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.
RAW+JPEG management on iPhoto
- Thread starter iRock1
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Dave Braine
macrumors 601
Well, they are different photos. One is RAW format and one is JPEG. Can you not tell you camera to just take RAW pictures if you don't want the JPEGs?
Well, technically they are different files, but in essence it's the same photo. Matter of fact, some applications are smart enough to detect that it's just the same thing in different formats.
And yes, I can tell my camera to take RAW pictures only, but I already took these pictures and I need to deal with that now,
I intentionally shoot in RAW+JPEG... and I keep them both. However, I use Aperture. If you are shooting RAW, you might consider switching too.
Aperture allows you to import both RAW+JPEG as a pair of bound masters. They are never separated... and only one (or the other) is the true master at any time. At import, you can choose which of the two masters is used as "the master" for every photo that is imported. Finally, you can switch at any time on a photo by photo (or collection) basis anytime in your workflow.
So the question... why do I want both? It ends up that my cameras make pretty good JPEG images. In fact... unedited and unfiltered... right out of the cameras... JPEGs generally look better than RAW. Hence... if I do nothing... my library looks better with JPEGs.
Once I determine which photos I want to take further... usually with Nik Software Aperture plug-ins... It is trivial to convert those masters to RAW, and begin my RAW processing workflow... giving better result than I could achieve by using my JPEG masters.
Just another reason why I think Aperture is such an outstanding program.
/Jim
Aperture allows you to import both RAW+JPEG as a pair of bound masters. They are never separated... and only one (or the other) is the true master at any time. At import, you can choose which of the two masters is used as "the master" for every photo that is imported. Finally, you can switch at any time on a photo by photo (or collection) basis anytime in your workflow.
So the question... why do I want both? It ends up that my cameras make pretty good JPEG images. In fact... unedited and unfiltered... right out of the cameras... JPEGs generally look better than RAW. Hence... if I do nothing... my library looks better with JPEGs.
Once I determine which photos I want to take further... usually with Nik Software Aperture plug-ins... It is trivial to convert those masters to RAW, and begin my RAW processing workflow... giving better result than I could achieve by using my JPEG masters.
Just another reason why I think Aperture is such an outstanding program.
/Jim
Certainly I was considering to go with Aperture, but I've already read a lot of bad comments on its stability and speed in OS X 10.8. So I'm considering Lightroom as well.
Anyway, can I solve my initial problem with iPhoto? Or maybe some script in Finder? I don't know... anything, because it would be a pain in the ass to manually delete the JPEG duplicates (hundreds if not thousands).
I really do not know how to do it in iPhoto. I just don't use it enough to give advice. I was just trying to point out how it can be really useful to have both JPEG and RAW available.
There are tons of people who really don't know how to use Aperture. Some are trying to run their library on a NAS... some are trying to share libraries with others. Others go mucking around in the Aperture "package"... and still others use referenced masters and then muck around with them in the file system. These people will have performance and/or stability problems.
If you just run it on an internal HDD... it is typically fine... but occasionally there is wait. Nothing horrible. That is how I ran my very large library until 2 weeks ago.
If you happen to have an SSD, or a fast TB attached DAS... then Aperture absolutely flies. I have a 400GB A3 library, and it is typically "instantaneous" on my new iMac.
Lightroom is also a great program. You cannot go wrong with either one. I happen to like the flexible workflow of A3 better than LR4... but that is a personal preference.
Personally... once you decide to go to a RAW methodology... then it is probably time to graduate from iPhoto.
/Jim
I understand your point, but my workflow is different and I prefer to manually edit each photo in RAW rather than leaving the JPEG files because they look better. In that case, the JPEG files that I accidentally created are just taking space, so that's why I need to delete them (that and the fact that the app that I'll stay with is showing duplicates, lol).
And certainly I should graduate from iPhoto in the future, but as I'm just starting to go relatively serious about photography, I think I'll stay with iPhoto for a few weeks or months.
use a smart album...
You should be able to easily filter out all jpg files from your library by creating a smart album and set a filter for "file name - contains - jpg". You then could easily select them all and delete or hide them at once... No big deal.
The better option if you use RAW+JPG in your camera is indeed to upgrade to Aperture. Aperture uses in fact the same database as iPhoto, so you can use both apps on the same photo library and the upgrade is instant.
I'm using Aperture since many years and my Library is rather large (more than 50'000 pictures from all sorts of sources (digi cams, SLRs, negative scanners of many brands). There have been versions of Aperture that had some minor bugs, but I have never lost data or suffered from any serious performance issues or instabilities....
You should be able to easily filter out all jpg files from your library by creating a smart album and set a filter for "file name - contains - jpg". You then could easily select them all and delete or hide them at once... No big deal.
The better option if you use RAW+JPG in your camera is indeed to upgrade to Aperture. Aperture uses in fact the same database as iPhoto, so you can use both apps on the same photo library and the upgrade is instant.
I'm using Aperture since many years and my Library is rather large (more than 50'000 pictures from all sorts of sources (digi cams, SLRs, negative scanners of many brands). There have been versions of Aperture that had some minor bugs, but I have never lost data or suffered from any serious performance issues or instabilities....
What I would do is the following:
Create a smart album containing all JPEGs... then use a color code (ex Red) so that they are easily identifiable.
