Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Managing photos
- Thread starter conamor
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I have a question about the NIK plugins.
I tried looking online but didn't get the answer...when using the Nik Plugins in Aperture...does this convert my RAW file to JPG or does it keep the RAW data?
I have been shooting RAW for only about a year but love the control you have over the image...I have always edited my JPGs in the past anyway to bump things or sharpen in post processing.
Thanks in advance
--------------------------------------------
About Mirrorless - it doesn't have a mirror. they use a preview screen...other than that others can chime in with more detail.
I tried looking online but didn't get the answer...when using the Nik Plugins in Aperture...does this convert my RAW file to JPG or does it keep the RAW data?
I have been shooting RAW for only about a year but love the control you have over the image...I have always edited my JPGs in the past anyway to bump things or sharpen in post processing.
Thanks in advance
--------------------------------------------
About Mirrorless - it doesn't have a mirror. they use a preview screen...other than that others can chime in with more detail.
In LR or Aperture the plugins read the raw file as input and return a TIF or PSD . There are usually preferences to be set in LR or Aperture about the image format and depth to be used. A lossless 16 bit TIF beats a lossful 8 bit jpg every time.
I use both Nik and Perfect Photo Suite with both LR and Aperture. I recommend both.
I use both Nik and Perfect Photo Suite with both LR and Aperture. I recommend both.
Last edited:
ok, silly question ... how does a RAW file compare to the 16-bit TIFF?
Because once I have the other edits on the RAW file and then move to the plug-in...those edits are baked in, correct? i the past year, I have gone back and edited some images that I processed earlier. but those edits would have been "stuck" in the TIFF or PSD like they would a JPG (albeit better/no compression issues to worry about).
I have the onONe Suite and I tried it on a few photos but it seems I could do most everything with Aperture. (maybe the layered textures I couldn't) but processing or the HDR type stuff or contrast presets. They all looked like things I COULD do with Aperture.
Like this link/image: https://support.google.com/nikcollection/answer/3298009?hl=en
At first I thought...no way! then looking at it more, I started to actually see what they did, then read it below. All the above is something that could be done in Aperture. and leaves the entire RAW a non-destrcuted file.
*sorry if this makes it seem I am totally Unwilling to go the Plugin Route but wanted to really get some info before going that way. and maybe I am scared that once I take an image/RAW into the plugins i have to accept the edits I made prior and not turning back.
A raw file is the dump of what the camera's sensor captured. Raw files have proprietary formats according to each camera maker. No standard. Raw files are usually 12 or 14 bits wide...again...up to the maker.
TIFF is a standard format for a raster (bit map) image file. Even if you use definite the TIFF words are to be 16 bit wide, you may only partly fill them if the camera's raw file uses 12 or 14 bits of color depth per pixel for each of the 3 color channels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagged_Image_File_Format
You never truly edit a raw file. The editor is building a set of instructions about how the raw file is to be presented (on screen or printed). That is why editing raw files is usually referred to as non-destructive editing. No matter how crazy the instructions make the image appear, the underlying raw file from the camera remains unchanged. That is why it is easy to have an "undo". This is very different from using the raw file to generate a raster image and have plugins editing the pixels, and hand you back an altered raster image. TIF can be done in 16 or 8 bit color depth and is not compressed. Jpg is 8 bit color depth and is compressed. I only generate a jpg if I need to email an image to someone. I never take one with a camera if I have a choice.
You could never do things in Aperture alone with the degree of control you will find in Perfect Effect Dynamic Controll filter or in Nik's Silver Efex Pro for bland and white image creation.
The lightbulb above your head starts to glow.
Stick with Aperture now. And watch for Apple announced Aperture X at WWDC on Monday June 2nd. I hope they do announce and release a killer update.
The important thing to remember here is that a raw file is NOT an image.
Raw files are information. They simply contain information about what the camera saw when you pressed the shutter button.
When you import a raw file into your DAM / raw converter, it reads the information in the file and creates an image preview based on that info. What you're seeing is NOT the raw file - it's a jpeg created from the information inside the raw file.
You cannot edit a raw file (because you cannot change what the camera saw when you pressed the shutter). When you make edits in a raw converter you are simply adding metadata that tells the converter to interpret the data inside the raw file in a different way. This is the reason that all edits made in raw conversion software lose no quality and are completely reversible (for example changing white balance after you've pressed the shutter). The raw converter is using the new information from your changes to generate a completely new jpeg preview.
