# iPhoto vs Canon Digital Photo Professional



## 10macs (Feb 14, 2004)

I started shooting all of my photographs (wedding and others) in RAW mode. I do my post-processing with Canon Digital Photo Professional that came with my camera (Digital Rebel XT). It is time consuming but I get excellent results. Just for a comparison I loaded some of the RAW files into iPhoto and played around with the image adjustment and effects. I also like the red-eye reduction which I don't find in the Canon program. I use Photoshop 7 so fixing red-eye is a bit of a problem. I would appreciate some comments from those who have used both to pass on their thoughts about what they like about the two programs.


----------



## maccam (Jun 28, 2006)

Nothing to really compare here, iPhoto is for kids to share pics and slideshows and stuff. The Canon app has way more features and is more useful. In saying that, it's still pretty limited as well as far as what it can do.

Photoshop 7 is a little long in the tooth for digital photo work these days. If you can get a copy and want to do good work and simplify certain things get PS CS2.

Not trying to slam iPhoto, just being straight about it.


----------



## shoe (Apr 6, 2005)

Apple has another option as well

http://www.apple.com/aperture/

shoe


----------



## Moscool (Jun 8, 2003)

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I question the wisdom of using RAW, at least with Canon SLRS. I have spent two days in training with Canon last month and went through this issue at length: basically the automatic white balance is VERY accurate (AWB setting). If have done lots of comparisons using other settings and 9/10 times the AWB 'guessed' right. Also, your SLR will allow you to use other white balance settings, as long as you are on the 'expert' modes. Finally, Photoshop can always be used to apply filters. 

So my current default position is that I use highest qual jpeg and, unless your work for print media, there is no need for RAW. Also, I found out that the sRGB space was absolutely fine for 99% of applications, this was checked using A3 prints. 

In other words, it pays to keep life simple. At present I stick to iPhoto for storing and very basic things like red eyes and use Photoshop CS for more serious corrections.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

You bring out an interesting point which I debated myself. Hi-quality JPEGS are good enough for most applications, but I still prefer to shoot in raw with my Nikon DSLR for several reasons. 

First it's 16 bit, allowing for better corrections and adjustments. I also have a fisheye lens that can be corrected for with Nikon's ImageCapture software.

Image capture is very sophisticated, feature rich and quite fast.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

To get back to the original question, iPhoto is maturing all the time and in many ways is a great app. I don't use it because I do not like the way it stores image data, but that's probably me just being picky: but I was stung by a minor iPhoto upgrade that messed up the library. iPhoto now allows you to keep your images in the folder of your choice, which I much prefer. 

Photoshop Elements 4 is a really great app and very good value, but it's not Universal and I am not sure how it will run on an Intel mac: but for a lot of people it's all the Photoshop that's needed.

Aperture is also a neat app, but requires a powerful Mac. I prefer Adobe's Lightroom a this stage. Although it is only in Beta, it's a great app and unlike Photoshop has been designed from the outset for photographers. It's easy to use and powerful. But - as it's still in Beta, be careful!

Personally, I use Bridge, which comes with PS CS2. A simple, unexciting app, but very effective for organization. For all other editing I use CS2 itslef.

As for the RAW / JPEG debate: I am firmly a RAW guy. KPS's point about 16 bit is not to be underestimated. I like RAW because it has the purity of old negatives. The only thing I cannot play with is the ISO. With JPEGS you can lose quite a lot of data when editing, whereas with RAW you do not. RAW gives me the opportunity to work in a digital darkroom and has taught and re-taught me a lot about photography.

I also find it so much easier to gain consistent results with RAW. While for quick snapshots I will sometimes use JPEG, I simply prefer the results of RAW.

Some are put off by the extra processing step with RAW, but for me it takes little time for great benefit. I have found that some find it somewhat intimidating and spend an inordinate amount of time studying technique. It's really very simple and apps such as Aperture and Lightroom make it even simpler.


----------



## 10macs (Feb 14, 2004)

Thanks for the information....it helps to hear from others. I agree with most of you in that now that I have used RAW (for important photos) I won't go back to jpeg.


----------



## 10macs (Feb 14, 2004)

Just downloaded Beta3 of Lightroom....pretty amazing program. It is way better than the program that came with my Canon. Any idea what $$ cost for the final release?


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2006)

no idea waht the final cost of lightroom is going to be, but it's my app of choice for RAW work, and it's almost lockstepped with the Camera RAW pipeline, which is all good. That and if DNG actually pushes through as a standard it's a winner hands down. The folksonomy (tagging) features alone in it ar fantastic.

The big picture will be decided after Adobe gets the merging databases settled. Noe one pulls this off properly yet nad if they can photographers everywhere will be very happy!


----------



## maccam (Jun 28, 2006)

Aperture...yes... I can't even imagine what kind of machine you need to run this thing. It feels like playing Quake4 on a PII running a VooDoo card or something... Sluggish doesn't even begin to describe it. 

Ya I forgot about Lightroom, tried it for a bit, I really like the interface, quite nifty.


----------



## TDotMac (Feb 24, 2008)

Upon searching for this topic I found this thread which has been helpful but I wonder if anyone finds iPhoto more capable since your post date? I've used it and do like it better than my Canon Digital Photo Professional program. And at this time don't think I have the right graphics cards to buy Aperture. I specifically prefer to shoot in RAW so that I can work with the best file possible. Any newer thoughts on this?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

I will echo Moscool's thought. My Canon camera does not support RAW. However out of perhaps 3000 shots there have been taken there were less than half a dozen that really needed the additional depth. Of those none of them were shots I felt badly about losing. I am pretty fussy about quality and if I felt RAW were essential I would change cameras in a heartbeat.

NOTE: Most under-exposed shots can be brought out nicely in any version of PhotoShop so just make sure the image has some hilite detail.


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

TDotMac said:


> Upon searching for this topic I found this thread which has been helpful but I wonder if anyone finds iPhoto more capable since your post date? I've used it and do like it better than my Canon Digital Photo Professional program. And at this time don't think I have the right graphics cards to buy Aperture. I specifically prefer to shoot in RAW so that I can work with the best file possible. Any newer thoughts on this?


what kind of machine do you have? the system reqt's are at: Apple Canada - Aperture

2.0 is pretty quick. much better than 1.0


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

keebler27 said:


> what kind of machine do you have? the system reqt's are at: Apple Canada - Aperture
> 
> 2.0 is pretty quick. much better than 1.0


There is a little Compatibility Checker from Apple that you can run.


----------

