What does Aperture & Lightroom do that iPhoto doesnt?

[Wakakanada]

Too much for a beginner?

I have just bought a Canon T1i and intend to shoot in Raw format for the important shots. I was wondering though, are Aperture 2 or Lightroom beginner friendly or is there a more "newbie" program you might recommend...I will be working on the learning curve of my first DSLR as it is already

 

[OreoCookie]

I have just bought a Canon T1i and intend to shoot in Raw format for the important shots. I was wondering though, are Aperture 2 or Lightroom beginner friendly or is there a more "newbie" program you might recommend...I will be working on the learning curve of my first DSLR as it is already

Why do you want to shoot RAW?

 

[mattyb240]

Why don't you just go to Aperture's and Lightroom's web sites and read the information? It's a pretty easy to find out what Aperture and Lightroom are capable of. You can also download 30 day trials of each to find out if there's anything useful to you

I was actually going to say something of a similar line but with a bit more of a negative tone, have you thought to actually look at the websites? What they offer and how they differ? You didn't even know they offered demo's. So clearly the answer is no.

Go do some research, try them, then come back with questions.

 

[luminosity]

Why do you want to shoot RAW?

Why wouldn't someone want to shoot in RAW?

 

[OreoCookie]

Why wouldn't someone want to shoot in RAW?

Because it's more complex to deal with (you need to develop each RAW), pictures cannot immediately shared and unless you know why you're using it, you won't make use of any of the advantages of shooting in RAW.

Noobs should IMO start shooting jpg and learn their camera first: compose and expose properly, find a style, focus on the picture and not the technology.

 

[ManhattanPrjct]

Because it's more complex to deal with (you need to develop each RAW), pictures cannot immediately shared and unless you know why you're using it, you won't make use of any of the advantages of shooting in RAW.

I agree and disagree with this - I don't think turning a RAW image into a JPG is really that complex, but I do think that it's pointless to shoot in RAW unless you are going to seize the opportunities to turn images that are very close to being good exposures into great ones in post.

Wakakanada: If you have a 8GB or 16GB SD Card, I would suggest shooting sidecar (each time you take a picture, you produce one RAW image and one "identical" JPG that's been processed by the camera). Import your JPGs into iPhoto. If you are happy with how they look, or are happy after using iPhoto's editing tools, then you don't need Aperture or Lightroom. If you're unhappy and wished you had the ability to modify things that iPhoto is incapable of changing, download the trial versions of A2 or LR2, import your RAW files, and play around with your images that way.

 

[OreoCookie]

I agree and disagree with this - I don't think turning a RAW image into a JPG is really that complex, but I do think that it's pointless to shoot in RAW unless you are going to seize the opportunities to turn images that are very close to being good exposures into great ones in post.

It's not complex, but if you shoot RAW, iPhoto is definitely the wrong tool for the job. You need more complex software. With jpg, you can grab the file and mail it to friends right away. You can connect the camera to your aunts computer and she can directly see pictures of her nephews.

If people shoot RAW, because they are afraid to `lose' something (but don't really know what) and because they think, they could have magically saved that one picture if they had shot in RAW, then perhaps they should start shooting jpg. And there are times when people who usually shoot RAW switch to jpg (e. g. when they want to photograph a longer sequence of photos and dslrs can buffer a lot more jpgs than RAWs).

Wakakanada: If you have a 8GB or 16GB SD Card, I would suggest shooting sidecar (each time you take a picture, you produce one RAW image and one "identical" JPG that's been processed by the camera). Import your JPGs into iPhoto. If you are happy with how they look, or are happy after using iPhoto's editing tools, then you don't need Aperture or Lightroom. If you're unhappy and wished you had the ability to modify things that iPhoto is incapable of changing, download the trial versions of A2 or LR2, import your RAW files, and play around with your images that way.

I don't think that's a good suggestion, it's a `shooting RAW feels safer'-type argument. A big chunk of my library is in jpg and Aperture handles it beautifully -- shooting RAW vs. jpg has nothing to do with whether to use Aperture/Lightroom or not.

My first dslr (an Olympus E-20) was way too slow to shoot RAW, so I did not have any experience shooting RAW when I got my D80. Even then, I started out with jpg and experimented. In difficult lighting, I switched back and forth and finally I think I have an intuition in which situations it matters and in which it doesn't (e. g. shooting RAW gives you a lot more headroom correcting the white balance and skin tones; the differences are very subtle and if I didn't have calibrated screens, I probably couldn't tell the differences anyway). And since I have owned slrs (analog ones) before, I knew how to operate the camera and compose (not saying I'm a good photographer ).

IMO people should start learning their tools first and add complexity bit-by-bit. If you have just gotten your first dslr, you have enough on your hands as it is.

 

[ManhattanPrjct]

I actually started digital photography shooting exclusively JPG as well, so I guess in a way I've already unwittingly taken your advice!

I definitely agree with iPhoto's abilities regarding RAW-handling.

I guess it's a question of how much you want to juggle in the learning process - I like to dive into the deep end, others not so much. To each his own...

 

[OreoCookie]

I guess it's a question of how much you want to juggle in the learning process - I like to dive into the deep end, others not so much. To each his own...

I totally understand: when I was 12, I got a darkroom for Christmas, a really cool present. But somehow I never really got into it.

Plus, shooting in jpg does in no way hinder you from taking very good pictures There are special situations where you would make the conscious, informed decision to shoot RAW (for HDR photography, perhaps).