A TIFF, on the other hand, IS an image file. It's a very good quality file, but every time you make an alteration to the file and save (overwrite) it, the quality will degrade slightly.
When you speak about "baking in" you edits, what you are doing is taking completely flexible information, and generating a fixed, rasterised image (the TIFF). From then on, all your new edits must start from that fixed image, and the quality will never be as good as the original.
I hope that makes sense.
Cheers
Last edited:
Thanks for the RAW vs TIFF write-ups
I know/knew the RAW file was NOT an image. just the data. that the App (Aperture for me) is the "developer" of the data to an image.
I am a designer (print then web) and used to use Photoshop as my go-to editor. Looking back. I can see those images are a bit too contrasty or not as sharp ...basically not as nice as I could create now. (this was mainly JPEG though I took a stint at RAW once way back)
then switching to a Mac and started using iPhoto...liked it, easy to use and could quickly edit lots of photos and manage them. Then wished I could cut and paste edits to multiple photos. Read up on Aperture and switched. Awesome. Then decided to give RAW another chance. wow. it seems great. when i looked back today at RAW edits (that's what I am calling them) that i did early last year, I see some edits that I want to change and can do that easily since the RAW file was never changed.
I really hope to see an Aperture update...if nothing else but to add some new things and bring a relief knowing that I can continue using it without fear that Apple won't leave it to dry in the sun.
I know/knew the RAW file was NOT an image. just the data. that the App (Aperture for me) is the "developer" of the data to an image.
I am a designer (print then web) and used to use Photoshop as my go-to editor. Looking back. I can see those images are a bit too contrasty or not as sharp ...basically not as nice as I could create now. (this was mainly JPEG though I took a stint at RAW once way back)
then switching to a Mac and started using iPhoto...liked it, easy to use and could quickly edit lots of photos and manage them. Then wished I could cut and paste edits to multiple photos. Read up on Aperture and switched. Awesome. Then decided to give RAW another chance. wow. it seems great. when i looked back today at RAW edits (that's what I am calling them) that i did early last year, I see some edits that I want to change and can do that easily since the RAW file was never changed.
I really hope to see an Aperture update...if nothing else but to add some new things and bring a relief knowing that I can continue using it without fear that Apple won't leave it to dry in the sun.
Please don't let iPhoto be the main way you manage photos.
1) It's outdated and archaic
2) It's not in the cloud
A folder based system with a cloud based organizing service is better. Folders are tried and true and simple to maintain as well as easy to scale. Having a cloud service (ie Google Drive, Dropbox, Flickr, Picturelife) that simply points to this set of folders allows you to keep all your photos on you, make albums, etc.
Use iPhoto for SELECTED files for syncing to your iPhone/iPad/Apple TV and for creating (slideshows, books). Don't use it to manage your entire photos collection.
1) It's outdated and archaic
2) It's not in the cloud
A folder based system with a cloud based organizing service is better. Folders are tried and true and simple to maintain as well as easy to scale. Having a cloud service (ie Google Drive, Dropbox, Flickr, Picturelife) that simply points to this set of folders allows you to keep all your photos on you, make albums, etc.
Use iPhoto for SELECTED files for syncing to your iPhone/iPad/Apple TV and for creating (slideshows, books). Don't use it to manage your entire photos collection.
Last edited:
^^ A big +1
I initially loved iPhoto too but I soon outgrew it. I've also had to rebuild my libraries a few times and its folder structure is somewhat difficult to navigate. Just to find your original photos is a hassle as they're not in standard date folder structures. I think they may even assign dates via when you import them. I could be mistaken. One good thing is it is easy to move the whole library to an external drive.
I initially loved iPhoto too but I soon outgrew it. I've also had to rebuild my libraries a few times and its folder structure is somewhat difficult to navigate. Just to find your original photos is a hassle as they're not in standard date folder structures. I think they may even assign dates via when you import them. I could be mistaken. One good thing is it is easy to move the whole library to an external drive.
