Well, I’m giving Photos a go, and I’ve just begun to export a bunch of RAW files from Aperture of a portrait session I shot a while back on a Nikon D800E. Last night, I purchased three Photos-specific extensions from the AppStore:
- BeFunky Express (skin-smoother).
- Intensify by MacPhun (color effects).
- Tonality by MacPhun (black-and-white conversion).
What I think is really exciting is the upcoming release of DxO’s OpticsPro for Photos, a Photos extensions plug-in with lens-correction features (hopefully they’ll include their extensive lens database). Pixelmator is planning to release “Distort, “ but I was hoping for a more generalist plug-in from them. Iridient is also now offering a RAW developer Photos extension for download (but not available from the AppStore). OpticsPro and other soon-to-be-released plug-ins are mentioned on Apple’s own site (https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205245) as well as on DxO’s site (https://support.dxo.com/hc/en-us/articles/212136847-OpticsPro-for-Apple-…).
Photos 1.2 screenshot ©studio460
The image shown in the Photos screen-grab above is just an export of an Aperture-produced .JPG (from the original NEF RAW file) using default conversion presets. Some minor retouching, color-correction, and levels were adjusted in Aperture, then run through Imagenomic’s Portraiture plug-in. So far, I can’t get anywhere near the same results from the BeFunky plug-in, so my greatest hope for Photos is for Imagenomic to release their own Photos extension (lack of Portraiture plug-in compatibility was also a major reason I’ve discounted Capture One Pro).
This is what I love about Aperture and Photos: Double-click to see the browser; double-click to see the full-screen viewer; press ‘Z’ to zoom to 100%. Scrolling through 1,000s of thumbnails on an SSD-equipped 16GB MacBook Pro is fluid and zippy:
Photos 1.2 screenshot
https://www.flickr.com/photos/studio460/
Here’s a screen-capture of the pre-release DxO extension in Photos (from Apple’s site):
In the “optical corrections” pane at the top, below it says, “No DxO Optics modules available for this image,” which implies that their full-catalog of lens modules may in fact be available to the app upon release.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/studio460/
RAW conversion: Photos vs. Capture One Pro 9
I just performed side-by-side NEF conversions using both Photos and Capture One Pro 9. Both default conversions looked good, and I was readily able to achieve natural-looking white balances using each app’s skin-tone eyedropper tool (all-studio strobe sources). Despite C1’s far more extensive colorimetry tools, I was able to arrive at a pleasing color rendition in the Photos app without much fuss.
Photos 1.2 ©studio460
Capture One Pro 9 ©studio460
https://www.flickr.com/photos/studio460/
Since I just upgraded my late-2011 17” Core i7 MacBook Pro with a new internal 1TB SSD, I’ve been re-populating it with apps. Seeing that my DxO OpticsPro Elite license was still at version 8, I just now upgraded to version 10 for $50. (The full-version of DxO OpticsPro Elite 10 is a bargain at its current price of only $99.)
I just opened the same NEF file in DxO Optics Pro 10, and I have to say that DxO’s results at first glance, appear far more accurate than OS X’ built-in RAW developer used in Photos.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/studio460/
Nefs are stunning when opened in View NXI as well. It is not a bad browser either. NX-D is even better at editing but it is imho pig awful to use. Now if View NXI works well with the likes of Affinity Photo then maybe that is a none Adobe option. All that said, the rendering of RAW in Photos is not too bad, I reckon it might well be a little better than LR. Not sure where that leaves the Macphun stuff though. I just like the way Photos fits in with the Mac user experience…..I really want it to be an option :-)
I just downloaded NX-D the other day, and I don’t seem to mind whatever everyone’s complaining about (albeit, I only tried it for a few minutes). Again, Nikon’s NEF apps have always had high acclaim for their image quality (and low acclaim for its UI), but I’m definitely interested in spending more time with NX-D.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/studio460/
No local editing though and no plugin support that I can remember (think you might be able to “open with”). Not sure how that Picture Control Utility works. Be good to hear how you get on.
