So the iPad Pro is hardly a professional device. I can't imagine a professional photographer shooting on 64gb cards is going to hassle with loading up everything onto a laptop/desktop only to transfer over to the iPad Pro using the cloud and edit on a sub par app. It just doesn't make sense as a good use of time when adobe lightroom is better in every way on pc/osx.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Disappointed with iPad for photography
- Thread starter HalfOnWhole
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So the iPad Pro is hardly a professional device. I can't imagine a professional photographer shooting on 64gb cards is going to hassle with loading up everything onto a laptop/desktop only to transfer over to the iPad Pro using the cloud and edit on a sub par app. It just doesn't make sense as a good use of time when adobe lightroom is better in every way on pc/osx.
If you want to have a computer what is great with photography get a mac, they are great
the work around part is they are just raw viewers/converters. They don't really do much. And by and large are very generic. These app devs aren't going all out for best performance. I hear tale Dx0 is one of the best raw processors out there. They really care about the reading of that raw. They have to, their raw processor is a money maker for them. Same with capture one. Phase one makes camera gear. High end though and not common. So its in their best interest to stand out from say.....GIMP. Which can also read raw and edit iirc. All while being free. And from adobe...who have several applications to bring in revenue.
Not a bad thing being generic, it can have a place. Going for straight out of camera if everything nailed can be fine. But 2 things here.
If going for this out of camera approach one should imo really be considering RAW+jpeg as a shooting option if not pure jpeg. Former good if you must have RAWs just in case and your workflow is just basic convert and done. have your raws. have your jpegs and you just skipped even basic post processing.
I sense raw or death zealot shooters here. I used to be one. Then one day for some shooting I went you know I am just adding a step here really. Step not really needed all the time. So I said the darkside of jpeg not all that bad sometimes.
If out of camera working that well...this option much better. Barring the camera vendor's jpeg implementation is bad. Which I have not seen. I am a Nikon user but will admit other bodies do this pretty damn good too. I tbh am only Nikon based since they have not change their mount in years. Old faithful f mount...has me run glass from 20+ years ago (and I do have some old school manual focus glass that I favor even today) as readily as glass made this year.
Or if this not working for some reason...these apps are just lacking. As you are still hitting the laptop/desktop to use "real" raw processing tools. For all the stuff not on the iOS ones. Lens profiles, batching, scripting support for some (even aperture is still good in this regards, its very apple scriptable), noise reduction (internal to app or 3rd party), and better effects.
And being processed on iOS not helping. Most real PP applications are self centered. They want raw from step 1 to step Z done in them. They do play nice with plugins ofc. bet even they go into their own little playground. I fire up nik tools for example...LR says you go play with your friend NIK, let me know when done.
Any photographer that is serious about their craft will shoot in raw. Here is why....
In raw you have the ability to edit the photo and bring out details and colors that may have been lost during the photo session. For instance, if you shoot a scene and it turns out that the scene was just a bit dark and you want to brighten the photo, the details in the dark areas will still be there. In jpeg, try bringing out those shadows and you will not be able to recover the details. The same goes for colors. In raw you have the entire color gamut and photos have more color detail to them. In jpeg, some of the color is lost. This is why for instance a 28mp camera will take up 28mb for a raw photo and only like 5-8mb for a jpeg. The compression results in lost details.
But wait you say, photographers save their photos as jpeg in the end, why does it matter that they shoot in raw to begin with? Shooting in raw allows the photographer to edit the photo to the way they like it, and then allow the software to compress it in jpeg while keeping the same design the photographer wanted. The compression will lose details, but it won't lose the overall impression the photographer is trying to give.
Another factor to consider is that when you shoot in jpeg and then edit it and save it in jpeg, you are essentially creating a compression of a compression. This results in the most details being lost compared to shooting in raw and then editing and saving only once in jpeg.
Now are there photographers that shoot in jpeg? Yes, there are. Some of their photos may even look good, but they are limiting themselves in their possibilities and it is only becoming more evident as technology improves and we have 42-60mp cameras.
I use my ipad with my sony cameras, sony a7s and a6000, no problem with raw.
I use photogen, photoraw , pirawnha and filterstorm for basic editing of raw.
If i want more, i export them as full tiffs and procces them in pixelmator , enlight or snapsheed in full resolution.
I use photogen, photoraw , pirawnha and filterstorm for basic editing of raw.
