My favorite tool for quickly making adjustments to RAW photos just turned 2.0. It’s a free upgrade but the price for new users has increased to (I believe) $25. While the original program was great for quickly adjusting a single image, the new program allows you to browse directories full of images quickly and easily, to some extent replacing browsing apps like FastRAWViewer.
The major new features — and there are a lot of them — are batch processing, copying and pasting adjustments between images, multiple window and tab support, hot/cold pixel overlays (very nicely done), depth effect (the ability to manipulate depth data from dual camera iPhones), perspective correction and chromatic aberration support.
The browsing functionality is pretty minimal. It’s useful enough for selecting images for batch-processing, but it doesn’t offer filtering ability (beyond the ability to show only RAW images) or the ability quickly modify image metadata (e.g. rate images), so FastRAWViewer is still the app to beat for managing large directories full of images.
While the hot/cold pixel feature is lovely, the ability to show in-focus areas (another great FastRAWViewer feature) is also missing.
As before, RAW Power both functions as a standalone application and a plugin for Apple’s Photos app (providing enhanced adjustment functionality).
In practice, HubiC is useless. I’ve had a 2012 Mac Pro constantly connected to HubiC via a fast cable connection for 12 months and managed to back up only about 1/4 of the files I’ve pointed at it. The damn thing breaks down constantly. Every time I log in it wants me to change passwords. They just billed me for renewal, but I’m two days late and I can’t cancel my account without paying for another year. Good luck with that, guys.
Now, I haven’t been sitting on my hands while I watch HubiC fail to deliver on any of its promises. Most of my stuff continues to be backed up locally via Time Machine. The stuff I work on is stored in the cloud (iCloud, GitHub, Google Drive, and/or DropBox).
My big problem is photographs and video.
Now, when Flickr raised its “free” tier to offer 1TB of cloud storage for JPEGs, I jumped on that. It may not be RAW storage, but it’s better than nothing, and 1TB is enough space for a huge number of JPEGs. The big problem, Flickr’s (since discontinued) auto-uploader was so stupidly designed that it successfully rendered my Flickr account borderline useless (it created an album for every folder it found an image in, and it uploaded every image it found, including things like UI images inside applications and development trees, so I have “albums” comprising sprites from sample game development projects and logos for PHP templates) and Flickr’s account management tools look and work like something an intern abandoned in 2005, so just deleting stuff is an exercise in frustration. It looks to me like Flickr’s abandonware API isn’t really up to the task of even supporting a third party application to untangle the mess.
And of course, since Yahoo changed hands and various security scandals unfolded just logging into Yahoo accounts is a pain, and you need to navigate ads to even get into your account. Yahoo is the GeoCities of 2018.
Recently, Google raised the “free” tier of photos.google.com to unlimited storage of photos where RAW files are JPEGs are processed into high-but-not-full-quality JPEGs on-the-fly. I’ve tried it and it’s pretty damn good. The uploader is smart enough to skip files that are clearly not important photos (e.g. too small, wrong format) and ignore obvious duplicates. The problems are (i) that the uploader application periodically just hangs and needs to be manually killed and restarted (ii) the web app seems to be weirdly slow and unreliable (I can log on with two machines side-by-side and they’ll see different subsets of my photos), (iii) no Apple TV support, and (iv) online photo editor seems to need one or two extra clicks to accomplish anything (but it’s a lot better than nothing). I’m pretty confident that my stuff is there, just not in my ability to see a given photo from a given machine on a given day. It’s certainly the most complete, easy-to-navigate, and shareable archive I’ve ever managed to create of my photographs. And if I can find a photo there, I can locate the original RAW image pretty easily.
Now, the absolute best system for dealing with my photographs thus far is iCloud. If I could simply rent 10TB from iCloud for a reasonable price (let’s say, $25/month) and get my Mac to automatically sync multiple volumes to iCloud, my problem would be solved. Obviously, I’m a happy Apple customer. If I were a more-than-casual Windows or Linux user then this would not be a useful option to me, and I’m not sure what I’d do, because I’m pretty sure there’s no equivalently seamless option for people who don’t want to pay the “Apple Tax”. Google Drive isn’t even a tolerable substitute for DropBox (although I think it has Sharepoint beaten).
Here’s where iCloud beats all other options:
I don’t need to think about it or do anything. (Well, on a desktop device, I need to NOT avoid storing my data in iCloud) If I take a photo, then it ends up in the cloud pretty quickly (basically, when the device gets recharged while on a LAN, if not sooner).
By default, full-resolution images are not propagated to all my devices (as would be the case for DropBox, or Hubic if it actually worked). Instead, as with everything in iCloud it’s available on-demand. (Indeed, it’s a bit reminiscent of the way iTunes deals with movies… superficially less convenient than pure streaming, but a lot more flexible and useful in practice).