No, I know. I think CNX-2/CNX-D are best thought of as one-trick ponies: As great RAW developers for Nikon shooters (sure, NX-2 fans decry the omission of NIK-style U-point controls, but, c’est la vie!). I love that Nikon RAW developers are the only apps (other than Aperture) which shows AF points!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/studio460/
I have my Google NIK and Macphun apps setup in Capture NX-D as open-with editors and so far, they are working well.
[Moved for better organization.]
https://www.flickr.com/photos/studio460/
DxO Optics Pro -> Aperture -> Portraiture:
Sort of going a bit off-topic here, but I just ran a DxO NEF-conversion on the same file, then exported a 16-bit TIFF for import into Aperture. In Aperture, I performed some minor blemish-removal, a slight white-balance shift (cooler), and then ran it through my Portraiture plug-in at default settings:
For convenience’s sake, I stopped using DxO a while ago, but using a dedicated RAW developer as a front-end for portraiture work now seems like a no-brainer. One-way-tripping to Aperture as a TIFF is my only way to get to the Portraiture plug-in. Previously, I’ve just been ingesting directly into Aperture, then running selected images through Portraiture. However, DxO was able to produce accurate skin tones, right off the bat (at least with this particular photo–see below).
Notes: My Nikon D800E was set at “neutral” for its in-camera profile, and was recording 14-bit compressed NEFs. DxO was at default conversion settings, however, I did also have the benefit of DxO’s body- and lens-specific modules installed (Nikon D800E + Sigma 150mm f/2.8 OS). The default conversion yielded a file that was a bit on the warm side, but the skin tones were rendered far more accurately than the built-in OS X RAW converter used in Aperture and Photos.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/studio460/
DxO Optics Pro vs. Nikon’s NX-D vs. Capture One Pro:
Well, I did come across a series for which DxO’s default conversion did not yield perfect flesh tones. So I again exported a TIFF from DxO to Aperture, then ran it through the Portraiture plug-in. It was Portraiture which was able to deliver more accurate-looking flesh tones.
DxO-developed
NX-D-developed
Capture One-developed
I’ve edited this post to add an NX-D-developed (middle), and a Capture One-developed (last) version of the same image. Not sure why this part of the series was so difficult to correct (especially for Aperture).
DxO produced brownish looking images, while getting a boost in color-accuracy from the Portraiture plug-in. The NX-D developed file, also aided by Portraiture, looks better, but is a bit greenish with a flatter curve.
The last version, the C1-developed version, looked best out-of-the-box, and appears the “richest.” Not to say it’s the most accurate, however, since it turned the neutral-gray seamless paper slightly blue (note that I can easily match the C1 output using the NX-D file by pulling out some green and adding some blue, making the file look perhaps even a bit better than the C1 version).
https://www.flickr.com/photos/studio460/
Capture One Pro -> Aperture -> Portraiture:
C1 produces very nice files, but tend to be too saturated at default settings (though easily correctable). C1 clearly has the most sophisticated color-correction toolset, however, that doesn’t mean I have the competency to use those tools to make skin tones look right.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/studio460/
Nikon NX-D vs. Capture One Pro:
Nikon’s NX-D developer did best with this difficult-to-render (for whatever reason) series. DxO was slightly brownish-red. OS X’ Aperture was more brownish-red. NX-D was much better than either, but, only after its file was run through Portraiture did the image begin to look “right.”
The next image is from Capture One, then exported out to Aperture to use the Portraiture plug-in. C1 does look better out-of-the-box than NX-D, but with more contrast, and the default conversion still comes out too saturated:
Below is the corrected NX-D file (minus-green, plus-blue):
As before, the NX-D file again produced a slight green cast in the shadows, and overall was a bit warmer (top image) than the C1 file (middle), but when corrected (bottom image), the NX-D file produced color-accurate flesh tones on par with C1’s rendering. In the C1 image, the gray seamless paper measured 20 points higher in blue value than in the corrected NX-2 file.