^^ A big +1
I initially loved iPhoto too but I soon outgrew it. I've also had to rebuild my libraries a few times and its folder structure is somewhat difficult to navigate. Just to find your original photos is a hassle as they're not in standard date folder structures. I think they may even assign dates via when you import them. I could be mistaken. One good thing is it is easy to move the whole library to an external drive.
It's easy to move 1 folder in a folder based system to. Same thing really.
And yes, iPhoto does not scale very well. Apple likes people to scroll endlessly for some reason.
^^ A big +1
I initially loved iPhoto too but I soon outgrew it. I've also had to rebuild my libraries a few times and its folder structure is somewhat difficult to navigate. Just to find your original photos is a hassle as they're not in standard date folder structures. I think they may even assign dates via when you import them. I could be mistaken. One good thing is it is easy to move the whole library to an external drive.
Totally disagree. In my personal opinion - while iPhoto is a lightweight among digital asset managers, it is still miles ahead of the archaic nested folder system that dates back, essentially, to the days of DOS. A DAM is a database, with its strengths and weaknesses. For the majority of people learning how to use a DAM properly will generate far more benefits than negatives. You may be one of the exceptions where a DAM is not appropriate, in which case your experience is specific to you rather the general public. ... imho only of course, and ymmv….
Perhaps. However, what I find is that:
1) Most people don't know how to manage photos.
2) Getting involved with software, a DAM like Lightroom or Aperture, for instance, is too convoluted and confusing for most people (99% of people that just want to have photos of family and friends), and thus are highly unlikely to keep using it to manage photos.
3) People want simplicity.
I'm actually writing a book on this very topic (self published of course). I've know at least 4 people that lost photos simply because they weren't managing them. Their photos are literally their only place the photos are kept and didn't know what to do with them after taking them. People (meaning the average user) don't manage their photos because they don't know how.
You know what I found when I started using my folder based system in 2009? It still works. As you said, it dates back to the DOS days. If it's not broke, don't fix it.
If I get a new computer, my system still exists. If I want to try a new cloud service, I just point it to my Folders. If I want it in Dropbox, I drag it to the Dropbox folder. If I want to use Google Drive, I drag in there. If I want to try an iPhoto alternative, such as Unbound
, I point it to my Folders. The point is my system has remained in tact no matter what service I use that attempts to "solve the problem" of photo management.
I find iPhoto works best for a select group of photos to be used for syncing to your phone and creating things.
When my son was born in 2012, I took about 1200 photos of him during that year (sub folder 2012_BabyName). Do I want iPhoto to manage 1200 of his photos? Nope. I pick the best 100 or so from my folder based system and send them to iPhoto for use in Photostream, Book creation (great Christmas present for a first time Mom), and Slideshows (i.e. his first birthday).
Creative endeavors is the best way to use iPhoto. A folder based system is the best way to manage your photos.
Most people don't know how to drive either, until they learn. Then they learn how powerful a tool it can be. Learning to use DAM is learning how to use a tool.
I also know people who 'lose' photos in their folder based system simply because they've forgotten where they filed them. Is it in the Christmas Folder, the Paris Folder (because they spent Christmas in Paris one year, the Family Folder because its a photo of the family, or in the Best Friend's Folder because their hosts that year were their best friends on a sabbatical? Was it 1992? or 1994… because it was the year that Reagan shot. What year was Reagan shot? Because the trip to the Grand Canyon was the year after the trip to Paris… or was it the year before? Too bad… 'cause they now gives you something 8 folders to browse randomly through, hoping you can remember what year Reagan was shot.
In my experience, most of my students who were losing photos in a DAM started using a DAM because they were tired of forgetting where they put a particular photo in a nested folder system. I specialize in tutoring such people, and it's simply a case of instilling a few - just a few - simple routines for them to start creating a system that doesn't rely solely on memory.
Then they need me as a teacher, perhaps….
Which is simply a case of taking some time to learn….
I have folders in Lightroom that go back to 2000. And I came to digital late. Wait until you're trying to remember back 10 or more years about where you may have filed one particular image.
So does mine.
My library is too big for Cloud, plus I tend to shoot large files.
Great. Was there anyone else in any of those photos? If you wanted to create a collection of photos of that other person you now need to browse through a good chunk of your folders - one by one - looking for that one person. That is where the power of DAM is most evident. To put into one location photos that you never anticipated should be collected together.
