User Name
Password

Register Members List Calendar Search FAQ Posting Guidelines
Apple Photo Pro
Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3  Next Thread Tools
davidbaldwin
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Florida
 
2005-03-29, 14:40

Apple REALLY needs to make a Professional Version of iPhoto for
Professional Photographers

Currently there are only 2 products (both only for windows) for
Professional Workflow for Professional Photographers
(Workflow would include: Direct Tethered Camera Capturing, Photo
Management, Streamlined Editing (like Express Digital or even iPhoto
NOT Photoshop), and Streamlined Order Completion and Direct Photo
Printing to Professional Printers)

The Two Software Products that ARE available (windows only) that do
these function are:
The one everybody uses:
Express Digital Darkroom Professional
The one nobody uses:
Kodak ProShots

The only thing(s) that even comes close to this software on windows are:
Adobe Photoshop Album, Adobe Photoshop CS, Extensis Portfolio, Google
Picassa, etc.
The only thing(s) that even comes close to this software on a Mac are:
Adobe Photoshop CS, iPhoto, iView Multimedia Pro, Extensis Portfolio, etc.

What would be nice is for Apple to Create a Professional Version of
it's iPhoto Product that would be iPhoto with a LOT of fetures from
Express Digital's software...

The reason I'm saying we need this is because I work for Photography Studio and currently we are stuck in the Windows world with
REALLY Expensive Express Digital Software that isn't even that great.
The reason we use it is because there is an enormous amount of time
that is saved when editing 100s (or even 1000s of photos in the case
of a wedding) of Photos at a time.
iPhoto = lacks editing features
iView Multimedia Pro = lacks streamlined editing...not QUICK enough edits
edits, might as well use Photoshop
Photoshop CS = same problem as iView Multimedia

If anyone has any connections with Apple or a software developer that would be interested in making such a product for the Mac, please forward my comments.
Thanks

Last edited by Brad : 2005-03-29 at 16:21. Reason: some despamification
 
johnq
Multi-touch Piñata
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2005-03-29, 14:49

Something reeks of spam...

http://forums.macmerc.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=10235&
 
davidbaldwin
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Florida
 
2005-03-29, 14:50

What is that supposed to mean?

Yeah, I did post it at both forums, would you like me to remove the post from either audience?
 
Kickaha
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2005-03-29, 14:53

Mssr. Publique is trying to say that it looks like you're spamming various Mac forums.

Of course, you're not selling anything, you're asking a question, it's a good topic, and doesn't fit any definition of 'spam' that I would care to lay claim to. Methinks johnq is mistaken in this case. Carry on.
 
davidbaldwin
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Florida
 
2005-03-29, 14:53

Think of it this way, I posted it at Mac Merc because that's the only Mac forum that I knew at the time..
Now I know about Apple Nova.
 
johnq
Multi-touch Piñata
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2005-03-29, 14:54

Usually wordy first time posts with links to downloads are spam. Particularly posts that are cut and paste jobs across multiple websites.

Yes, you down-talked the product but that could just be spammish marketing. Clicks and d/l's are what counts.

Hey, if I'm wrong, I apologize. That was reasoning anyway.

"Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding." - Albert Einstein
 
davidbaldwin
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Florida
 
2005-03-29, 14:57

Ok...
I LOVE Apple
I HATE Express Digital and Kodak...

Happy?

But, I would recomend that you download the trial (if you want/can) so you know at least what I'm talking about.
But, DO NOT buy this stupid piece of Crap.
 
hmurchison
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: LV 426
Send a message via ICQ to hmurchison  
2005-03-29, 15:10

Definitely not spam. Welcome to AppleNova David!