Edit: Now I can’t seem to reproduce NX-D’s previously good-looking skin-tones using another file in the same series. However, I am able to achieve consistently good skin tones in C1. Now, C1 does look like the better developer for skin tones.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/studio460/
So, for skin tones, I had initially rated these RAW developers differently, but after comparing the same file (duh!), I’m seeing things a bit more objectively. Here’s my current feeling on skin-tone reproduction:
While this entire diversion has been a bit off-topic, I needed to vet OS X’ RAW developer against industry-standard apps to determine if Photos was going to be a total solution for me. It is not. I will have to have two different workflows: Photos for personal use, and possibly C1 for client work.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/studio460/
Through repeated tests, Capture One Pro 9 (with the help of Imagenomic’s Portraiture 2 plug-in, via Aperture) was able to produce the most pleasing skin tones, more consistently. I think I’ve decided (finally) on C1:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/studio460/
Some initial observations about Photos 1.2:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/studio460/
Photos? Really?
I realize that to many of you, Photos appears under-powered and too consumer-ey. Regardless, it has the cleanest UI of all, and inherits several Aperture-like behaviors. I’ve found that the more I use Photos, the more I like it (this, coming from a long-time Aperture user, and someone who has never used iPhoto). I think its simplistic appearance belies a deeper, rather elegant design achievement. The arrival of more capable extensions could turn this free consumer app into a competent, even, powerful tool for users willing to try something a little less traditionally equipped.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/studio460/
I just edited a series of holiday photos as a test: First, in Aperture, then, just now in Photos. Here’s what I did in Photos (which is also what I generally do for quick edits in Aperture):
Nothing fancy, and everything done just as quickly and easily (perhaps quicker and even easier) in Photos. Now, I even prefer the adjustments panel on the right–it seems faster since I’m right-handed, and there’s less mouse-travel. At first, I didn’t like Photos’ cropping tool, now I like it even better than Aperture’s. Plus, having horizon and cropping in the same screen saves clicks. (By the way, controlling Capture One’s horizon tool from my MacBook Pro’s small trackpad is a nightmare!) I’m really starting to like Photos for quick edits.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/studio460/
Check out Affinity Photo. It's competitor to Photoshop CC but it will have a lot of Photos extensions in the next update later this month. It's awesome!!! It's in the Mac App Store too!!!
Develop-basic adjustments.
Haze Removal-removes haze.
Liquidity-pinch, punch, twirl, push and turbulence. The best part is it has freeze and thaw to allow more precision.
miniture- tilt-shift and also elliptical/round focus blur.
monochrome-black & white tool similar to Tonality without the presets.
retouch-remove object (inpaint but they call it inpaint), burn, dodge, songe, brush in blur/sharpen, smudge, heal, & red-eye.
Robert Ke
twitter: rke21
also at:
instagram: rke21
facebook: outdoorphotographynow
Wow! I saw that in a review I read recently, but I didn’t know their Photos extension had so many included components. I assume that the Affinity Photo app that’s currently in the AppStore is the stand-alone program, and that their extensions product is still pending. Thanks for posting that!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/studio460/
The extension are in beta and i was told the final version will be released in this month. I already of this app. Can't wait for this update!!!
Robert Ke
twitter: rke21
also at:
instagram: rke21
facebook: outdoorphotographynow
Yes, and I’m sure there’s more to come. Remember that the El Capitan beta was distributed to developers only last summer, so we should see a number of new extensions from other plug-in developers being rolled-out over the next three to four months. Though I think Photos 1.1 also supported extensions, Photos 1.2 was only just released, so It’ll be very interesting to see how Photos rounds-out by about this time next year (Photos 1.3 is in developers’ hands now).
https://www.flickr.com/photos/studio460/
Thank you for the information.
I do like the clean UI, but any update on keywording/metadata? I haven’t looked in sometime - I’m still using AP, but a key (no pun intended) feature for me is the keywording and metadata. It’s right up there with post processing for how I use a photo management app.
Cheers,
Keebler
I never used the keyword function in the first Photos beta, but it looks like it’s been given some thought. There’s a keyword editor, and when you press command-I, you can also enter keywords into the info pane:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/studio460/
Will it solve the problem of edited raw files having to be returned by the plugin to Photos in JPEG format? I prefer to keep my edited raws and then convert to whatever file type I need at any given time. Actually, looking closer it is weird -
1) Open raw via Photos go to edit module where it opens as a raw. Open in Intensify plugin. Edit and save file. 2) Saved file whilst still in the Photos edit module shows as a jpg. 3) Close edit module and look at file in browser and it becomes a raw file again. 4) Open raw file again in edit module and it says jpg. What is going on? Any ideas?
