Monochrome DNG and Mac

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Apple was slow with support for DNG's back in the early days of the M8. Apple's priorities sometimes seem strange and/or illogical to outsiders. The lack of support for Blu-Ray discs, and the inability to provide a Mac reader for iBook purchases are just two examples of strange decisions/failures by Apple. I suspect MM support will arrive in its own sweet time, when Apple have nothing better to do. A phone call from someone senior at Leica to someone senior at Apple might "extract the digit."

 

Wilson

[jonoslack]

Issues like this are what caused me to dump Aperture for Lightroom. Apple simply doesn't cater to the pro market. They cater to the mass consumer market and as nice as the interface is in Aperture, Adobe has long-sinced eclipsed them in the areas that really matter to photographers, I think. Not that Lightroom is perfect, by any means. But they do a much better job supporting new cameras and continuously expanding their list of lens profiles. Aperture just seems to be a hobby for Apple.

 

Hi Dirk - issues like this also irritate me beyond belief - it seems so short sighted.

However. I was 'forced' to use Lightroom 4, first in beta form and then in final release for 6 months this year - I assumed that would be it for Aperture and that I'd move over - especially having processed some 20,000 shots in Lightroom.. But the truth is, from almost every point of view except that of the early camera adopter I think that Aperture is better, and I wen't back to it the day the MM went back to Solms.

 

Lightroom is better at noise reduction, lens corrections, CA corrections and camera support. But I still think that Aperture is better at . . lcloning, colour control, localised adjustments, organisation, printing, key-wording, interface, output control - I could go on. With version 3 lightroom was definitely faster (a big advantage if you're processing a wedding) but version 4 has sacrificed that, and it's now neck and neck.

Edited December 3, 2012 by jonoslack

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[mjh]

Hi Michael - is it trivial - could you elaborate?

Sometimes taking stuff out of processing paths is as hard as putting it in - I'm also a developer, but I know nothing about this stuff.

Frankly I don’t see how leaving out the demosaicing step (which is quite complex and really difficult to get right) and deriving each image pixel from the corresponding sensor pixel instead could present any difficulty. For Adobe it wasn’t an issue since they had anticipated many more options provided by DNG than other developers had; when Leica did choose the particular variant they did they utilised a feature that had been there from day one, silently waiting for someone to make use of it. As Sandy explained, other developers mostly proceed on a per-camera base, i.e. they provide support for whatever a camera needs, but only if and when a camera using a particular feature is actually introduced. For those developers it took an update to add support for the M Monochrom, but they just did it. If one-man outfits managed without difficulty, why can’t Apple?

[wlaidlaw]

Frankly I don’t see how leaving out the demosaicing step (which is quite complex and really difficult to get right) and deriving each image pixel from the corresponding sensor pixel instead could present any difficulty. For Adobe it wasn’t an issue since they had anticipated many more options provided by DNG than other developers had; when Leica did choose the particular variant they did they utilised a feature that had been there from day one, silently waiting for someone to make use of it. As Sandy explained, other developers mostly proceed on a per-camera base, i.e. they provide support for whatever a camera needs, but only if and when a camera using a particular feature is actually introduced. For those developers it took an update to add support for the M Monochrom, but they just did it. If one-man outfits managed without difficulty, why can’t Apple?

 

Michael,

 

I can only assume that it is because they have not bothered to look at the issue yet. The code for DNG is I believe open, so that Apple can freely access the monochrome image and camera coding from the Adobe developers site.

 

If you will excuse the mixed metaphors, I sometimes think these megalithic consumer electronic companies have their collective heads stuck so far up their own fundaments that they cannot see the wood for the trees.

 

Microsoft is no better. For the Mac version of Outlook (2011), they still have not managed after about 11 updates, to get the field names on contacts to match Apple Address Book and iCloud, so that addresses and other details such as multiple emails and phone numbers either sync wrongly or not at all. It's basic coding, to make sure you get the field names correct and matching.

 

Wilson

[jonoslack]

Frankly I don’t see how leaving out the demosaicing step (which is quite complex and really difficult to get right) and deriving each image pixel from the corresponding sensor pixel instead could present any difficulty. For Adobe it wasn’t an issue since they had anticipated many more options provided by DNG than other developers had; when Leica did choose the particular variant they did they utilised a feature that had been there from day one, silently waiting for someone to make use of it. As Sandy explained, other developers mostly proceed on a per-camera base, i.e. they provide support for whatever a camera needs, but only if and when a camera using a particular feature is actually introduced. For those developers it took an update to add support for the M Monochrom, but they just did it. If one-man outfits managed without difficulty, why can’t Apple?

 

Thanks Michael. I guess I have two problems.