If I ingest a RAW photo from a camera onto a device, then it’s in the cloud and available from any device on-demand (but it’s not wasting space on all my devices).
If I want to work on a photo, I can use the best native tools that are available on the device I’m using — seamlessly (although I’m inclined to actively avoid Adobe applications because Adobe’s workflow involves use of Adobe’s barely functional Cloud ecosystem).
The big problem — of course there has to be one — is that Apple’s highest storage tier is 2TB. I’m currently on 200GB which is plenty for the stuff I need that isn’t photos and videos, but hopelessly inadequate for photos and videos. 2TB (the next tier up, and it’s competitively priced) would be sufficient for my photos and videos if I were to curate them, but I don’t want to curate shit. I want to dump it in the cloud and not think about it.
Missing in Action
All of this adds up to a bunch of pretty disappointing non-solutions. Even though Apple provides a file sync system that works pretty well for personal photographs, it wouldn’t work for say a small photography business. (I guess you could use some kind of “family plan” but I’m pretty sure that would run you into weirdness pretty fast.) And it’s not like we’re talking advanced workflow support here — I just want my photos backed up and available.
Where is a tool that automatically detects blurred, underexposed, or overexposed photos and flags them as less worthy of backup? (Google’s photos app does a pretty good job of automatically correcting exposure, I wonder if it’s smart enough to task the uploader with going back to the RAW and reprocessing and re-uploading the photo?)
Where is the tool that remembers which photos have been opened or zoomed in and flags them as more interesting or worthy of backup?
Where is the tool that correlates the GPS location data of your iPhone photos and tentatively applies them to your corresponding camera photos?
Aperture used to collect photos from bursts into a single set and represent them with what it guessed was the best one. Where did this idea disappear to?
There’s a ton of low-hanging fruit here. Someone, please do something. I’m busy.
As my frequent reader knows, I have been grappling with my RAW workflow for as long as I have had a RAW workflow. I’m hardly a pro or even much of an enthusiast, and I find dealing with all these files exhausting (it also consumes a stupid amount of disk space, etc.)
A user of Photoshop since it was called Barneyscan, and Illustrator since it was 88, I’ve been ambivalent about Adobe’s products ever since they started renting them; this was actually before they switched to monthly fees — the Creative Suites essentially forced you to upgrade on a constant basis simply to not have your software mysteriously stop launching when Adobe’s authentication servers were down.
Today, despite paying Adobe’s tax (albeit the lesser “Photographer’s” tax of $100/year) I remain unhappy with their products. Lightroom is slow, constantly wants patching, requires me to sign in (often more than once) to Adobe’s stupid services just to launch, and on and on. But, until recently, I had no credible alternative that was fast and produced even vaguely decent results.
But now there are two inexpensive, lightweight products that together may mean I don’t need Adobe’s crap any more (I’ll get back to you!):
FastRawViewer — endorsed by no less than Thom Hogan and Nasim Mansurov — is a terrific program that does exactly what it says on the can. It’s simple and lets you browse and rate photos really, really fast. You can customize its keyboard shortcuts to your pleasure (e.g. I have ratings mapped to the 0-5 keys, and P toggles high pass filtering so you can see exactly what, if anything, is in focus without pixel-peeping. Rather than having its own proprietary catalog system, it leverages your file system and XMP metadata (“sidecar” files that are compatible with Lightroom if that still floats your boat). It costs $20, you can get it here.
RAWPower — developed by former Aperture engineers (or a former Aperture engineer; I’m not sure) — gives you most of Aperture’s non-destructive RAW processing in a fast, lightweight app that also provides the same functionality via Apple’s Photos app. I like the Photos app except for the whole slower-than-treacle-in-a-walled-garden thing, so there’s that too. It costs $15 in the App Store. My only issue with RAWPower is that its crop-and-rotate tool is clumsy if you want to both crop AND rotate, which I usually do (and I’ve been told that addressing this issue is a priority).
(If you’re a Windows user, FastRawViewer is still great, but RAWPower is Mac only.)
FastRawViewer lets me view a folder with thousands of RAW files with no waiting (just dragging the folder info Lightroom, Photos, or Aperture would be agony), and RAWPower lets me adjust exposure, shadow recovery, straightening, and so forth faster and just as competently as Lightroom. (Photoshop still wins for any major surgery, obviously — RAWPower has no dodge, burn, layers, healing brush, perspective correction, stitching, etc.)
I remain very frustrated with my Photography workflow. No-one seems to get this right and it drives me nuts. (I’m unwilling to pay Apple lots of money for a ridiculous amount of iCloud storage, which might work quite well, but it still wouldn’t have simple features like prioritizing images that I’ve rated or looked at closely over others automagically, or allow me to rate JPEGs and have the rating carried over to the RAW later.)