I’m not exactly sure. I’m guessing the unaffected RAW is still intact (as it should be), but it is unaltered. Once you’ve hit the plug-in, you’ve got a baked-in .JPG, and there’s no going back. I think this is the chink in Photos’ armor, in that, yes, you can always revert back to the original, but edits aren’t truly non-destructive, iteratively–it’s all or nothing. The promise of Photos extensions’ architecture was that we were to be spared the trouble of round-tripping gigantic TiFs to-and-from outside apps, but maybe that’s all we were promised. Perhaps there is a way, but current extensions aren’t there yet?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/studio460/
That is what I thought but if you look at the now edited file in the browser (not edit mode) and the information says it is a raw (nef in my case) and its shows the edits previously undertaken. Then, if you open that raw file in the it edit module again it shows as a jpg. again.
I have emailed Macphun support but agree if the edits are held in the raw sidecar then it makes Photos a far more capable app. Lens and perspective correction are needed though.
Right. Hopefully, DxO will release theirs soon. Let us know what you find out!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/studio460/
Bit more, although the label at the top of the photo (when in edit mode) says jpg if you right click on the image and go to info it says raw. All looks like a huge bug to me!
I wonder if Photos supports sidecars, or is that all developer-side? I mean, if a third-party developer is able to code for sidecars within an extension, doesn’t Photos’ code need to be aware of that on the Apple-side, outside of the developers’ domain?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/studio460/
No idea, all I know is that the Macphun pro apps when working in LR or PS convert to tif before editing and returns said tif to the host app. That is not so bad as a tif retains quite a bit more information than does a jpg if future editing is require.
Photos itself seems to edit the raw file and then retains it. I believe that raw file can be re-edited/tweaked. If so that means the info is being stored in the sidecar, yes? What I need to do is edit a raw in Photos, save it and then re-edit to see if the sliders remain where I left them on the first edit… just did that and it is indeed the case, so Photos edits none destructively whilst the extensions do not (although you can revert to original). Or to put it another way if the extension is editing the raw it is not passing it back in a way that Photos can understand it (I think).
I have asked questions on the Apple forums, as well as of Macphun.
One more test, edited a 14.3 mb raw in the Infinity extension. The edited file when returned to Photos showed it was jpg. A quick look at the file info within Photos revealed it was still a 14.3 mb raw file.
Confused or what!
Then it’s as we suspected. Photos keeps the RAW file intact, but extensions, such as MacPhun’s Intensify, bake-in their adjustments into the round-tripped .JPG. A possible exception to this behavior may be Iridient’s RAW developer extension.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/studio460/
I really do not understand this. The file that comes back is, according to the file info within Photos, a raw file and it is the same size as the raw file I had when starting the edit. If Macphun are sending back a jpg why is it showing as a RAW in the info and why is it the same size as the original raw - not withstanding it says jpg in the title at the top of the photo. Certainly the original raw is retained and you are sent back to that if you revert to original.
Edited raws are indeed reintroduced to Photos as a jpg. The file info stuff is just rubbish. You can interrogate the Photos file structure by right clicking on the Library and then selecting show contents. But even the structure within the Library is a mess compared to the more usual file structure. I am formally dumping Photos here. Heavens knows why Apple should see this as an alternative to Aperture or LR.
Now to redesign my workflow.
Yes, as suspected. I’m re-thinking things as well. I’ve discovered through this process of trying to find an Aperture replacement that I may need to go back to a dedicated RAW developer to obtain the best colorimetry possible from my NEFs. I’m probably going to re-visit going with two different ingest/develop workflows:
As far as file-management goes, paying gigs can be managed manually in the Finder (i.e., “referenced”), since they’re either identified with a specific event, or by a specific person/client. Personal photos are generally more varied in topic and less easy to categorize by a single event or person, so those will benefit from using a managed library, such as those offered by Photos and Aperture.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/studio460/
Photos is out (and Macphun are only holding on by a whisker). A decent workflow might well be CNX-D to bring out the best of Nikon raw files and then export a tiff into LR/PS for DAM purposes and for any detailed editing that might be required. It would give me a CNX-D catalogue of all my raws and a LR catalogue of the stuff worthy of taking further. And of course there is Nikon Image Space, although have not looked at that for a while.
