iPhoto, RAW and the GIMP

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by jhudsy, Jan 19, 2007.

  1. jhudsy

    jhudsy Guest

    Hi All,

    I'm trying to settle on a workflow for RAW images. I'm currently using
    Nikon PictureProject, but am thinking of moving to iPhoto. I'm having
    problems with both of these packages though: When I've got a RAW image
    which I'd like to edit, I can open it without a problem in the GIMP
    (courtesy of ufraw). I can then save it as a JPG. The problem is that
    this resultant JPG is then outside of PP or iPhoto's library, and I'd
    have to import the resultant picture to be able to make further
    modifications to it.

    Is there any way to allow editing of RAW photos from within one of
    these packages, and then having them automatically realize what the
    edited picture is? Will something like Aperture, or lightroom, allow me
    to do this?

    (This all started when I accidentally left my camera on RAW mode, and
    proceeded to take a few hundred pictures. I'm happy with most of them,
    but there are enough that I'd want to further edit, and still keep
    track of the original RAW file, that doing this manually will be a real

    Any ideas would be welcome.

    jhudsy, Jan 19, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. jhudsy

    Neil Ellwood Guest

    Do it all in the Gimp.
    Neil Ellwood, Jan 19, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. jhudsy

    jhudsy Guest

    The gimp is great for editting photos, but for very minor edits, slide
    shows, keeping track of pictures (and, to some extent version control),
    it can't really hold a candle up to iPhoto, can it (or is there
    functionality I'm not aware of)?

    jhudsy, Jan 19, 2007
  4. jhudsy

    Neil Ellwood Guest

    I don't know iphoto.
    Neil Ellwood, Jan 19, 2007
  5. jhudsy

    Ken Lucke Guest

    Aperture and Lightroom both do exactly this, and much, much more in the
    way of management. iPhoto stinks for photomanagement except for those
    with limited libraries or casual users, and has very few adjustment
    capabilities compared to the other two programs. If you are looking at
    Aperture, I am ass/u/ming you are on a Mac (yep, your headers confirm
    it). I've used both Aperture & Lightroom, and can say without
    hesitation to go with Aperture. Try it - they have a 30 day free trial
    on http://www.apple.com/aperture

    You've already got the right idea - use a program that is intended for
    what you want to do, not a cobbled-up workflow that will slow you down,
    frustrate you, and possibly screw up your data.

    You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
    reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
    the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
    -- Charles A. Beard
    Ken Lucke, Jan 19, 2007
  6. jhudsy

    Paul Allen Guest

    The Gimp is good at image editing, but it doesn't do the rest of the
    stuff you need: tagging, sorting, archiving, publishing, etc.

    One of the nice things about having the source for your image management
    application is that you can do things like incorporate the Gimp into it.
    In my perl/Tk ImageTool, I can sort, search, crop, rotate, and archive
    images. And as of about a year ago, my Edit menu has an "Edit in the
    Gimp" choice. It takes one click to open an image in the Gimp, and the
    tool knows what to do with the result.

    Software's almost as much fun as photography, guys! Just like
    photography, you never run out of things to shoot (things to fix).

    Paul Allen
    Paul Allen, Jan 19, 2007
  7. jhudsy

    babaloo Guest

    Or you can get a real photo editing program that is used by actual
    photographers: Photoshop or Elements.
    "Gimp" is the most accurately named program in history.
    Aperture is ok. It is not the real deal. It is an Apple only program that
    has an unclear future upgrade path. The truth is that given the history of
    Apple abandoning platforms and programs you should think carefully before
    investing in the considerable cost of Aperture.
    Lightroom used without Photohop is crippleware. It has very limited
    adjustments that are intended for images more or less optimally exposed
    under studio conditions. It is good for what it is but it is not enough for
    general use.
    If you are serious about digital photography, and do not have some crazed
    bug up your butt about Adobe, it is inevitable that you will want to use
    Photoshop. The current Mac version of Elements is one generation behind the
    Windows version and the current version of Photoshop CS2 does not run
    natively on Mactels (that naughty Apple abandoned yet another platform and
    generation of users!) but will run via the emulator kludge packaged with the
    Mactel OS. You can download a trial of CS3 that the Macaholics at Adobe put
    out so that a version of Photoshop will run natively on Mactel.
    If you do not see why CS3 is superior to the other packages noted above you
    got lots of learning to do.
    babaloo, Jan 19, 2007
  8. jhudsy

    Ken Lucke Guest

    And I suppose Micro$haft hasn't?
    Oh, pleeze. He asked about capable programs, not to get some
    inaccurate win-centric view of the world. The truth is that Aperture
    is far more capable of doing exactly what the OP wants than Photoshop

    He asked for something that would keep all his files within its own
    library, even when editing and saving a separate copy of them. Does
    Photoshop even HAVE a "library"? No. Does Aperture export directly to
    PS file, open PS for that file and receive the image back directly from
    PS, stacking it directly with the original image so that they are both
    right there together? Yes. Know any other program that does that?

    The truth is that Aperture is designed specifically for professional
    photo asset and raw management, and that it has been upgraded 5 times
    in about a year (1.0 -> 1.0.1 -> 1.1 -> 1.5 -> 1.5.1 -> 1.5.2) with new
    features and bugfixes (for some very slight bugs, by the way, showing a
    responsiveness that belies your comments), and is destined to continue
    to be supported in just that way - it's a premier piece of software,
    unique in any platform, and just because you are win-cenntric doesn't
    make that any different.
    Oh really? Have you ever used it on a long-term basis? I used it on a
    very short-term basis, (~2 months while Aperture was being upgraded to
    handle the new version of Canon's .cr2 raw files). In that short time,
    I would say that I used every feature that it has, with the exception
    of making web pages (for which I use another program), and despite it
    being a public beta, could not in my wildest nightmares begin to
    denigrate it with the monikker "crippleware".

    Limited adjustments????? Sheesh, man, did you ever even TRY the
    program? I mean on a serious basis, with no pre-conceived "PS is best"
    bias? I suppose that the following PARTIAL list (from memory) of its
    controls is considered "limited" to you?: White Balance (both Temp &
    Tint), Exposure, Highlight Recovery, Fill Light Recovery, Black point
    adjustmment, Brightness, Contrast, Vibrance, Saturation, Tone Curve
    adjustments (highlights, lights, darks, and shadows individually),
    Crop, Straighten, Split toning, Sharpen, Smooth, De-Noise, Lens
    corrections (for red/cyan & blue/yellow, as well as vignetting), and
    individual camera calibration profile settings to adjust for any camera
    idiosyncracies automatically. It allows for copying the entire set of
    adjustments from one picture to another with single clicks (try that in
    PS), and never once touches your original file. This is over and above
    all the image management features, including layout and printing of
    books automatically, dynamic creation of basic web pages, and dozens of
    other management tools.

    No, it doesn't do layers, it doesn't have filters, it doesn't do any of
    the pixel-level image editing the PS does. Clue: IT'S NOT SUPPOSED

    It DOES have about as complete a set of image adjustment tools as you
    will find anywhere for non-pixel level adjustments, most of which are
    far simpler to use than PS's are for the tasks that they are _designed_
    to perform, and are non-destructive to the original image no matter how
    many changes you make, as is Aperture.

    Photoshop is for pixel pushing. Aperture & Lightroom are for overall
    image adjustment - they are NOT _supposed_ to be competing products,
    they compliment each other.

    BTW, Aperture has all those things that Lightroom does, plus even more
    tools, a light table, AND "stacks".
    Minus the egregious initial commentary, the last part of that sentence
    this is actually true. But while eventually PS may be needed, it does
    not address the _specific_ requirements that the OP asked for.
    Abandoned? Excuse me? I'm on a non-intel iMac g5. I get software and
    system updates regularly, automatically. Almost all Mac software
    currently being produced is either designed for my processor, or has
    been written for both PPC & Intel Macs and so will run on it natively
    as well as natively on an Intel. I don't feel the least bit
    Your win-centic (and erroneous) view of the world is clearly showing.
    It also runs "natively" on a G5.
    You've got lots of learning to do before you can give advice on stuff
    you apparently know nothing about. Yes - PS is good. PS is very
    capable, PS is the cat's-meow, PS is the Acme, PS is the "that which
    without" - but it is NOT, by any stretch of the imagination a
    one-program-does-all thing, nor is is by even the wildest consideration
    an asset management tool, as are Lightroom & Aperture. And that was
    what the OP was asking about - the asset management portion of his
    workflow, NOT the image editing portion.

    First tip: read the OP's requirements before spewing off.

    You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
    reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
    the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
    -- Charles A. Beard
    Ken Lucke, Jan 19, 2007
  9. jhudsy

    Justin C Guest

    Under iPhoto preferences you can set an external application for editing
    photos. IIRC, when I've used PhotoShop, after saving and closing, the
    image has updated in iPhoto.... no sure about RAW, maybe I've been
    saving in the same location as the RAW and iPhoto has found it. I don't

    Justin C, Jan 19, 2007
  10. jhudsy

    Shawn Hirn Guest

    Oh puleez! Apple has a history of supporting its software for decades.
    There are still people who use Hypercard, for Pete's sake.
    Photoshop is an awesome product. I have CS2, but I haven't tried CS3
    yet. For most people there, Photoshop Elements is more than adequate.
    Shawn Hirn, Jan 21, 2007
  11. jhudsy

    nick c Guest

    For the money, Corel Paint Shop Pro XI may offer more than Photoshop
    nick c, Jan 21, 2007
  12. jhudsy

    Mr. G D Geen Guest

    Another poster already mentioned that you can set an external editor in
    iPhoto. I recently stopped using iPhoto all together since I got Adobe
    Elements. I just could not see keeping that many copies of the same
    image on my hard drive.

    Note that with iPhoto, it creates a thumbnail image for its own use. So
    if you delete the file, you still have a .jpg file left until you remove
    it from iPhoto.
    Mr. G D Geen, Jan 22, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.