Anyway, Aperture is sufficiently out-of-date that I’ve actually uninstalled it and Photoshop still has some features (e.g. stitching) that its competition cannot match. So, $120 for a year of Photoshop + Lightroom… let’s see how it goes.
I was expecting Lightroom to be awesome what with all the prominent folks who swear by it. So far I find it unfamiliar (I did actually use LR2, and of course I am a Photoshop ninja) to the point of frustration, un-Mac-like, and ugly, ugly, ugly.
A large part of the problem is terrible use of screen Real Estate. It’s easy to hide the menubar (once you find where Adobe has hidden its non-standard full screen controls), but it’s hard (impossible) to hide the idiotic mode menu “Identity Plate”. (I found the “Identity Plate Editor” (WTF?) by right-clicking hopefully all over the place, which allowed me to shrink the stupidly large lettering but it just left the empty space behind. How can an application that was created brand new (and initially Mac-only) have managed to look like a dog’s breakfast so quickly?
But there are many little things that just suck.
All the menus are horrible — cluttered and full of nutty junk. Looks like design by committee.
The dialog box that appears when you “Copy…” the current adjustments is a crime against humanity (it has a weird set of defaults which I overrode by clicking “check none” when I only wanted to copy some very specific settings and now I can’t figure out how to restore the defaults).
The green button doesn’t activate full screen mode. There are multiple full screen modes and none of them are what I want.
Zooming with the trackpad is weird. And the “Loupe” (nothing like or as nice as Aperture’s) changes its behavior for reasons I cannot discern. (I finally figured out that the zoom in shortcut actually goes to 1:1 by default, which is useful, although it’s such a common feature I’d have assigned a “naked” keystroke to it, such as Z, which instead toggles between display modes.)
The main image view seizes up after an indeterminate amount of use and shortly afterwards Lightroom crashes. (This is on maxed out Macbook Pro 15″.)
I can’t hide the stupid top bar (with your name in it). I can’t even make it smaller by reducing the font size of the crap in it.
Hiding the “toolbar” hides a random thing that doesn’t seem to me to be a toolbar.
By default the left side of the main window is wasted space. Oh, and the stupid presets are displayed as a list of words — you need to mouse over them to get a low-fidelity preview.
I found Lightroom’s UI sufficiently annoying that I reinstalled Aperture for comparison. Sadly, Lightroom crushes Aperture in ways that really matter. E.g. its Shadow and Highlight tools simply work better than Aperture’s (I essentially need to go into Curves to do anything slightly difficult in Aperture), and it has recent features (such as Dehaze — I’m pretty sure inspired by a similar feature DxO was very proud of a while back). After processing a few carefully underexposed RAW images* in both programs, Lightroom gets me results that Aperture simply can’t match (it also makes it very tempting to make the kind of over-processed images you see everywhere these days with amped up colors, quasi-HDR effects, and exaggerated micro-contrast).
(* Quite a few years ago someone I respect suggested that it’s a good idea to “underexpose” most outdoor shots by one stop to keep more highlight detail. This is especially important if the sky is visible. These days, everyone seems to be on the “ISO Invariance” bandwagon which is essentially not doing anything to the signal off the sensor (boosting effective ISO) when capturing RAW, in essence, “expose to the left” automatically — the exact opposite of the “expose to the right” bandwagon these clowns were all on two years ago — here’s a discussion of doing both at the same time. Hilarious. On the bright side, ISO Invariance pretty much saves ETTR nuts from constantly blowing their highlights.)
Funny thing though is that the new Photos app gives Lightroom a much better run for its money (um, it’s free), has Aperture’s best UI feature (organic customization), and everything runs much faster that Lightroom. The problem with Photos is it is missing key features of Lightroom, e.g. Dehaze, Clarity, and (most curiously) Vibrance. You just can’t get as far with Photos as you can with Lightroom. (If you have Affinity Photo you can use its Dehaze more-or-less transparently from Photos. It’s a modal, but then Lightroom is utterly modal.)
On the UI level, though, Photos simply spanks Lightroom’s Develop mode. Lightroom’s organization tools, clearly with many features requested by users, are completely out of Photos’ league.
I also tried Darktable (the open source Lightroom replacement) for comparison. I think its user interface is in many ways nicer than Lightroom’s — it looks and feels better — although much of its lack of clutter is owed to a corresponding lack of features), but the sad news is that Darktable’s image-processing capabilities don’t even compete with Aperture, let alone Photos. (One thing I really like about Darktable is that it applies “orientation” (automatic horizon leveling), “sharpen”, and “base curve” automagically by default. Right now this isn’t customizable — there’s a placeholder dialog — but if it were it would be an awesome feature.)
At bottom, Aperture doesn’t look or feel like an application developed by or for professionals. It’s very capable, but its design is — ironically — horrible.