Been playing with the trial of Affinity Photos. It is promising. Not sure it is as smooth as PS but it is new software with a good price. What it does not have yet is a DAM capability but I understand that is coming.
I’m still giving Photos a shot–I just love its ultra-clean UI. But I’m also looking forward to playing with NX-D today or tonight on one of my new systems. I just have to de-register Photo Mechanic from a couple of computers first until I can re-authorize them on my MacBook Pro’s new SSD, and onto my new 27” iMac 5K machine (which is still in the box, sitting on the floor!).
https://www.flickr.com/photos/studio460/
I have played with CNX-D today and it is ok. It is after all only a raw developer rather than a post processing tool. It may fit into a workflow there 1) Develop raw in CNX-D and convert to tif. 2) Move tif to LR as a DAM and for further selective post processing if needed (in LR and/or PS).
All that said I cannot believe that a raw file cannot be developed to a very satisfactory standard in LR and that now remains my ultimate goal. I want my work flow to be as short as possible.
I played with one image in NX-D (see above), and I like it! For whatever reason (likely operator error), my RAW conversions from Capture One Pro are coming out too saturated and too red.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/studio460/
Have heard from Robin of Macphun who says their extensions return a raw. to Photos. Apple forums say this is not the case, it is a jpg. Having now interrogated the Photos Library I can see that the edits files are jpg. This I am told was confirmed by a Macphun employee in another thread - so even Macphun seem confused.
Well, I’m willing to give the developers more time. I’m just glad there’s continued interest among developers to bring new Photos extensions to market. Photos in its current state certainly isn’t perfect, but at least it’s nice to know that Aperture 3.6 continues to run in El Capitan!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/studio460/
Apple MIGHT develop Photos to be a reasonable DAM and it would be great if they did for, as you say, it fits beautifully with the Mac interface. However I am not holding by breath and I need a robust and workable solution now and I do have that in LR/PS with the filters provided by the likes of Topaz, Macphun etc. The interface between LR an PS is pretty smooth. I do not see Photos working with third party apps as sweetly any time soon.
Maybe the Adobe interface does not look great on a Mac but it is not looks that I am after, it is functionality.
I think it’s best to keep expectations low for Photos. As we all know, it’s part of Apple’s multi-device strategy, not necessarily designed as a serious solution for abandoned Aperture users (though, it’s nice enough for use for personal photos, with the advantages mentioned).
https://www.flickr.com/photos/studio460/
If it works go for it. I shall use CNX-D as a way to develop a nef and then try and mimic same in LR. I do not really want to use an additional raw editor but will do so if it makes a significant difference. Even if it is a simple: from camera to NXD for culling of rubbish shots and then a batch conversion to tiff before moving into LR. The downside with CNX-D is no local editing and as I am in to landscapes that makes techniques like exposing to the right a little more difficult to manage (for me anyway).
Sure, whatever works for you (consider giving Photo Mechanic a try–it’s a great ingest tool). And I think that’s part of the discovery of this whole Aperture EOL thing. I’m not very post-intensive, so I never gave it much thought. Aperture was an easy-to-use app which took care of my needs. But since I mainly shoot people, getting skin tones right has sometimes been a challenge. So I suppose it was time I reviewed my workflow and investigated more capable tools anyway.
Sure, it’d be nice to do everything in a single app, plus use whatever DAM solution that app provides. But I think that’s just not in the cards, at least for me. With a new 1TB SSD in my laptop, I’ve been liberated to try new apps (my old 750GB HDD was filled to the brim), and it’s actually been kind of fun. I have an embarrassment of riches of sorts with all this new post-processing software now at my command!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/studio460/
Here’s a summary of known Photos extensions, based on published reviews which include screenshots of both released and pending apps:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/studio460/
Can add FX Photo Studio and Intensify to that, both by Macphun. Sorry, just noticed they are in the small pic!!
I’ll be happy to update the list if anyone has any further additions.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/studio460/
Pages