're only a professional if you use particular tools?
Perhaps I use the wrong tripod or computer or drive the wrong car to be a professional too?...

 

[chrfr]

Okay... so I have never had any problems with using iPhoto for DAM. Ever. So I'm really not sure why you say it's not suitable.

Well, you're having one big problem: the application doesn't support your camera and isn't supported by Apple anymore. It's hard to argue why iPhoto is suitable at this point.
How much time will you now lose by migrating your files to some new application, and how much is that time worth?

 

[rexone]

Well, you're having one big problem: the application doesn't support your camera and isn't supported by Apple anymore. It's hard to argue why iPhoto is suitable at this point.
How much time will you now lose by migrating your files to some new application, and how much is that time worth?

Actually the fact is that Apple does not support the Canon EOS 5D MKIV period.
For whatever reason it has not been added to their list.
Here is the latest list of supported cameras from mid-May
https://support.apple.com/en-au/HT207049

 

[fisherking]

Cool, so your approach is 'Apple giveth & Apple taketh away' and we should just tolerate inadequate software that is a retrograde step?
Sorry, but I make noise about such things especially when it directly impacts on my livelihood.
If you're happy to be a passive consumer of whatever rubbish a corporate wants to tell you is best then that's your prerogative.

defensive much? posting on this forum is making a very small noise, to a very small group of macusers. apple isn't listening, and if they were, what are you expecting? that, because you want it, they'll ditch Photos, bring back iPhoto, and fix it so it's just what you need?

i buy what works for me, and adapt if and when i have to. it's ok to resent change, if that's your thing. i prefer to live in the real world.

 

[Kcetech1]

Ahh that makes more sense. Photoshop CS6 is quite a bit older than OSX 10.11 though.

early 2012 so I can see why it no longer gets updates after 5 years. and superseded a few times now.

Rexone .... hate to say it but it seems to be the photographers version of the Charlie foxtrot us video editors got for the first few years of that abomination of Final Cut X in where a huge pile of us had to outright change software or in many cases the entire platform. I feel your pain entirely but as much as I hate to say it, they did pitch the baby out with the bath water as I used to like iPhoto but admit I have not used it for almost 2 years now. ( I will grumble Apple has killed of MANY great products and ideas that irritate me )

Its probably best to look for a complete alternative that suits you that the publisher hopefully will not just up and neuter or kill off for the sake of making changes or making it simpler.

 

[rexone]

Seriously?
I am not some fool who expects Apple to drop their bundle in terror & bring back iPhoto.
As a long-term user of both iPhoto & the Mac platform I am seriously cranky that the replacement for iPhoto (& Aperture for that matter) is such a poor substitute.
I will use Photos & adapt to it but it has taken simple things & added extra steps for no explicable reason.
Things such as the inability to have photos in a roll/import display behind a key image/tile in the library is nothing short of baffling. I can only assume that their expectation is that most users will only ever have a few images at a time in each import.

But back OT... it's still a mystery as to why Apple is not supporting the 5D MkIV.
The iPhoto Vs Photos discussion is just a digression.