1. I've been told stuff by someone who really ought to know.

2. I'm not qualified to argue the toss

 

so I'll bow reluctantly to your greater wisdom

 

on the other hand, Like Wilson, I think that Apple will support the Monochrom sooner rather than later, and if it's after an operating system increment . . . . please remember what I said!

[sandymc]

Frankly I don’t see how leaving out the demosaicing step (which is quite complex and really difficult to get right) and deriving each image pixel from the corresponding sensor pixel instead could present any difficulty. For Adobe it wasn’t an issue since they had anticipated many more options provided by DNG than other developers had; when Leica did choose the particular variant they did they utilised a feature that had been there from day one, silently waiting for someone to make use of it. As Sandy explained, other developers mostly proceed on a per-camera base, i.e. they provide support for whatever a camera needs, but only if and when a camera using a particular feature is actually introduced. For those developers it took an update to add support for the M Monochrom, but they just did it. If one-man outfits managed without difficulty, why can’t Apple?

 

I would suspect that whatever issues there are have less to do with the Monochrom's file format, and more to do with it being monochrome. The place where there would be issues is not so much in the raw conversion, but later in the image processing pipeline, where assumptions might have been made about "raw image = color image". So, to give one example, white balance controls make no sense for the M. But unless the WB code was written to deal with monochrome images, changes will be needed. There are lots of things like that, and they can extend all through the code, making support for the Monochrom a lot more complex than just decoding the file.

 

Sandy

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I would suspect that whatever issues there are have less to do with the Monochrom's file format, and more to do with it being monochrome. The place where there would be issues is not so much in the raw conversion, but later in the image processing pipeline, where assumptions might have been made about "raw image = color image". So, to give one example, white balance controls make no sense for the M. But unless the WB code was written to deal with monochrome images, changes will be needed. There are lots of things like that, and they can extend all through the code, making support for the Monochrom a lot more complex than just decoding the file.

 

Sandy

 

Sandy,

 

Maybe you should offer to work for Apple at say a round $1m per annum plus around 10,000 share options each year as well. They really really do need you

 

Wilson

[mjh]

So, to give one example, white balance controls make no sense for the M. But unless the WB code was written to deal with monochrome images, changes will be needed. There are lots of things like that, and they can extend all through the code, making support for the Monochrom a lot more complex than just decoding the file.

The developer of Raw Developer, for example, apparently just short-circuited WB. You can drag its WB-related sliders all the way from the left to the right and back, without changing anything whatsoever. The same goes for saturation etc.. Apple had all the time in the world to implement something more fancy (if greying out irrelevant controls counts as fancy) to include in their November 12 release of Aperture 3.4.3, but didn’t.

 

But perhaps that’s the problem with companies the size of Apple: There are too many opportunities to spend hours in meetings, complaining to co-workers and superiors how complex something is. The one-man outfit would just do it and be done with it.

[sandymc]

Sandy,

 

Maybe you should offer to work for Apple at say a round $1m per annum plus around 10,000 share options each year as well. They really really do need you

 

Wilson

 

Wilson,

 

Apple have all the talent and manpower they could possibly want - to an extent that's ridiculous at the moment. It's back like it was in the 80's when they had the choice of the best possible talent. They just chose to focus that talent in very specific ways, and supporting cameras that chew up lots of engineering time isn't one of them. I have the advantage that photography is a passion that I don't have to make a living out of, so I can do things that interest me without bothering too much about whether what I do will add millions to the bottom line.

 

Sandy

[jonoslack]

I would suspect that whatever issues there are have less to do with the Monochrom's file format, and more to do with it being monochrome. The place where there would be issues is not so much in the raw conversion, but later in the image processing pipeline, where assumptions might have been made about "raw image = color image". So, to give one example, white balance controls make no sense for the M. But unless the WB code was written to deal with monochrome images, changes will be needed. There are lots of things like that, and they can extend all through the code, making support for the Monochrom a lot more complex than just decoding the file.

 

Sandy

Hi Sandy - that's certainly what I felt about it.

The developer of Raw Developer, for example, apparently just short-circuited WB. You can drag its WB-related sliders all the way from the left to the right and back, without changing anything whatsoever. The same goes for saturation etc.. Apple had all the time in the world to implement something more fancy (if greying out irrelevant controls counts as fancy) to include in their November 12 release of Aperture 3.4.3, but didn’t..

Well - I revert to my point that it was made clear to me that it had to be done in an update to Mountain Lion itself - it couldn't be done in Aperture or the RAW update - that could be rubbish but i don't see why it shouldn't be the case

But perhaps that’s the problem with companies the size of Apple: There are too many opportunities to spend hours in meetings, complaining to co-workers and superiors how complex something is. The one-man outfit would just do it and be done with it.

 

I would expect that the problem is not so much 'how to make the MM work' . . . but more to the point is testing everything else to make sure that the changes don't break anything.