Crap $1895 that "is" and expensive app. I'm amazed at how some markets are just stagnant with a few players. I would have thought that DP workflow software would be booming as we migrate to digicams. This certainly would give Apple the opportunity to show what Core Image and HDR support can do. However Its a damn shame that no company is stepping up to the challenge.

omgwtfbbq
 
davidbaldwin
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Florida
 
2005-03-29, 15:26

Hence my reason for posting
 
julesstoop
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Leiden, the Netherlands
 
2005-03-29, 15:52

Apple could sell it - bundled with a low end G5 - and market it as: "Get out of your darkroom and get a Mac (for free)!"
 
davidbaldwin
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Florida
 
2005-03-29, 16:06

Yeah!
:-)
 
davidbaldwin
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Florida
 
2005-03-29, 16:59

Like I said at MacMerc:

Apple, just might, already have this application in the works:
http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0503nab.html

Augest 2005 is 6 mouths before PMA 2006
 
Henriok
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Send a message via AIM to Henriok  
2005-03-29, 17:39

If Apple is doing such wild strides in the moving pictures scene, they might as well do the same for still images. Stick it to Adobe for abandoning Macs!
 
bassplayinMacFiend
Banging the Bottom End
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
 
2005-03-29, 18:34

Last weekend at the mall they were taking pictures of kids being scared by this large rabbit-like creature. Capturing this calamity was a digital camera connected to a 17" iMac G5 running iPhoto. They seemed to have no problem snapping the picture and having it pop right up in iPhoto.
 
Moogs
Hates the Infotainment
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NSA Archives
 
2005-03-29, 19:03

Dave, I have never used those Windows products but my experience is this: any professional application that tries to be all things to all people, is invariably crap.

It is not necessary for your photo editing application to also be your photo management application (a la Portfolio or iView), and your capture application (a la Nikon Capture, etc.). Each niche has its own players and specializations for a reason....

As for Apple, you don't seem to have a very clear grasp of their relationship / synergy with Adobe. Do you realize there is no longer a version of Adobe Premiere for Mac users? It's not hard to guess why...

...into the light of a dark black night.
 
davidbaldwin
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Florida
 
2005-03-29, 19:18

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moogs
t is not necessary for your photo editing application to also be your photo management application (a la Portfolio or iView), and your capture application (a la Nikon Capture, etc.). Each niche has its own players and specializations for a reason....
No, you don't NEED it (before Express Digital we used to do it that way)
but
Belive me, it makes it A LOT faster when it's all integrated...
especially when editing 100s/1000s of Photos at once.

Yes, I am sure there are a TON of Photographers that do it the slower way by using iView and Photoshop, but as they aquire more Photographs or more Clients at once they are going to wish that it was all integrated.

There are still a TON of Photographers that still use Film. No they don't have a promblem with Digital's quility (best Canon is now at 16.7 megapixals), but they rather think that the software end of things is a Zoo.

and Adobe Photoshop is kinda in a different Realm, I would love for Apple's Photo Pro to be completely integrated with Photoshop.
We still use Photoshop to make advance edits (only when called for), which Express Digital makes this kinda easy by intarating with Photoshop, but it's not very tight integration, you just get a grey button to push when your done editing in Photoshop and the changes are applied to the Photograph in Express Digital
 
davidbaldwin
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Florida
 
2005-03-29, 19:22

Quote:
Originally Posted by bassplayinMacFiend
Last weekend at the mall they were taking pictures of kids being scared by this large rabbit-like creature. Capturing this calamity was a digital camera connected to a 17" iMac G5 running iPhoto. They seemed to have no problem snapping the picture and having it pop right up in iPhoto.
Wow, well I was unaware of that Feture in iPhoto
(probobly because I'm waiting 'till Tiger to buy my Mac, I havn't owned one for over 2 years now)

Ok, well iPhoto would only need a Handfull of new Pro fetures to make it a Professional App.
One would be Chromake backgrounds, there's not a consumer in the world that has a chromake background, so this would be a pro feature.
 
Jim S.
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
 
2005-03-29, 19:24

Please, please, please make this topic true! I could not agree more that we need an Apple-branded professional photography archiving and editing application with emphasis on efficent workflow. Actually we need two applications assuming that there would be an "Express" version.