If i want more, i export them as full tiffs and procces them in pixelmator , enlight or snapsheed in full resolution.
Just because you can use it with raw doesn't mean it is feasible to do so, hence the reason adobe has not provided support. The fact that the iPad Pro has 64gb of space for the base model and the fact that most professional photographers use 64gb cards for a photo session means you literally do not have enough space on the base model iPad Pro to export all the photos to the iPad in raw. Then take into account the gruesomely slow transfer speed of the files over the sd card adapter and it makes no sense at all.
People like you getting on here saying that you can work in raw misleads others into thinking the iPad pro is a viable tool for photographers when it isn't.
You mean 32 GB for the base model, not 64 GB which really does suck for a base model.
Speak for yourself man, i have 128GB model, enough for my needs....
Transfer speeds with the newer sd card reader is fast , very fast.
I don't use Adobe programs, i don't use any cloud service of them , only flickr and iCloud, if i need.
Adobe sucks, if you want to use those apps, good for you.
I don't have any problem using RAW , if you have, thats your problem!
I am not a PRO photographer, just a simple user ....are you a PRO ?
Do you have ipad and use those apps ?
If not, you cant speak for ourselves.... you are misleading other people , by not knowing what are you talking.
Transfer speeds with the newer sd card reader is fast , very fast.
I don't use Adobe programs, i don't use any cloud service of them , only flickr and iCloud, if i need.
Adobe sucks, if you want to use those apps, good for you.
I don't have any problem using RAW , if you have, thats your problem!
I am not a PRO photographer, just a simple user ....are you a PRO ?
Do you have ipad and use those apps ?
If not, you cant speak for ourselves.... you are misleading other people , by not knowing what are you talking.
The lack of pro apps, like Lightroom, and Photoshop, doom the iPad Pro for me. I may still get it, but it won't replace my SP3 and it won't alter my workflow since I cannot easily work with RAW images.
You sound like your trying to convince yourself of how "professional" the iPad pro is.
Even with the new lightning sd card reader, speeds are awful for transferring anything over 20gb of data.
That link above is a guy that did a test transferring 4k video and raw photos over to his iPad using the new lightning sd cable and compared it to the old cable.
It takes him 8 minutes and 30 seconds to transfer a 25gb file over. Considering most serious photographers use Full Frame cameras shooting 28-52megapixel photos, it is very likely to use up an entire 64gb card on a family 1-2 hour photo session and several 64gb or 128gb cards for a wedding session. Transferring an entire 64gb card to the iPad Pro will take aprox 20 minutes and that is with the new sd card reader. With the old reader, it could take upwards of an hour.
Considering you could use a macbook pro and transfer an entire 64gb card over to your hard drive in about 5-6 minutes, it hardly seems reasonable to sit around for 20 minutes waiting for files to transfer over. I can't even imagine the amount of time it would take to turn around and save all the files after working on them and the hassle of having to delete everything to clear up the space on the iPad Pro since the high end iPad Pro only has 128gb of space.
Regarding you challenging me to being a pro, I am an amateur photographer/videographer. I use a Samsung Nx1 to shoot 4k video and do photography work and I would never even consider the iPad pro as a usable device for editing 4k video or raw photos.
There is a reason why people spend $3000 to buy a high end iMac or macbook pro to do photography and not a $799-$999 iPad "pro". It's so they don't sit around for hours waiting for their files to transfer or deal with the underpowered performance of a tablet compared to a high end laptop/desktop processor.
But of course you talk about photography work like its a piece of cake. Good for you and your point and shoot camera. As for me, I'll stick to Adobe and Final cut pro. At least I'm not trying to convince people to use a device for something it shouldn't be used for.
I am not trying to convince anyone for anything... You make this mistake, by telling us that you cant edit or handle raw photos or 4k videos with ipad.
Of course its not a macbook pro, i have a mbp too .
But ipp its very capable to handle my photo and video needs , most of them.
I can edit my raw files , and hd video from my sonys , fast and easy.
If i want, i can transfer my edits with imovie to fcpx, and my photos, via icloud , to my photos in mac.
If it doesn't fit in your wotkflow, ican understand it, but it does fit in mine.
I have the pencil too, and i use it to retouch my photos and draw some pictures.
You and others make the same mistake... Ipad its an IPAD first , the best one, thats why they called it pro.
Its not an macbook pro....
Of course its not a macbook pro, i have a mbp too .
But ipp its very capable to handle my photo and video needs , most of them.