A DAM may not be the best system for you… fair enough. But don't write off its benefits for other people simply because you prefer something else.
VERY confused about storing photos on lightroom
I have just switched to a macbook pro from an old windows laptop - on that i just stored my 200GBish worth of photos (some RAW some JPEG) in folders, and had all of these backed up on an external hard drive. However, I was planning on keeping most of my photos for my new mac on an external hard drive, with a few on the mac itself. I have also just got Lightroom (only used photoshop before) and I am very confused where to store my photos?
Can I import ALL of my photos into a catalog on Lightroom, and have this backed up on my external hard drive? And if I have a catalog as well as having them all in the pictures folder in finder, am I taking up double the space on the laptop?
I have just switched to a macbook pro from an old windows laptop - on that i just stored my 200GBish worth of photos (some RAW some JPEG) in folders, and had all of these backed up on an external hard drive. However, I was planning on keeping most of my photos for my new mac on an external hard drive, with a few on the mac itself. I have also just got Lightroom (only used photoshop before) and I am very confused where to store my photos?
Can I import ALL of my photos into a catalog on Lightroom, and have this backed up on my external hard drive? And if I have a catalog as well as having them all in the pictures folder in finder, am I taking up double the space on the laptop?
Below is an image from the final scene of "Raiders of the Lost Ark"
It is the equivalent of using your file system to store photos.
/Jim
Last edited:
Most people don't know how to drive either, until they learn. Then they learn how powerful a tool it can be. Learning to use DAM is learning how to use a tool.
I also know people who 'lose' photos in their folder based system simply because they've forgotten where they filed them. Is it in the Christmas Folder, the Paris Folder (because they spent Christmas in Paris one year, the Family Folder because its a photo of the family, or in the Best Friend's Folder because their hosts that year were their best friends on a sabbatical? Was it 1992? or 1994… because it was the year that Reagan shot. What year was Reagan shot? Because the trip to the Grand Canyon was the year after the trip to Paris… or was it the year before? Too bad… 'cause they now gives you something 8 folders to browse randomly through, hoping you can remember what year Reagan was shot.
In my experience, most of my students who were losing photos in a DAM started using a DAM because they were tired of forgetting where they put a particular photo in a nested folder system. I specialize in tutoring such people, and it's simply a case of instilling a few - just a few - simple routines for them to start creating a system that doesn't rely solely on memory.
Then they need me as a teacher, perhaps….
Which is simply a case of taking some time to learn….
I have folders in Lightroom that go back to 2000. And I came to digital late. Wait until you're trying to remember back 10 or more years about where you may have filed one particular image.
So does mine.
My library is too big for Cloud, plus I tend to shoot large files.
Great. Was there anyone else in any of those photos? If you wanted to create a collection of photos of that other person you now need to browse through a good chunk of your folders - one by one - looking for that one person. That is where the power of DAM is most evident. To put into one location photos that you never anticipated should be collected together.
A DAM may not be the best system for you… fair enough. But don't write off its benefits for other people simply because you prefer something else.
Again, you're assuming. I know exactly where my photos are. The folder structure is designed that way. If the folder is named 2012_Family Christmas in Paris, how is it I won't be able to find those photos? It's designed so you always have a place to place your photos with no stragglers, no one offs, no folders with the name Miscellaneous.
Oh, I've shown people how to use DAMs. Trust me, they don't want it that complicated. Too many option and time consuming. You see, it's easy for you say things when you already have a system and a bit of a computer nerd. For the average mom and dad, my book is designed in away that makes it easy. Even right down to the file name which is derived from the EXIF data which lets you see when the photo was taken simply by looking at the file name.
It's hard to explain it in a post or blog, hence the book. But hey, everyone is different. So yes, I can write off other ideas because it is my opinion, which the op asked for.
----------
Hardly. Files folders in a computer system aren't stacked on top of each other. Don't be foolish in your attempt in analogy. Learn how a file system works.
I see... so you do not even use heirarchical file system. Do you keep them all flat in your home directory?
/Jim
I actually use a very similar method for my Aperture projects. So at the project level... before doing any organization... mine look very similar to your filing structure. However... this is all the organization that you get if you do not use a DAM. What happens when you want a more complicated collection of photos, that span multiple of your folders?