Photoshop CS does a pretty nice job of processing and editing RAW photographs but the workflow is awful (particularly the pitiful browser). I actually like some of the workflow features of iPhoto like using slideshows to preview/delete unedited photos. The editing features are way too basic, marginal in quality, can not use keyboard entry, and users have no control over the conversion process. iPhoto also chokes on large libraries (I have to use several different libraries).

Hopefully Phil Schiller's "Funhouse" demonstrations of Core Image functionality was just a preview of things to come from Apple!
 
Moogs
Hates the Infotainment
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NSA Archives
 
2005-03-29, 19:41

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidbaldwin
No, you don't NEED it (before Express Digital we used to do it that way) but Belive me, it makes it A LOT faster when it's all integrated...especially when editing 100s/1000s of Photos at once.
"I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave...."



Faster compared to what? Do you honestly think if Adobe plopped the entire kitchen sink into Photoshop that it would perform anywhere near fast enough for most users (heck, 95% of users)?

Yes, ideally it would be wonderful if Photoshop could manage every single photographic task imagineable including sending out automated bills to the client, but that's not reality. This is really no different than the "when are Photoshop and Illustrator and InDesign going to merge?" argument. It's all pie-in-the-sky until processors and computers in general get an order of magnitude more powerful and reliable.

Think about Camera Raw for a minute, and the time required for Adobe to create solid support for a large percentage of the market's professional and prosumer cameras. Now ask yourself how much more effort they'd have to expend to support capture for all those cameras (and then some)... and then how much effort they'd have to expend to build a media management database into the application.

What you're asking is almost silly, whether you're talking about Apple or Adobe. You don't seem to have a strong grasp on the technology or what is required to make it work, and integrate it with other similar technologies. Should Adobe forgo all the other user requests just so they can build the "super-app" you're envisioning next time? Take a sip from the reality fountain and come back to the real world with the rest of us photography wonks.

PS - what is it you're envisioning where you're "editing" 100s of photos at one time? That's another clue to me that maybe you're not as familiar with Photoshop as you ought to be, before making such requests. Not trying to be mean or anything.

[To me "editing" a photo means a lot more than applying an auto-curve and cropping to a fixed size. Editing is multiple layers (and layer types), alpha channels, subtle effects and the rest. No program anytime soon is going to let you do stuff like that 100s at a time with any reasonable degree of efficiency. It's 1 at a time, assuming you care about quality.]


...into the light of a dark black night.

Last edited by Moogs : 2005-03-29 at 19:49.
 
elvia
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: New Orleans La.
 
2005-03-29, 19:54

bassplayer, any idea how they did the camera to screen shot. I wonder how they did it
 
Kickaha
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2005-03-29, 20:01

Uh, by hooking the camera into the computer, and letting it do its mojo?

Seriously, iPhoto sucks the images in for you.
 
elvia
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: New Orleans La.
 
2005-03-29, 20:12

what I meant, was having the camera hooked up to the computer, take the picture and have it instantly displayed on the screen, instead of the viewfinder
 
davidbaldwin
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Florida
 
2005-03-29, 20:51

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moogs
"I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave...."



Faster compared to what? Do you honestly think if Adobe plopped the entire kitchen sink into Photoshop that it would perform anywhere near fast enough for most users (heck, 95% of users)?

Yes, ideally it would be wonderful if Photoshop could manage every single photographic task imagineable including sending out automated bills to the client, but that's not reality. This is really no different than the "when are Photoshop and Illustrator and InDesign going to merge?" argument. It's all pie-in-the-sky until processors and computers in general get an order of magnitude more powerful and reliable.

Think about Camera Raw for a minute, and the time required for Adobe to create solid support for a large percentage of the market's professional and prosumer cameras. Now ask yourself how much more effort they'd have to expend to support capture for all those cameras (and then some)... and then how much effort they'd have to expend to build a media management database into the application.

What you're asking is almost silly, whether you're talking about Apple or Adobe. You don't seem to have a strong grasp on the technology or what is required to make it work, and integrate it with other similar technologies. Should Adobe forgo all the other user requests just so they can build the "super-app" you're envisioning next time? Take a sip from the reality fountain and come back to the real world with the rest of us photography wonks.

PS - what is it you're envisioning where you're "editing" 100s of photos at one time? That's another clue to me that maybe you're not as familiar with Photoshop as you ought to be, before making such requests. Not trying to be mean or anything.

[To me "editing" a photo means a lot more than applying an auto-curve and cropping to a fixed size. Editing is multiple layers (and layer types), alpha channels, subtle effects and the rest. No program anytime soon is going to let you do stuff like that 100s at a time with any reasonable degree of efficiency. It's 1 at a time, assuming you care about quality.]


Umm, I'm not talking about a "super App", I'm talking about a Supreme WORKFLOW app. It dosn't have to be able to handle mutliple layers, layer types, or alpha channles. It just has to have some basic Photographic Edits that are quick and painless.
Like Professional Color Changes (iPhoto got a little bit of this in iPhoto 5, but it's not streamlined)
Putting Border and Vienettes on Photos in 2 seconds flat. (putting borders on Photos takes much longer in Photoshop and none of the borders you can buy follow standards)
Instant Chrommakee, as soon as the picture is loaded the Chromokee background is applied (try doing that instantly in Photoshop)

ALL of this can be done in Express Digital.
(PLEASE download the trial on a PC if you have it so you'll understand exactly what I'm talking about.)

You have to remember that Professional Photographers are NOT Grapnic Desiners they "usually" do not need to deal with masks and layers and whatnot in Photoshop. they just need the basics, and they need them quick.

Like I said before, iPhoto (if it already has direct camera support) is ALMOST there, with anouther handfull of features that I just listed above, it would become this Application that I'm talking about.
 
Kickaha
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2005-03-29, 20:55

I think iPhoto + Automator + CoreImage + Spotlight will get you 99% of the way there. Maybe someone will whip up a quick wrapper app that unifies it all into one UI for you.
 
davidbaldwin
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Florida
 
2005-03-29, 20:56

Oops, I lied, there are some Photographers that are REALLY Good with Photoshop..
and that's Great, it works for them.

But,
for most Photographs, especially those just coming from Film, are NOT Photoshop Gurues.

Plus, the less a Photographer has to fix in Photoshop with EXTENSIVE editing the better.
 
Moogs
Hates the Infotainment
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NSA Archives
 
2005-03-29, 21:00

To be honest Dave, all the digital photographers I know who make a living at it, very definitely *do* need and want all of Photoshop's existing capabilities (or at a minimum they want to learn how to use them). And them some. They're very enthusiastic about it, even the ones coming from film.

I suppose wedding photographers might not need all the advanced tools because they have the photographic equivalent of "mass production" going on, but any type of fine art, architectural, editorial or macro photographer definitely *would* need many of those tools. Probably many fashion photographers also because they do a *lot* of retouching to make their models look perfect / reach the art-director's vision / etc.

If you're just talking about something that has a bunch of Core Image Units tacked onto an image management app with capture capabilities, point taken I guess. Still though, even an app that did nothing but tethered capture for the 20 or 30 most popular DSLRs / prosumer cameras... would take a *lot* of work to do right. This is rocket science, my friend.

You at least need to have an ACR-like interface once the shot is pulled into the computer, so that you can color balance, handle chromatic abberations, etc. before you send the image to your editor for final tweaks and filing. I still think what you're envisioning is not entirely realistic. Not unless there's some sort of branding agreement where Apple has an exclusive deal with Nikon and Canon or something like that. Then the number of cameras required to meet market demands would be much smaller.

...into the light of a dark black night.

Last edited by Moogs : 2005-03-29 at 21:05.
 
davidbaldwin
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Florida
 
2005-03-29, 21:08

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moogs
I see. Well, all the digital photographers I know who make a living at it, very definitely *do* need and want all of Photoshop's existing capabilities (or at a minimum they want to learn how to use them).
Well, I guess that just depends on how good of a Photographer one is and how much "tweaking" a Photographer's Photo's need.
Also how good looking the person is before they are Photographed.

