Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Apple iLife supports RAW format of all popular Digital SLRs

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 2:44:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

While I've never been a Mac person, the fact that Apple includes iLife
software, and the new Mac Mini is pretty reasonably priced (about $550
for the base unit with the 80GB drive) it's tempting.

http://www.apple.com/ilife/iphoto/import.html

I suspect that they'll add other D-SLR's raw format if they other
D-SLRs get any real user base.
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 5:58:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Scharf-DCA" <scharf@hotmail.com> writes:

> While I've never been a Mac person, the fact that Apple includes iLife
> software, and the new Mac Mini is pretty reasonably priced (about $550
> for the base unit with the 80GB drive) it's tempting.
>
> http://www.apple.com/ilife/iphoto/import.html

As I've said elsewhere here, the support is minimal. For most of it's
internal operations it converts the image to JPEG, and seems to do so
poorly (every attempt of mine so far results in an image with poor
quality and heavy color bleeding, which I suspect is from no or poor
antialiasing of the Bayer data in the RAW file). I'll try to grab
some screen shots later.


--
Richard W Kaszeta
rich@kaszeta.org
http://www.kaszeta.org/rich
Anonymous
January 25, 2005 6:13:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Richard Kaszeta <rich@kaszeta.org> writes:
> As I've said elsewhere here, the support is minimal. For most of it's
> internal operations it converts the image to JPEG, and seems to do so
> poorly (every attempt of mine so far results in an image with poor
> quality and heavy color bleeding, which I suspect is from no or poor
> antialiasing of the Bayer data in the RAW file). I'll try to grab
> some screen shots later.

Following up:

Here's the original CRW file:

http://www.giantspliff.org/iphoto5/CRW_3394.CRW

If I import this into iPhoto 5, and zoom in all the way, here's what I
see. Note the color banding. I see this if I print the image to my
R800 as well:

http://www.giantspliff.org/iphoto5/3394_crw_iphoto5.png

For comparison, here's a screenshot of a tiff made from the same CRW
(using the Canon tools), zoomed in near-identically in iPhoto 5:

http://www.giantspliff.org/iphoto5/3394_tiff_iphoto5.pn...

--
Richard W Kaszeta
rich@kaszeta.org
http://www.kaszeta.org/rich
January 26, 2005 12:32:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Richard Kaszeta <rich@kaszeta.org> wrote:

> "Scharf-DCA" <scharf@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> > While I've never been a Mac person, the fact that Apple includes iLife
> > software, and the new Mac Mini is pretty reasonably priced (about $550
> > for the base unit with the 80GB drive) it's tempting.
> >
> > http://www.apple.com/ilife/iphoto/import.html
>
> As I've said elsewhere here, the support is minimal. For most of it's
> internal operations it converts the image to JPEG, and seems to do so
> poorly (every attempt of mine so far results in an image with poor
> quality and heavy color bleeding, which I suspect is from no or poor
> antialiasing of the Bayer data in the RAW file). I'll try to grab
> some screen shots later.

That sounds interesting if you can manage to get a half decent jpeg.
That''s all I need as I am starting to use iPhoto just to catalogue my
work. I'll carry on using Photoshop to do the main editing / RAW
conversion. I really like the smart folder options to build sub-sets of
my images.

Can you let us know if it is possible to view the image in iPhoto - but
load the untouched RAW file into Photoshop for editing? iPhoto 5 hasn't
been released here in the UK yet - so I can't experiment!
January 26, 2005 12:32:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1gqyrlt.3ulku71w13126N%nospam@nospam.com>, Keith
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

> Can you let us know if it is possible to view the image in iPhoto - but
> load the untouched RAW file into Photoshop for editing? iPhoto 5 hasn't
> been released here in the UK yet - so I can't experiment!

To edit the RAW in Photoshop you export it out of iPhoto 5.
Share>export. Then open in Photoshop.

--
Charles
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 12:32:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

nospam@nospam.com (Keith) writes:
> That sounds interesting if you can manage to get a half decent jpeg.
> That''s all I need as I am starting to use iPhoto just to catalogue my
> work. I'll carry on using Photoshop to do the main editing / RAW
> conversion. I really like the smart folder options to build sub-sets of
> my images.