Example: We tend to go to Hawaii several times each year. We often travel with other friends. One of the things we like to do when we are there is to explore and find new waterfalls.
If I wanted to create a slide show that captures all of such trips... because our friends are coming over for dinner and we want to re-live the moment. I would create a single smart album with the following characteristics:
- Place: Hawaii (this it would automatically include all the islands)
- Rating: 3 stars or higher (3 stars is my classification of slide show quality)
- People: Any friends (click on the friends keyword... which includes all friends... or drill down and select just the friends coming to dinner)
- Keywords: Waterfall
It would take about 30 seconds to create the smart album, and I would instantly have just the slide show quality photos, from any of my ~40 trips to Hawaii over the past couple of decades that have any of our friends in them, and also waterfalls.
With a flat "by year/event" structure... I would be looking through at least 40 folders, each with potentially thousands of photos... and varying quality... just to cull down to the 100 or so that would be in slideshow.
/Jim
Last edited:
My comments are not specifically directed at you. You have a system, it works for you. Great. But I do want to leave the opposing view for others who have not yet settled on a system. And I'm going to use your comments as the spring-board.
Great. You know where the family photos, while in Paris are. And in 8 of those photos you included your friend's Dalmatian dog in the group photo because you happen to like Dalmatians. In fact, every Christmas you include a different dog in the family photo .. and you go somewhere cool every Christmas. Where do these photos get filed? In the Christmas folder for that year? In the folder for that particular city? Or in the folder where you keep all your Dalmatian photos?
For one of those Christmases your best friend brought a date, and there is a group photo of your family in Paris including your friend's date. Does this photo go into the Family in Paris at Christmas folder, or the Best Friend's folder. They break up - and 5 years later they hook back up and get married. Ooops where was that one photo That's Ok - you only have a couple thousand images to scan because the photo could be in any one of 3 folders.
Of course with a DAM the photo would be filed in each of those folders. You don't need to remember which particular folder, you just need to remember which 3 or 4 folders it might be in, pick the smallest one, and find it.
Of course if you had keyworded it the search would take 15 seconds while you tried to remember who she spelled Francis, or was it Franny?
You're right. So I don't start complicated. I show them a very powerful combination of basic folders to start with. Once they start using that and getting into the swing of it, they start adding and building on the system. I only have one recidivist as far as I know.
I'm also trained as a trainer certificate and all.
I'm much to lazy to write a book. I just spend a couple of afternoons with a small group, and then a few follow up phone calls.
That's why I like my DAM I'm lazy. I can do everything you're doing, and much more for about 1/10 of the effort.
And made a sweeping generalization - which is what I'm reacting to.
This thread now has looked at both sides of the issue that's all I wanted to do.
Well, you're both right.
One of the keys to understanding data on a computer is that something, say a file, can be accessed in many ways. Finder, DAM, File Explorer, etc etc. Even a hard disk and the 1's and 0's are part of a sort of database.
Whether you use iPhoto or other DAM or cloud services or whatever those photo files have to be stored somewhere. They are either gonna be folders/directories assigned invisibly by the DAM, or by you.
And it's that "referencing" thing that makes the difference; you can have your cake and eat it too. That lost ark can be found by wandering the aisles, or by looking at the catalog/library that lists its location, say aisle 666, row 42, level 3.14.
I think Apple has done a poor job of explaining this, and hence you see bazillions of questions about iPhoto and where did my photos go? and what's this "referenced" thing? And it's beyond confusing that "importing" can mean importing a location or actually moving the file (can't the commands be "move" and "reference"??)
But what it means is that you can have the Razeus file system AND snberk103's iPhoto or Aperture Library accessing those same files. And that's what I always recommended for my students and Mac newbies, for several reasons. First, people are gonna trade folders of pics, move 'em around, look for them, etc, so even if you use a DAM you want some sort of structure you can find and use. Second, not every application looks inside Apple libraries for things, especially since cloud services have become popular. Tons of the latter use web-based interfaces or uploaders or whatever that force a user into the file structure to select photos to upload. If everythings in the library you are going to be unhappy. Third, it is easier to move to another product. And fourth, it allows you to tag and/or group photos with other files, particularly important for those who need photos with songs with Word documents with text files etc.