 

[dazey]

Why wouldn't someone want to shoot in RAW?

Because JPEG is just fine if what comes out of the camera is exactly how you want the final product to look. If you make any adjustments then you want all the other information that is not in the JPEG. Under expose a picture on JPEG and RAW and you will be able to pull detail out of the raw that does not exist on the JPEG. Alternatively on a properly exposed image you will be able to pull information out of shadows.

 

[dmmcintyre3]

iPhoto:
Neat web interface(Not included, got off internet) fast on my G4
Aperture (2):Slow, but is easier to do edits to photos and RAW images. iPhoto did this too but not as good as A2 did. I have a few photos I wish I shot RAW but did not because the memory card was almost full and the PC I had to dump it on would not display the pics. A 30 day trial is not enough to learn A2 or LR2 which I am going to try and see if it is fast enough on my PB to be used more

 

[Wakakanada]

Thanks for the thoughtful comments



I appreciate the level of considered opinion expressed by all contributors to my query.

With respect to the logical advice of learning first and adding complexity as one advances. I agree in principle. While I await delivery of my first DSLR, I am reading the "T1i for Dummies" book and getting acquainted with the various concepts involved in DSLR photography.

I agree one should not simply default to RAW, "just cause". However, I clearly know I should use it in a certain situation. The reason I decided to buy a DSLR was to ensure I take all reasonable steps to obtain the best possible pictures for a once in a lifetime event involving my daughter. Basically the biggest photo-op of her childhood. So, there is no question that I certainly want to record the moment in RAW.

In considering the respective comments in this thread I have decided to go with the sidecar option. I agree I may well not have the ability to properly process the RAW images for some time. I will certainly know how to work with and use the JPEG images.

But, without question I will be using the RAW images to create the best finished product for at very large print [in the 24" x 36" range].

I also agree that the majority of my photography [photo-op aside] should likely not be in RAW at this point.

So thank you all for increasing my knowledge base. Glad to see there can be critical differences of opinion that do not turn into a flame war on these forums...maybe the photographers are a more civilized bunch

 

[neutrino23]

As far as shooting RAW, unless you are really pressed for space on the hard drive I strongly recommend it. RAW captures more dynamic range than can easily be viewed on a monitor or printed on paper. The camera does its best to figure out how to make a good picture from that large amount of information. Working from the RAW image gives you the opportunity to make various adjustments and corrections without taking a new picture.

You can already check this out in iPhoto. Shoot some of the same subject in RAW and jpg and see the difference.

Aperture or LR gives you more tools to adjust exposure, contrast, brightness, white balance and such as well as a somewhat different way to organize pictures. It is a two edged sword. There are powerful features but you'll find yourself spending more time in this software. If photography is not a big part of your life you may be better off staying with iPhoto.

Small correction from above. Aperture can make books and such as well or better than iPhoto.

 

[Wakakanada]

You can already check this out in iPhoto. Shoot some of the same subject in RAW and jpg and see the difference.

So iPhoto will process RAW files or would I just use the basic software I expect will come with my T1i camera?

 

[akadmon]

I own a T1i and can confirm that iPhoto can import raw pix from this camera. However, one of the reasons I got Lightroom is that iPhoto edit module, in addition to being feature limited, is extremely cumbersome compared to Lightroom. Try zooming in on an particular area you want to work with: it's cllick-drag-drag in iPhoto vs. a single click in LR !. These days I use iPhoto as a place to dump jpgs of my favorite pix (after I've made all the adjustments to them in LR). If you're a student, you can get LR for $99. Worth every penny, even at double this price!

 

[ManhattanPrjct]

So iPhoto will process RAW files or would I just use the basic software I expect will come with my T1i camera?

Let me try to explain this in a different way (which will hopefully not as misguided as some of my previous posts):

iPhoto is capable of reading RAW formatted images. You can adjust RAW images in the same ways you can adjust JPGs you import - no more, no less. You can organize RAW images the same way as you organize JPGs - no more, no less.

A2 and LR2 give you different (and in my mind more logical) ways of organizing your photo library. Professional photographers who have enormous libraries and demanding workflow need these programs to manage their livelihood. For enthusiasts (like me), the digital asset management of these programs is more effective than iPhoto just because they are more effective at managing massive libraries.

But, there's a bigger difference between iPhoto and A2/LR2; the latter give you more advanced tools to "develop" your photos. RAW images are basically "undeveloped" files that need to be processed by either your computer (through iPhoto, A2/LR2, etc.) or by your own camera (which is what happens when you tell your camera to output JPG files). There will be differences at how effective these programs are at developing your RAW files compared to what your camera can do. Suffice it to say, many people want the flexibility to control the process, others would rather let the camera handle it.

I found this "digital darkroom" article which may seem a little simplistic, but describes what certain programs do during the process of a workflow: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_darkroom - I suggest you also follow the "RAW" link, as I think it contains a good explanation of the format, why it's important, and also some critical concepts of digital photography.

 

[Wakakanada]

I found this "digital darkroom" article which may seem a little simplistic, but describes what certain programs do during the process of a workflow: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_darkroom - I suggest you also follow the "RAW" link, as I think it contains a good explanation of the format, why it's important, and also some critical concepts of digital photography.

Don't worry, I appreciate all reasoned suggestions about where to find the next bit of knowledge. At this point, nothing is too "simplistic" everything is either new or a good reinforcement of a newly learned concept. Thanks again.