 

I'm not making excuses for them, but I also know from our software that if there is a minority request for a change that involves one of the core classes then the amount of testing required to make sure that nothing else is broken inadvertently can mean that things slip down the priority list!

 

all the best

[mydarkroom]

Well, I guess one gets different responses from different people. But what I understand is that it's a 'core' issue, and support will come, but with an OSX update rather than an Aperture one. Around Christmas time was what I heard.

 

 

Hi Jono,

 

I do hope you are right! Around Xmas would be a great time!

 

I have tried every single version of LR since the beta one. I keep coming back to Aperture since in IMHO is a far superior software than LR.

 

I was on the wait list for a MM and lucky enough walked into a store that had one in Stock. Needles to say that I walked out of the store with the MM and one kidney left in my body.

 

Loaded LR4 and despite a few hours of Lynda.com video training couldn't really "get it". This modular system is so cumbersome, would have to change my workflow completely. I got to the point of downloading RPP and converting the DNG into TIFF files (32MB -> 108MB files) to work in Aperture. Obviously the quality is not the same and the level of post-processing on the TIFF is different from the RAW.

 

I guess I will start shooting RAW+DNG from now on until Apple provide us the OS/RAW/Aperture update needed.

 

Cheers

 

Raf

mydarkroom.ca

[wlaidlaw]

Raf,

 

I have come to the conclusion you either have an LR, Aperture or C1 shaped brain and nothing you can do will change it. My brain is obviously C1 shaped and no amount of tutorial DVD's or books seems to change it into the shape to use other RAW developers.

 

Wilson

[Guest malland]

Like Jono, I find Aperture much easier to use and more intuitive that LR, particularly in terms using it as a DAM. However, I find that I can get much better color more easily from LR4 for the Ricoh GRD4 raw files than I can from Aperture , and better resolution as well (almost as good as from RPP).

 

After getting the M-Monochrom, I've been using LR4 in which I find the way the Black slider works are greatly superior to what I can do in Aperture in setting the black point. For the latter reason, I find that with M-Monochrom files I can get better results than with Aperture (after bringing in the files from RPP). As for dodging and burning, I find both LR4 and Aperture to be clunky compared to the use of Control Points in Silver Efex.

 

The bottom line is that I would not go back to Aperture when it gets M-Monochrom support unless the equivalent of the LR4 Black slider were also available.

 

—Mitch/Chiang Mai

Bangkok Hysteria (download link for book project)

[mydarkroom]

Like Jono, I find Aperture much easier to use and more intuitive that LR, particularly in terms using it as a DAM. However, I find that I can get much better color more easily from LR4 for the Ricoh GRD4 raw files than I can from Aperture , and better resolution as well (almost as good as from RPP).

 

After getting the M-Monochrom, I've been using LR4 in which I find the way the Black slider works are greatly superior to what I can do in Aperture in setting the black point. For the latter reason, I find that with M-Monochrom files I can get better results than with Aperture (after bringing in the files from RPP). As for dodging and burning, I find both LR4 and Aperture to be clunky compared to the use of Control Points in Silver Efex.

 

The bottom line is that I would not go back to Aperture when it gets M-Monochrom support unless the equivalent of the LR4 Black slider were also available.

 

—Mitch/Chiang Mai

Bangkok Hysteria (download link for book project)

 

Oi Mitch!

 

I agree that LR should be much better than Aperture and RPP combo. The generated TIFF file, beside being 3x the size of the original DNG does not provide the same level of detail in the shadows/dynamic range.

 

I read a lot about the benefits of using LR as far as image manipulation goes, specially when dealing with colour. Since I do so little on editing and I process most of my shots to BW, DAM is the main point for me to use this kind of app, I find using LR a pain.

 

I agree that Control Point is the best way to get the most of your dodge/burning. Just love the Silver Effex Plug in. I just wished that Apple had bought it instead of Google. That way I could see that being incorporated into Aperture as a non-destructive editing plugin

 

For now I decided to shoot DNG+jpg. Not that I find the jpg out of the camera superb but its a way to preserve the DNG (if needed be to use LR/Photoshop) while waiting for Apple and Leica get the MM dng supported.

 

Obrigado!

 

 

Raf,

 

I have come to the conclusion you either have an LR, Aperture or C1 shaped brain and nothing you can do will change it. My brain is obviously C1 shaped and no amount of tutorial DVD's or books seems to change it into the shape to use other RAW developers.

 

Wilson

 

Wilson,

 

I have to agree... I actually feel bad that I've tried LR so many times and continue to go back to Aperture. Maybe because the software part that matters the most to me is the organization part rather than the editing. I keep hoping that Leica and Apple will come up with a solution shortly.