And then you can have the benefits of your DAM, which offers levels of organization a file system never can, with the same photo in different collections, more sophisticated tagging/keywording, filtering, etc.
I've found myself arguing the same point about file structure vs tagging and referencing files with my lawyer colleagues, and the advantages of using those systems over just a file hierarchy. The same principles apply, and although something like Leap or Devonthink is great for that, Aperture or LR would be even better.
But hey, maybe next week Apple will announce Aperture Infinity and Beyond, which will include Siri for photos: "Siri, show me all the pictures of my ex and delete them" and poof! it's done. Perhaps developed by NSA. Then you wouldn't have to worry about organizing anything....
One of the keys to understanding data on a computer is that something, say a file, can be accessed in many ways. Finder, DAM, File Explorer, etc etc. Even a hard disk and the 1's and 0's are part of a sort of database.
Whether you use iPhoto or other DAM or cloud services or whatever those photo files have to be stored somewhere. They are either gonna be folders/directories assigned invisibly by the DAM, or by you.
And it's that "referencing" thing that makes the difference; you can have your cake and eat it too. That lost ark can be found by wandering the aisles, or by looking at the catalog/library that lists its location, say aisle 666, row 42, level 3.14.
I think Apple has done a poor job of explaining this, and hence you see bazillions of questions about iPhoto and where did my photos go? and what's this "referenced" thing? And it's beyond confusing that "importing" can mean importing a location or actually moving the file (can't the commands be "move" and "reference"??)
But what it means is that you can have the Razeus file system AND snberk103's iPhoto or Aperture Library accessing those same files. And that's what I always recommended for my students and Mac newbies, for several reasons. First, people are gonna trade folders of pics, move 'em around, look for them, etc, so even if you use a DAM you want some sort of structure you can find and use. Second, not every application looks inside Apple libraries for things, especially since cloud services have become popular. Tons of the latter use web-based interfaces or uploaders or whatever that force a user into the file structure to select photos to upload. If everythings in the library you are going to be unhappy. Third, it is easier to move to another product. And fourth, it allows you to tag and/or group photos with other files, particularly important for those who need photos with songs with Word documents with text files etc.
And then you can have the benefits of your DAM, which offers levels of organization a file system never can, with the same photo in different collections, more sophisticated tagging/keywording, filtering, etc.
I've found myself arguing the same point about file structure vs tagging and referencing files with my lawyer colleagues, and the advantages of using those systems over just a file hierarchy. The same principles apply, and although something like Leap or Devonthink is great for that, Aperture or LR would be even better.
But hey, maybe next week Apple will announce Aperture Infinity and Beyond, which will include Siri for photos: "Siri, show me all the pictures of my ex and delete them" and poof! it's done. Perhaps developed by NSA. Then you wouldn't have to worry about organizing anything....
I definatly love the discussion here
I have a question. When I takepictures, I take hundreds of photos for an event. I store them in Aperture but then after I look at the project, I have so many pictures that are similar but I am not able to delete them even if they are close. I find that I am deleting memories... The thing is that my library is now 250GB...
Any input on that? Should I say to myself that I have to delete them? They look the same, I suppose I keep the best shot..?
I have a question. When I takepictures, I take hundreds of photos for an event. I store them in Aperture but then after I look at the project, I have so many pictures that are similar but I am not able to delete them even if they are close. I find that I am deleting memories... The thing is that my library is now 250GB...
Any input on that? Should I say to myself that I have to delete them? They look the same, I suppose I keep the best shot..?
Last edited:
I definatly love the discussion here
I have a question. When I takepictures, I take hundreds of photos for an event. I store them in Aperture but then after I look at the project, I have so many pictures that are similar but I am not able to delete them even if they are close. I find that I am deleting memories... The thing is that my library is now 250GB...
Any input on that? Should I say to myself that I have to delete them? They look the same, I suppose I keep the best shot..?
You'd be surprised what cloud services such as Google+ Photos and Picturelife can do with those. Of course, those guys have incentive for you to just upload it all and them do the "highlights" and hide the rest.
Personally, I'd delete them and keep the best ones. If you were to print these out and create a real life, physical photo album, which ones would you keep.
When I go on vacation at the end of this month, I'll probably take 1200+ photos over 7 days. I'll probably keep 250 of those.