I can edit my raw files , and hd video from my sonys , fast and easy.
If i want, i can transfer my edits with imovie to fcpx, and my photos, via icloud , to my photos in mac.
If it doesn't fit in your wotkflow, ican understand it, but it does fit in mine.
I have the pencil too, and i use it to retouch my photos and draw some pictures.
You and others make the same mistake... Ipad its an IPAD first , the best one, thats why they called it pro.
Its not an macbook pro....
I'm typing on the iPad pro right now. Still have it. It's a fun piece to have and a great tool for showing work. I am a pro shooter and don't intend to ever use this for full shoots but rather one-off edits. As soon as I get the pen I hope to use that for adding extra detail editing capabilities. Hopefully raw editing is something of of the near future as I don't find Sony jpegs to be malleable whatsoever. Oh well, more just fun for now I guess!
It means its faster, bigger , have more power-memory than simple iPads.... exactly like macbook pros!
Its up to devs now to take advantage of this.
Its up to devs now to take advantage of this.
It means the marketing department came up with the term to best sell the product
What was limited before pro they couldn't do this?
Faster procs are not game changing. Many PC/mac apps did amazing things even in the days of PI - PIII (PPC case of mac). this belief it was the gear (you aren't the first I have seen spout this) limiting app development a bit disconcerting. If computers had this we'd be years behind where we are now. If complexity (N and O notations stuff, google for descriptions better than I can give) got too high, they divided and conquered and broke it up to smaller parts.
If only to get the application out the door. As Moore's law marched on they then revisited older code and said yay, we can combine smaller parts to a bigger combined one now. thing is...they still did not give up and say sorry guys, no applications for you, we are waiting for skylakes to come out 10 years from now (how they would know this 10 years prior...lets not worry about details like that).
It's not hardware technical limitations.
Its the iOS. IPP not changing this really. its (too) restrictive. Insert lack of file structure access rant. Keeping this video/pic related....this is how you get 3rd party plugins. They (or with some you do it as its a manual process) put their stuff in another applications folder structure. iOS doesn't allow this. Want a pic from something now in app A, cloud it and pull it down from cloud to B. the file is right there though...
Vice on mac OS/windows where when I want to go to nik tools its a menu option (it was put in adobe's structure, adobe said hi...let me make a menu item for you since here), do my stuff in Nik and when done it saves to adobe's area again. One stop shopping to use a phrase.
Found a plug in from a lesser known source but trustworthy? may have to open hidden library and do file copy/placement it yourself. Same result though...adobe (aperture in the past as well for me) recognizes tool, says here you go.
Am I saying plugins needed for this type of work? (puts on flame suit)......Yes. Unless you really really like killing hours tweaking application settings (if an option) via trial and error and/or googling how to do it.
3rd party lives to do its thing. They want to sell for $x they have to show why you should pay $x. their usual hook is to do it better and/or more convenient than the host application. At some point an all in one (or tries to be) PP application maker will tell the noise reduction dev team you have something good enough, you are done. 3rd party noise reducer...its all they do. They want the money next year, they live and breath noise reduction to be better than adobe and such as well as other competitors in their plug in area field.
Update to my workflow:
DxO is half answering my prayers!!! They have DxO Optics Pro for Photos app now for $10 on OS X which means I no longer need to export and then reimport. To those of us who care a lot about RAW interpretation, the new DxO app does what is promised: camera/lens correction, PRIME noise filter, smart lighting, and clear view. I'll post a quick review of It if anyone wants, just PM me. Now if only DxO would build the Photos extension for iOS. With Pixelmator, Photoshop Fix, and other apps, I can now process my RAWs and get a finished product on an iPad Pro. While this is progress, it still requires my MacBook Pro or Mac Pro. I wonder what the render cycle would look like on an iPad pro vs MacBook Pro Retina.
Oh also arguing for "Pro"ness of the iPad Pro is kind of silly. For those of us that use tools for work, we just use the tools. We don't really care what companies name their products as long as they work. Also for those arguing about shooting RAW vs JPG, the real answer is that anyone in the profession needs to know how to shoot in both. I shoot JPG for one company while I shoot RAW for higher end work where I need more flexibility. Shooting JPG saves on time and storage space which is a requirement of one of my jobs. I also shoot with multiple cameras from multiple manufacturers but in the end, they are all tools of the trade, they don't make or break the end results.
Last edited: