Select files in Finder, option + double click on them, and you have many photo files accessible in a single Preview window.
Both the apps + people (Nik & Shan) are new to me. I like supporting indie devs and their apps, and seeing their success, so I might support them. Esp. with Adobe and their yearly subscription for PS / Adobe CC (groan).
Finder supporting thumbnails for newer cameras is a pain but it's not all that normal to browser your archives in Finder either.
https://home.camerabits.com is a commonly used tool for browsing photographer/files and editing metadata. I've used it for ingesting and selects since 2005. Almost everywhere I've ever worked has used it to some degree.
After ingestion, you would import to Lightroom or Capture ONE for processing and finally you export to jpg or a generic usable format and size.
I’m a long-term Nitro user, picked up a new camera (Pana S5iix) a few weeks ago and found myself really disappointed with the quality on one specific shoot. Daylight, low ISO - technically super “clean” raw files, but Nitro was struggling with detail and weird artefacts in the shadows.
I never expect DeepPRIME or Topaz level processing from it - but something about the image seemed off. Fired up an alternate software and sure enough, even with 0 corrections applied, side-by-side Nitro looked noticeably worse.
I much prefer the local-first workflow, and I split my time editing roughly evenly between my M1 iPad and M4 Mac. Nitro was an absolute game-changer for my workflow as I could dump photos to my iPad right after a show, cull and get preliminary edits delivered in the cab home, then seamlessly switch to my “big” setup. Guess I need to buy a laptop now :(
I think the sweet spot for both the camera manufacturers and photographers are JPEG XL and other newer, standardized formats. They allow the camera to „bake in“ the secret-sauce color science while retaining headroom for editing thanks to 16-bit channels and such.
Arainach•2mo ago
If you're shooting RAW it's because you want to edit the photos in the kind of tool that will never be natively included in the OS. Otherwise shoot JPEG (or whatever format the iPhone shoots because universal standards are never good enough for Apple)
xattt•2mo ago
Ayesh•2mo ago
Raw photos probably are shot in DNG. DNG "images" are popular for raw images because theyb can be losslessly converted from to the camera raw formats like the Nikon's, and DNG is open source and royalty free.
buildbot•2mo ago
Depending on the RAW, a conversion to DNG may not be lossless.
alistairSH•2mo ago
buildbot•2mo ago
kccqzy•2mo ago
buildbot•2mo ago
mr_toad•2mo ago
JPEG is almost as outdated as SMS.
Arainach•2mo ago
JPEG is good enough, not encumbered by IP concerns, and universally supported. That makes it better than an alternative that is "better" in a less important dimension but worse in broad support.
Kirby64•2mo ago
You could make the same arguments about any of the wide variety of outdated video formats. This sort of thinking leads to a lack of progress in the industry.
Arainach•2mo ago
I have a calibrated HDR monitor. I have a camera that can shoot in 12bit color. And what HDR support does is just cause me pain. I don't find it beneficial in games. I find it to have limited utility in video. I never need more than 8 bits when sending photos to friends or having them printed. The extra support other formats offer gives me no value.
If you want transparency you want some other format, but no camera I know of records an alpha channel.
Kirby64•2mo ago
Also, the other formats are useful and provide value: if you send a photo to people, the “live” portion of the photo is sent automatically for compatible receivers. It’s only beneficial.
If that’s not enough, why wouldn’t you want similar compression quality at half the file size? That really, really adds up with tons of photos.
Razengan•2mo ago
> And what HDR support does is just cause me pain. I don't find it beneficial in games. I find it to have limited utility in video.
Oh boy. You must either be using Windows or never seen photographs/video taken on modern phones/cameras and viewed side-by-side on a good modern display (such as an iPad Pro or MacBook Pro) vs. a random "gOoD eNoUgH" display.
Arainach•2mo ago
Almondsetat•2mo ago
Kirby64•2mo ago
mr_toad•2mo ago
charcircuit•2mo ago
stronglikedan•2mo ago
kccqzy•2mo ago
The article says:
> photographers can take full advantage of Apple’s fantastic RAW engine, even when Apple itself does not support a RAW file, which is, unfortunately, a common problem for photographers using macOS, of which there are many.
And I’m also curious about how this RAW engine is fantastic even when it doesn’t support a RAW file. I guess people who actually shoot RAW can answer that. (I shoot JPEG on my camera.)
alistairSH•2mo ago
Every camera manufacturer has their own RAW format. Apple produces a general-purpose RAW engine that can process many of those formats, but not all of them, and with a few notable misses, as noted in the linked article. The RAW engine is considered pretty good, fast/efficient, but overly aggressive on some of its defaults (noise reduction to the point of detail loss). The native Photos app also doesn't have many advanced RAW tools for editing the RAWs.
I posted my current workflow in a sibling - basically, I use Photomator for edits (Lightroom competitor, now owned by Apple) and Photos for library management and sharing. Works fine for me as a enthusiasts, but unlikely to work for a professional (and probably not for enthusiasts who like tinkering with their photos more than I do).
kjkjadksj•2mo ago
alistairSH•2mo ago
Currently, I'm using Photomator alongside Apple Photos. Workflow is roughly... - Import photos from camera into Photos - Edit photos in Photomator - Share photos to Shared Library in Photos
Wife will also share her photos via Shared Library so I can edit.
For non-professional this works well. Native file library integration (including shared library and shared albums), edit across all OS variants (iOS, iPadOS, MacOS), and Photomator is as close to native as you can get today (they're owned by Apple).
Joeri•2mo ago
alistairSH•2mo ago
I mitigate by shooting JPG most of the time, only going to RAW for shots I think will need the sort of editing RAW enables. So, maybe 10-20% of my shots are RAW, at most.
And for most of those, after edits, I'll export back into Photos as a new file, and remove the original RAW. Obviously, this is destructive, so it might not appeal to you, but it does side-step the RAW storage conundrum.
Almondsetat•2mo ago
alistairSH•2mo ago