You must rember that before Digital there really was no "tweaking". Yes, a Photographer could use art brushes and touch-up a Photo, but there was no removing of Glasses' Glare or Wrinkles!

You must also rember the time investment.
YES a Photographer can do EVERYTHING using iView and Photoshop...
but, how quick?
Belive me..EVERY Photographer would much rather be behind the camera making more Money than doing things the slow way on the computer.

Will a Photographer NEVER use Photoshop with this app?
I Hope NOT!
This App needs to have tight integration with Photoshop if more extenisve edits are needed than just the basics.
And for the non-Photoshop type, maybee a build-in upload tool to a service that does retouching like HollywoodFotoFix.com
 
Moogs
Hates the Infotainment
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NSA Archives
 
2005-03-29, 21:27

Don't assume that because many photographers enjoy the creative process that Photoshop affords them, that they are not technically proficient photographers. Or that somehow they use Photoshop as a crutch.

Some certainly do; the successful one's don't. But that's not the same as saying the successful ones don't use Photoshop often. Digital capture - no matter how good you are - often requires some work to get the shots ready for demanding clients.

All digital sensors produce a certain amount of noise and other abberant pixels of one type or another - even with perfect exposures and good lighting conditions. When lighting conditions aren't perfect (a fact of life for many photographers), it's almost guaranteed some post-production will be required IF your goal is to make a truly beautiful print.


Anyway, I don't want to hijack your thread into a Photoshop philosophy discussion; just wanted to point out that what you are seeking is not an easy thing to produce.

...into the light of a dark black night.
 
johnq
Multi-touch Piñata
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2005-03-29, 21:51

Even the nicest cameras will at best uniformly capture a scene's lighting, but a photographer, artists that they are, might want to enhance or reduce aspects of the shot in editing.

That is, cameras are designed to be as accurate as possible. But damn it if photographers don't want inaccuracies more often than not Things like Photoshop can help alter images "destructively", not merely clean things up.

Sure, I appreciate the purist viewpoint, that it should all be captured at the instant the shot is taken, but realistically, I leave it to the photographer/artist to deem when the shot is perfect or not. None of us have much right to bemoan another's tastes (although there certainly is a limit to what can be done with tools like Photoshop et al, without it become a visual travesty or worse).

With digital, short of studio shots that are meticulously staged, cameras will produce a few things that can and should be retouched within reason. And they can accurately represent the scene a bit too well, also.

Edit away, I say.

"Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding." - Albert Einstein

Last edited by johnq : 2005-03-29 at 21:56.
 
davidbaldwin
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Florida
 
2005-03-29, 21:54

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moogs
Don't assume that because many photographers enjoy the creative process that Photoshop affords them, that they are not technically proficient photographers. Or that somehow they use Photoshop as a crutch.
I apalogize, I did not mean to insult, my comment was un-called for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moogs
some post-production will be required IF your goal is to make a truly beautiful print.
Exactly. So, why spend all day on making a beautiful print when the same thing can be done in half the time?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moogs
what you are seeking not an easy thing to produce.
No, I never said it would be easy. That's why I ask Apple.

Was creating Final Cut Pro Easy?
How about Mac OS X?

But, I am very interested to know weather or not Direct Camera Catpture is already implemented into iPhoto.
Because then iPhoto will already have RAW camera support and Direct Camera Capture.
With those fetures already in place, a Pro version could be made in less than 6 mouths.
 
Posting Rules Navigation
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3  Next

Closed

Forum Jump
Thread Tools
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Speculation about Sony and Apple Corpus_Callosum Speculation and Rumors 59 2005-04-24 13:06
Apple sues editor-in-chief of ThinkSecret cambridgebrian Speculation and Rumors 162 2005-01-20 11:04
What is it with Apples Jules26 Apple Products 79 2005-01-18 04:33
Apple releases updated Power Mac G5s staph Apple Products 43 2004-06-09 13:20
Apple livid over Toshiba iPod leak curiousuburb Speculation and Rumors 11 2004-06-05 17:49


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:52.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2024, AppleNova