I might suggest that you'd be happier with iView Media Pro, which is
what I use.

> Can you let us know if it is possible to view the image in iPhoto - but
> load the untouched RAW file into Photoshop for editing? iPhoto 5 hasn't
> been released here in the UK yet - so I can't experiment!

Yes, it is. If you option-double-click on an image (and have set
Photoshop as your editor) it loads it as a RAW for editing. If you
just doubleclick it loads it as a JPEG. If you drag it onto any
application, it's a RAW file.

Workable, but not ideal.

--
Richard W Kaszeta
rich@kaszeta.org
http://www.kaszeta.org/rich
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 12:34:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Why would anyone buy the overpriced/underpowered Apple mini, add memory, a
keyboard, a mouse, a monitor and then purchase Photoshop?
What am I missing?
OT rant:
I have never understood the Apple mystique, having used Apple and Windows
machines from the beginnings of both. They both have arbitrary rules and
irresolvable limitations.
I have an iPod mini which only runs on some of the least intuitive software
ever written (not allowing the iPod to show up as a drive in Windows
Explorer is just sheer nastiness on the part of Apple programmers). The iPod
mini has a control wheel that requires 5-10 tries to get any operation
accomplished--changing the volume setting on the iPod mini is less certain
than betting on a roulette wheel: there is no consistent response to touch
or direction of stroking the wheel.
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 12:34:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <RXyJd.14887$wZ2.7539@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, bmoag
<aetoo@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Why would anyone buy the overpriced/underpowered Apple mini, add memory, a
> keyboard, a mouse, a monitor and then purchase Photoshop?
> What am I missing?

the mini is targetted at someone who already has a keyboard, mouse and
monitor from a previous system, and was curious about a mac. or someone
who just wants something super tiny.

the typical mac mini user is *not* a hardcore photoshop user.

> OT rant:
> I have never understood the Apple mystique, having used Apple and Windows
> machines from the beginnings of both. They both have arbitrary rules and
> irresolvable limitations.
> I have an iPod mini which only runs on some of the least intuitive software
> ever written (not allowing the iPod to show up as a drive in Windows
> Explorer is just sheer nastiness on the part of Apple programmers).

that is because if it showed up as a hard drive in explorer, anyone
could easily copy songs on and off the device, making sharing music
illegally far too convenient for the music industry. and, since apple
has its own online music store and has numerous agreements with record
companies and artists, they have to take steps to make it at least
somewhat difficult.

plus, itunes manages music substantially better than explorer ever
could (although it could be a little faster) and automatically syncs
with the ipod including playlists and other information that explorer
does not handle. finally, you can set the ipod to show up as a hard
drive which will show up in explorer; it works like any external hard
drive. you just can't add music that way.

> The iPod
> mini has a control wheel that requires 5-10 tries to get any operation
> accomplished--changing the volume setting on the iPod mini is less certain
> than betting on a roulette wheel: there is no consistent response to touch
> or direction of stroking the wheel.

perhaps yours is defective somehow. on all the ipods i've used, it
works first try.
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 12:34:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <RXyJd.14887$wZ2.7539@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, bmoag
<aetoo@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Why would anyone buy the overpriced/underpowered Apple mini, add memory, a
> keyboard, a mouse, a monitor and then purchase Photoshop?
> What am I missing?

A clue.

> OT rant:
> I have never understood the Apple mystique, having used Apple and Windows
> machines from the beginnings of both. They both have arbitrary rules and
> irresolvable limitations.
> I have an iPod mini which only runs on some of the least intuitive software
> ever written (not allowing the iPod to show up as a drive in Windows
> Explorer is just sheer nastiness on the part of Apple programmers). The iPod
> mini has a control wheel that requires 5-10 tries to get any operation
> accomplished--changing the volume setting on the iPod mini is less certain
> than betting on a roulette wheel: there is no consistent response to touch
> or direction of stroking the wheel.

I didn't know they sold 'em to retarded people.
January 26, 2005 1:41:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Scharf-DCA wrote:
> While I've never been a Mac person, the fact that Apple includes iLife
> software, and the new Mac Mini is pretty reasonably priced (about $550
> for the base unit with the 80GB drive) it's tempting.
>
> http://www.apple.com/ilife/iphoto/import.html
>
> I suspect that they'll add other D-SLR's raw format if they other
> D-SLRs get any real user base.


I am going to laugh at you that you can drool over on some little
descriptions. It's not a pro tool such as Photoshop's RAW import or
CaptureOne. It's mainly added on to decode RAW files so that iPhoto can
handle the pictures. It's best be used as organizer, but wait, it's
useful only if all your pictures are on the HD. Don't you save your
pictures on CD/DVD for safekeeping? Then iPhoto is useless. And each RAW
file is big, a 100 RAW files can take over 80MB of space. The whole
iLife suite is quite attractive for newbies but soon they would be left
to find better alternatives.
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 1:42:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 1/25/05 4:41 PM, in article
XWzJd.9798$rp1.7509@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net, "chris"
<someone@somewhere.net> wrote:

> Scharf-DCA wrote:
>> While I've never been a Mac person, the fact that Apple includes iLife
>> software, and the new Mac Mini is pretty reasonably priced (about $550
>> for the base unit with the 80GB drive) it's tempting.
>>
>> http://www.apple.com/ilife/iphoto/import.html
>>
>> I suspect that they'll add other D-SLR's raw format if they other
>> D-SLRs get any real user base.
>
>
> I am going to laugh at you that you can drool over on some little
> descriptions. It's not a pro tool such as Photoshop's RAW import or
> CaptureOne. It's mainly added on to decode RAW files so that iPhoto can
> handle the pictures. It's best be used as organizer, but wait, it's
> useful only if all your pictures are on the HD. Don't you save your
> pictures on CD/DVD for safekeeping? Then iPhoto is useless. And each RAW
> file is big, a 100 RAW files can take over 80MB of space. The whole
> iLife suite is quite attractive for newbies but soon they would be left
> to find better alternatives.

What he said....
Yeah, the Apple stuff is great and I have done some nice, even impressive
(gasp!) things with it but you do hit a frustration wall with it if you want
to do something really professional or "serious."
Sort of great "as far as it goes." I wouldn't hesitate to put a student on
it or any other newbie since you can learn the ground rules of organizing,
composition, thinking out a project and come up with a nice-looking product
in the end, but, well....bring on the Adobe and the FinalCut!
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 1:59:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1106682243.735497.321630@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Scharf-DCA" <scharf@hotmail.com> wrote:

> While I've never been a Mac person, the fact that Apple includes iLife
> software, and the new Mac Mini is pretty reasonably priced (about $550
> for the base unit with the 80GB drive) it's tempting.
>
> http://www.apple.com/ilife/iphoto/import.html
>
> I suspect that they'll add other D-SLR's raw format if they other
> D-SLRs get any real user base.

Yes, but only in iPhoto. iPhoto is almost a great organization tool but
it has so many limitations that it's useless to most people with large
photo collections. All disk based organization is lost when importing.
January 26, 2005 3:57:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

nospam wrote:
> In article <RXyJd.14887$wZ2.7539@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, bmoag
> <aetoo@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Why would anyone buy the overpriced/underpowered Apple mini, add memory, a
>>keyboard, a mouse, a monitor and then purchase Photoshop?
>>What am I missing?
>
>
> the mini is targetted at someone who already has a keyboard, mouse and
> monitor from a previous system, and was curious about a mac. or someone
> who just wants something super tiny.
>
> the typical mac mini user is *not* a hardcore photoshop user.
>
>
>>OT rant:
>>I have never understood the Apple mystique, having used Apple and Windows
>>machines from the beginnings of both. They both have arbitrary rules and
>>irresolvable limitations.
>>I have an iPod mini which only runs on some of the least intuitive software
>>ever written (not allowing the iPod to show up as a drive in Windows
>>Explorer is just sheer nastiness on the part of Apple programmers).
>
>
> that is because if it showed up as a hard drive in explorer, anyone
> could easily copy songs on and off the device, making sharing music
> illegally far too convenient for the music industry. and, since apple
> has its own online music store and has numerous agreements with record
> companies and artists, they have to take steps to make it at least
> somewhat difficult.
>
> plus, itunes manages music substantially better than explorer ever
> could (although it could be a little faster) and automatically syncs
> with the ipod including playlists and other information that explorer
> does not handle. finally, you can set the ipod to show up as a hard
> drive which will show up in explorer; it works like any external hard
> drive. you just can't add music that way.
>
>
>>The iPod
>>mini has a control wheel that requires 5-10 tries to get any operation
>>accomplished--changing the volume setting on the iPod mini is less certain
>>than betting on a roulette wheel: there is no consistent response to touch
>>or direction of stroking the wheel.
>
>
> perhaps yours is defective somehow. on all the ipods i've used, it
> works first try.


Better not be Photoshop users because 1GB upgrade is a whoopee $325 and
this is after $150 price drop.

I have the 2nd Gen. iPod, the wheel is so sensentive that it always does
something I don't want accidentally. I got it because it had a deep
rebate, $200, making it $75. I happily gave it to kids.
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 3:57:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <JVBJd.9910$rp1.814@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, chris
<someone@somewhere.net> wrote:


> Better not be Photoshop users because 1GB upgrade is a whoopee $325 and
> this is after $150 price drop.

so buy a 1gig ram chip after market and put it in yourself. it isn't
that tough.

i just checked dell's site - 1 gig of memory there for one of their
desktop systems is $380.

> I have the 2nd Gen. iPod, the wheel is so sensentive that it always does
> something I don't want accidentally. I got it because it had a deep
> rebate, $200, making it $75. I happily gave it to kids.

like i said, maybe it is defective. i also have a 2nd gen, and it works
great.
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 6:28:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in news:250120051618099803%
nospam@nospam.invalid:

> that is because if it showed up as a hard drive in explorer, anyone
> could easily copy songs on and off the device, making sharing music
> illegally far too convenient for the music industry. and, since apple
> has its own online music store and has numerous agreements with record
> companies and artists, they have to take steps to make it at least
> somewhat difficult.

<shrug> Combined with many other useability issues, this is why I won't
touch an iPod.

Way too many better products on the market.
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 6:33:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"bmoag" <aetoo@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:RXyJd.14887$wZ2.7539@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:

> Why would anyone buy the overpriced/underpowered Apple mini,

For one thing, it's a great "appliance" machine for the Mac set.

I'm not too jazzed by it, but a lot of the Macheads I know are thrilled to
have such a thing themselves. Neither a G5 nor an iMac do well in this role
by virtue of simple ergonomics, and the setup on an established network is
surprisingly easy.
January 26, 2005 11:59:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Richard Kaszeta <rich@kaszeta.org> wrote:

> nospam@nospam.com (Keith) writes:
> > That sounds interesting if you can manage to get a half decent jpeg.
> > That''s all I need as I am starting to use iPhoto just to catalogue my
> > work. I'll carry on using Photoshop to do the main editing / RAW
> > conversion. I really like the smart folder options to build sub-sets of
> > my images.
>
> I might suggest that you'd be happier with iView Media Pro, which is
> what I use.

I really should look at that I guess. I'm not sure what the maximum
number of images iPhoto can cope with, especially with regard to some
form of archiving system. However - I really like the slide show options
in iPhoto and the strong links with iDVD!

I've heard mixed reviews about the other options, what is it you like
about iView Media Pro?

> > Can you let us know if it is possible to view the image in iPhoto - but
> > load the untouched RAW file into Photoshop for editing? iPhoto 5 hasn't
> > been released here in the UK yet - so I can't experiment!
>
> Yes, it is. If you option-double-click on an image (and have set
> Photoshop as your editor) it loads it as a RAW for editing. If you
> just doubleclick it loads it as a JPEG. If you drag it onto any
> application, it's a RAW file.
>
> Workable, but not ideal.

Thanks for that.
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 12:05:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

nospam@nospam.com (Keith) writes:
> I really should look at that I guess. I'm not sure what the maximum
> number of images iPhoto can cope with, especially with regard to some
> form of archiving system. However - I really like the slide show options
> in iPhoto and the strong links with iDVD!
>
> I've heard mixed reviews about the other options, what is it you like
> about iView Media Pro?

The best issue is the speed. My currently library in iView Media Pro
has well over 30,000 files, and it moves just as fast as it did when I
had 1,000 files. That, and it keeps the index separate from the
folders, so I can still look up thumbnails, comments, EXIF data, etc
for photos that I've long since moved to DVD-R or other backups.

It's still not ideal. I like iPhoto for slideshows, actually (but
it's pretty easy to get iView to export an album to iPhoto).

Quoting from an earlier post (since Google Groups doesn't seem to give
useful deep links anymore):

I still haven't found a photo library manager that allows me to easily
keep track of my digital workflow---for a typical image, I have
multiple versions of the same image. Usually a set like

1. The raw .CRW
2. One or more .tiff files from the raw conversion (often I discard
these)
3. A .psd file chock full of adjustment layers, etc, representing the
results of my digital manipulation, cropping, etc. (iView reads
..PSD's, too)
4. Various "output" files such as JPEG, JPEG's of reduced size for web
galleries, watermarked photoes, etc.

iView Media Pro has worked decently with this (it can read all these
formats), in that it filters quite nicely, and I store my files in a
nice hierarchical structure with each image having a directory with
subdirectories for each of the above images, but it's still a bit of a
headached but sometimes it would be nice to have something more
elegant.

In other words, I find iView Media Pro to be much, much more capable
and faster than iPhoto, but still not ideal.

--
Richard W Kaszeta
rich@kaszeta.org
http://www.kaszeta.org/rich
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 2:09:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

bmoag wrote:
> Why would anyone buy the overpriced/underpowered Apple mini, add memory, a
> keyboard, a mouse, a monitor and then purchase Photoshop?
> What am I missing?

You wouldn't. It wasn't made for your sort.
> OT rant:
> I have never understood the Apple mystique, having used Apple and Windows
> machines from the beginnings of both. They both have arbitrary rules and
> irresolvable limitations.
Well, so does life.

It's a choice, see, simply a choice. Your choices are right for you.

--
John McWilliams
January 26, 2005 6:15:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Richard Kaszeta wrote:
> nospam@nospam.com (Keith) writes:
>
>>I really should look at that I guess. I'm not sure what the maximum
>>number of images iPhoto can cope with, especially with regard to some
>>form of archiving system. However - I really like the slide show options
>>in iPhoto and the strong links with iDVD!
>>
>>I've heard mixed reviews about the other options, what is it you like
>>about iView Media Pro?
>
>
> The best issue is the speed. My currently library in iView Media Pro
> has well over 30,000 files, and it moves just as fast as it did when I
> had 1,000 files. That, and it keeps the index separate from the
> folders, so I can still look up thumbnails, comments, EXIF data, etc
> for photos that I've long since moved to DVD-R or other backups.
>
> It's still not ideal. I like iPhoto for slideshows, actually (but
> it's pretty easy to get iView to export an album to iPhoto).
>
> Quoting from an earlier post (since Google Groups doesn't seem to give
> useful deep links anymore):
>
> I still haven't found a photo library manager that allows me to easily
> keep track of my digital workflow---for a typical image, I have
> multiple versions of the same image. Usually a set like
>
> 1. The raw .CRW
> 2. One or more .tiff files from the raw conversion (often I discard
> these)
> 3. A .psd file chock full of adjustment layers, etc, representing the
> results of my digital manipulation, cropping, etc. (iView reads
> .PSD's, too)
> 4. Various "output" files such as JPEG, JPEG's of reduced size for web
> galleries, watermarked photoes, etc.
>
> iView Media Pro has worked decently with this (it can read all these
> formats), in that it filters quite nicely, and I store my files in a
> nice hierarchical structure with each image having a directory with
> subdirectories for each of the above images, but it's still a bit of a
> headached but sometimes it would be nice to have something more
> elegant.
>
> In other words, I find iView Media Pro to be much, much more capable
> and faster than iPhoto, but still not ideal.


Thanks for suggesting iView MediaPro (Win & Mac). I am checking out
version 2. It states that it has slide show presentation and version
control. Let's see if it works for you.
January 26, 2005 11:41:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Richard Kaszeta <rich@kaszeta.org> wrote:

> nospam@nospam.com (Keith) writes:
> > I really should look at that I guess. I'm not sure what the maximum
> > number of images iPhoto can cope with, especially with regard to some
> > form of archiving system. However - I really like the slide show options
> > in iPhoto and the strong links with iDVD!
> >
> > I've heard mixed reviews about the other options, what is it you like
> > about iView Media Pro?
>
> The best issue is the speed. My currently library in iView Media Pro
> has well over 30,000 files, and it moves just as fast as it did when I
> had 1,000 files. That, and it keeps the index separate from the
> folders, so I can still look up thumbnails, comments, EXIF data, etc
> for photos that I've long since moved to DVD-R or other backups.
>
> It's still not ideal. I like iPhoto for slideshows, actually (but
> it's pretty easy to get iView to export an album to iPhoto).
>
> Quoting from an earlier post (since Google Groups doesn't seem to give
> useful deep links anymore):
>
> I still haven't found a photo library manager that allows me to easily
> keep track of my digital workflow---for a typical image, I have
> multiple versions of the same image. Usually a set like
>
> 1. The raw .CRW
> 2. One or more .tiff files from the raw conversion (often I discard
> these)
> 3. A .psd file chock full of adjustment layers, etc, representing the
> results of my digital manipulation, cropping, etc. (iView reads
> .PSD's, too)
> 4. Various "output" files such as JPEG, JPEG's of reduced size for web
> galleries, watermarked photoes, etc.
>
> iView Media Pro has worked decently with this (it can read all these
> formats), in that it filters quite nicely, and I store my files in a
> nice hierarchical structure with each image having a directory with
> subdirectories for each of the above images, but it's still a bit of a
> headached but sometimes it would be nice to have something more
> elegant.
>
> In other words, I find iView Media Pro to be much, much more capable
> and faster than iPhoto, but still not ideal.

I've downloaded the manual, I'll try goingthrough it later. Are you
saying you can catalogue and index, etc, files that have been archived
off onto other media? That is what I would find useful.
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 11:41:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

nospam@nospam.com (Keith) writes:
> > In other words, I find iView Media Pro to be much, much more capable
> > and faster than iPhoto, but still not ideal.
>
> I've downloaded the manual, I'll try goingthrough it later. Are you
> saying you can catalogue and index, etc, files that have been archived
> off onto other media? That is what I would find useful.

Yes. I use it to index my DVD-R's of photos, and I only need to dig
out the DVD-R once I find a need to use the full image.

--
Richard W Kaszeta
rich@kaszeta.org
http://www.kaszeta.org/rich
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 12:50:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

chris wrote:

> I am going to laugh at you that you can drool over on some little
> descriptions. It's not a pro tool such as Photoshop's RAW import or
> CaptureOne. It's mainly added on to decode RAW files so that iPhoto can
> handle the pictures.

Sorry, my ignorance. Guess I'll stick with Photoshop on the PC, rather
than a Mac Mini.
January 27, 2005 6:44:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

nospam wrote:
> In article <JVBJd.9910$rp1.814@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, chris
> <someone@somewhere.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Better not be Photoshop users because 1GB upgrade is a whoopee $325 and
>>this is after $150 price drop.
>
>
> so buy a 1gig ram chip after market and put it in yourself. it isn't
> that tough.
>
> i just checked dell's site - 1 gig of memory there for one of their
> desktop systems is $380.
>
>
>>I have the 2nd Gen. iPod, the wheel is so sensentive that it always does
>>something I don't want accidentally. I got it because it had a deep
>>rebate, $200, making it $75. I happily gave it to kids.
>
>
> like i said, maybe it is defective. i also have a 2nd gen, and it works
> great.


I finally had a chance to test drive iPhoto 5 from iLife 2005. Luckily,
I didn't have to pay $80 for the upgrade. Although I have older version
of iPhoto on my Powerbook, I never used it or paid attention to it.
Considering the new version has so many improvements, I gave it a try.
It's a disappointment to me. After playing with it for 10 minutes, I
still could not figure out how to title a picture, write a description,
or put in keywords. As for simple organization tasks like that, even the
old "free", somewhat clumsy, Adobe Album was better.
!