RAW Update 4.01 Available - Oct. 24

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Cheese&Apple, Oct 24, 2012.

  1. Cheese&Apple, Oct 24, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2012

    macrumors demi-god

    Cheese&Apple

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2012
    Location:
    Toronto
    #1
    In case anyone needs it and missed it, RAW Compatibility Update 4.01 was made available today from the MAS for iPhoto and Aperture.
     

    Attached Files:

  2. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2006
    Location:
    London
    #2
    Yay D600 support :)

    I've been getting along fine with Lightroom support for the D600 raw files thankfully.
     
  3. macrumors 6502

    Padaung

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Location:
    UK
    #3
    Not for users running Snow Leopard though :(

    For the first time ever, I may have to use the supplied Nikon software to develop the RAW files.

    The last couple of updates to Aperture have been available for OS 10.7 or above, but with holding RAW support to older OSes is incredibly frustrating.
     
  4. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2009
    #4
    I've been forced to use the ViewNX software supplied with my Nikon to process RAW files since my D600 arrived. Despite the compatibility update I'm going to continue to use ViewNX as part of my workflow; I've found its White Balance settings far, far more effective/acceptable than Aperture's.
     
  5. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2011
    Location:
    Malta (EU)
    #5
    shame on you apple……

    Holding raw (small caps: it is not an acronym) support for older OSes is completely unnecessary. Shame on apple if they don't rectify this.

    PS: raw photo processor works fine, & for quick non-color managed browsing Xee works OK
     
  6. macrumors 6502

    AxisOfBeagles

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2008
    Location:
    East of Shangrila
    #6
    as a software person myself I have to disagree. Why should we expect Apple to support new functionality in older OS's? They're making this update available to the current 10.8 OS, and the immediate earlier generation 10.7. Which seems more than adequate for platform support. Anything more is costly with no return, and distracts resources that are better applied to moving their platforms forward.
     
  7. Cheese&Apple, Oct 25, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2012

    thread starter macrumors demi-god

    Cheese&Apple

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2012
    Location:
    Toronto
    #7
    Have to agree with AxisOfBeagles. One group wants and expects a newer, quicker and more efficient OS on a regular basis. Another group likes things just the way they are. Eventually the gap gets wider and more difficult and costly to bridge.

    As frustrating as it can be, not even Apple can please everyone.
     
  8. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2011
    Location:
    Malta (EU)
    #8
    No it is not (more costly) to include raw support for an OS that is 64-bit & very similar (not just "compatible") with 10.8. You're completely incorrect on that one; shame on apple for trying to force an OS upgrade just for raw support.

    Thank goodness for 3rd party apps that fill apple's hole………wait, that seems like a corny Halloween statement :D
     
  9. macrumors 6502

    AxisOfBeagles

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2008
    Location:
    East of Shangrila
    #9
    We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. As a software business-person, I would maintain that it is always costly to support multiple software platforms as a result of backwards compatibility. It may not be a development cost - but there are release and support costs for them to consider. And has been pointed out often before, Apple, like ALL other public companies, is in business to be in business; profits may not define them, but they allow them to do what they do. I have no problem with a RAW format release that is available to the current plus one-previous OS release. To expect ad-infinitum backwards compatibility is, imho, irrational.
     
  10. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2011
    Location:
    Malta (EU)
    #10
    Nobody is quoting ad-infinitum backwards compatibility except you; using unjustified hyperbole will not make your argument less flawed.

    There is zero cost to making raw compatibility across SL & ML (& Lion in between); it is simply a marketing exercise by apple. It's raw update compatibility with the latest cameras we're discussing, not a whole new conversion engine.

    With Lightroom & other raw conversion software almost killing off aperture entirely, it is indeed a moot point by now; so much for your advocation of profit for apple by artificially limiting raw compatibility.
     
  11. macrumors 6502

    AxisOfBeagles

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2008
    Location:
    East of Shangrila
    #11
    Hyperbole aside, I stated quite clearly that "current plus one backwards" is rational - more is not necessarily so. As for citing Adobe's profits as being superior to Apple's, that is a self-evidently self-defeating argument. Sure, I'm not happy that making a pro-level photo editor is not in Apple's best market interests. But LR and other similar are not "killing off Aperture" - Apple is; because it is not in their financial self interest to try and provide the best high-end photo editing tools.

    I stand by my point; it is rational for Apple to not support compatibility more than a generation or two backwards. For a company to tell the consumer market "if you want all the latest feature support, you need to be on the latest OS" is entirely rational. Selling that OS is not what generates Apple's profits or market cap. But streamlining their support costs to just the latest couple gens of OS does help keep their costs in line.
     
  12. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2011
    Location:
    Malta (EU)
    #12
    There are some flaws in your reasoning but this one cuts the cake: "streamlining their support costs to just the latest couple gens of OS".
    The fact that SL is indeed just 2 gens away from ML aside; that has nothing to with raw compatibility.
    Apple chose to limit raw compatibility arbitrarily, their choice; & it is crass behaviour, nothing to do with "rational" or what have you.
     

Share This Page