Photoshop’s capabilities are, by and large, unmatched, but its UI wasn’t good when it first came out and many of its worst features have pretty much made it through unscathed by taste, practicality, or a sense of a job well done. Take a look at this gem:
This was an understandably frustrating dialog back in 1991 — in fact the attempt to provide visual cues with the lines was probably as much as you could expect, but it hasn’t changed since — every other application I use provides a GPU-accelerated live preview (in Acorn it’s non-destructive too). What’s even worse is that it looks like the dialog’s layout has been slightly tweaked to allow for too-large-and-non-standard buttons (with badly centered captions that would look worse if there were a glyph with a descender in it). At least it doesn’t waste a buttload of space on a mode menu: instead there’s a small popup lets you pick which (customizable) “workspace” you want to use, and the rest of the bar is actually useful (it shows common settings for the currently selected tool).
In the end, Photoshop at least looks reasonably nice , and its UI foibles are things I’ve grown accustomed to over twenty-five years.
I can’t wait until I get to experience Adobe’s Updater…
Disclaimer: I am not an electrical engineer and have no special knowledge about any of this.
Some time ago Thom Hogan estimated the cost of an FX camera sensor to be around $500 (I don’t have the reference, but I’m pretty sure this is true since he said as much recently in a comment thread). Similarly, E. J. Pelker, who is an electrical engineer, estimated an FX sensor to cost around $385 based on industry standard cost and defect rates in 2006. So it seems like there’s this general acceptance of the idea that an FX sensor costs more than 10x what a DX sensor costs (Pelker estimates $34 for a Canon APS sensor, which is slightly smaller than DX, and $385 for a 5D sensor).
My assumptions can be dramatically off but the result will be the same.
I don’t mean to be mean to Pelker. It’s a great and very useful article — I just think it’s not that the assumptions he knows he’s making are off, it’s that he’s made tacit assumptions he doesn’t realize he’s made are completely and utterly wrong.
The assumption is that if you get an 80% yield making DX sensors then you’re get a 64% (80% squared) yield from FX sensors (let’s ignore the fact that you’ll get slightly fewer than half as many possible FX sensors from a wafer owing to fitting rectangles into circles).
Here are Peltzer’s “unknown unknowns”:
Sensors are fault-tolerant, CPUs aren’t
First, Peltzer assumes that a defect destroys a sensor. In fact if all the defect is doing is messing up a sensel then the camera company doesn’t care – it finds the bad sensel during QA, stores its location in firmware, and interpolates around it when capturing the image. How do we know? They tell us they do this. Whoa — you might say — I totally notice bad pixels on my HD monitors, I would totally notice bad pixels when I pixel peep my 36MP RAW files. Nope, you wouldn’t because the camera writes interpolated data into the RAW file and unless you shoot ridiculously detailed test charts and examine the images pixel by pixel or perform statistical analysis of large numbers of images you’ll never find the interpolated pixels. In any event (per the same linked article) camera sensors acquire more bad sensels as they age, and no-one seems to mind too much.
Sensor feature sizes are huge, so most “defects” won’t affect them
Next, Peltzer also assumes industry standard defect rates. But industry standard defect rates are for things like CPUs — which usually have very small features and cannot recover from even a single defect. The problem with this assumption is that the vast majority of a camera sensor comprises sensels and wires hooking them up. Each sensel in a 24MP FX sensor is roughly 4,000nm across, and the supporting wiring is maybe 500nm across, with 500nm spacing — which is over 17x the minimum feature size for 28nm process wafers. If you look at what a defect in a silicon wafer actually is, it’s a slight smearing of a circuit usually around the process size — if your feature size is 17x the process size, the defect rate will be vanishingly close to zero. So the only defects that affect a camera sensor will either be improbably huge or (more likely) in one of the areas with delicate supporting logic (i.e. a tiny proportion of any given camera sensor). If the supporting logic is similar in size to a CPU (which it isn’t) the yield rate will be more in line with CPUs (i.e. much higher).
This eliminates the whole diminishing yield argument (in fact, counter-intuitively, yield rates should be higher for larger sensors since their feature size is bigger and the proportion of the sensor given over to supporting logic is smaller).
(Note: there’s one issue here that I should mention. Defects are three dimensional, and the thickness of features is going to be constant. This may make yields of three dimensional wafers more problematic, e.g. BSI sensors. Thom Hogan recently suggested — I don’t know if he has inside information — that Sony’s new (i.e. BSI) FX sensors are turning out to have far lower yields — and thus far higher costs — than expected.)
To sum up — an FX sensor would cost no more than slightly over double a DX sensor (defect rates are the same or lower, but you can fit slightly fewer than half as many sensors onto a die owing to geometry). So if a DX sensor costs $34, an FX sensor should cost no more than $70.