Next, Go into the projects (or events in iPhoto) and show photos by name or date.
Then look through the photos, and if you see duplicates... then delete the ones with the "red" color code.
When done, go back to your smart album, remove the color red, and delete the smart album.
/Jim
it's simple: sort by file type then select and delete all the JPG files. Or in the terminal "rm *jpg".
That is fine if you want to get rid of all jpg pictures. However, if you have any that you want to keep (ex: I have 10's of thousands of pre-dslr JPEGs) that are the only originals.
That is why I suggested using a color code to identify the jpegs... then scroll through looking for dups, and have a color code to help make the correct choice.
/Jim
Good idea. I'll try that. Thanks!
About the other suggestions, the idea is to remove duplicates only, not all my photos in JPEG.
I don't have any further suggestions, other than that flynz4 usually gives good advice, and I too would have suggested using Smart Albums to help sort things out. I don't think there is a magic bullet solution... but using the Smart Album will really speed things up.
By way of explanation, however... check to see if the image file numbers are different between the JPG and RAW files. For instance.... " img3456.raw + img3457.jpg " ** If the file numbers are different, as well as the file suffix, then iPhoto has no way of 'knowing' that the 2nd is the same as the first, except by doing a bit by bit comparison of each image... which would really slow down the import process. Lightroom can be told to assume that RAW and JPG files that are side by side on import should be treated as a RAW+JPG, and to treat as one image...but it is an assumption. Doesn't help clean up your current duplicated disarray, but it really isn't iPhoto's fault.
**My camera doesn't offer the JPG+RAW shooting option, so I am assuming different file numbers. Even if my system did offer it, your camera might number the files differently and you'd need to check in any case.
By way of explanation, however... check to see if the image file numbers are different between the JPG and RAW files. For instance.... " img3456.raw + img3457.jpg " ** If the file numbers are different, as well as the file suffix, then iPhoto has no way of 'knowing' that the 2nd is the same as the first, except by doing a bit by bit comparison of each image... which would really slow down the import process. Lightroom can be told to assume that RAW and JPG files that are side by side on import should be treated as a RAW+JPG, and to treat as one image...but it is an assumption. Doesn't help clean up your current duplicated disarray, but it really isn't iPhoto's fault.
**My camera doesn't offer the JPG+RAW shooting option, so I am assuming different file numbers. Even if my system did offer it, your camera might number the files differently and you'd need to check in any case.
Both my Sony NEX-7 and my Nikon D7000 number the photos the same.
Personally, I do not worry about the extra size of the JPEGs. If you are capturing RAW... then adding in JPEG is not significant. However, I work on an iMac, not a laptop for most of my work. My iMac is nearly infinite in capacity for all practical purposes in photography. My MBA has a 512GB SSD, so I never run into capacity issues while in the field.
I almost always import JPEG+RAW (JPEG as original). It is a trick that I learned from Boyer. The rationale is that out of camera... JPEGs almost always look better due to the good JPEG processing in modern cameras. Hence... I use that for the first steps off accept/reject, geo-tagging, keyword, rating, stacking, etc. Then, once i know which photos I want to bring into post... then I will select/all, switch masters to RAW with one simple command, and begin post processing.
The result is that I only due post processing of RAW at the end, once I know which photos are worth the effort. Everything else stays in JPEG and still look great given their relative unimportance.
/Jim
When you refer to using a color code... what do you mean specifically?
----------
My very basic Canon T3 take pictures in RAW + JPEG. If iPhoto can't handle that is due to the own app limitations.
----------
I'm trying to understand your process.
So what happen to the photos that you don't want to post process? You leave them as JPG and then delete their RAW counterparts?
And when you are done post processing your RAW photos, do you keep their JPEG counterparts?
To be honest, I don't see why would you want to keep two different versions of the same photo. You could take only RAW and still apply basic edition to those files (accept/reject, geo-tagging, etc.).
After some thought, I think I may know what is happening. iPhoto, like any DAM, is very conservative when it comes to keeping and deleting images. That is to say, if there is any possible ambiguity about whether you mean to keep or toss an image, it keeps it. And because it is likely that some people may accidentally toss the secondary JPGs, when in fact they meant to keep them (despite this being a user error, technically) iPhoto just basically keeps everything. That way you can only get rid of those JPG images if you really really mean it.
This may not be the best workflow for you personally but I think iPhoto is working as planned. I agree that it would be nice if there was a setting But iPhoto is supposed to be the cheap and basic DAM after all.
In Aperture... you can assign a color code to any photo. It is an unstructured way for you to use as an organizational tool... for however you wish to use it.
Right click on any photo and you will see the color codes.
I keep all of my pictures as both JPEG+RAW. Aperture binds the two together... never to be separated.
For sure... you want to keep the RAW... because if you ever want to do any editing... you have more latitude available to you.
Since you are capturing RAW (and will keep them)... the the size difference to additionally keep the JPEG is inconsequential. IMHO, spending any time to get rid of the JPEG is not worth any effort. The small amount of storage can be considered "free".
Personally... if I have no intention of ever editing a photo... I just keep the original in JPEG format... because with zero editing, it looks better than a RAW original.
For any photo that I want to edit... I switch the original from JPEG to RAW... and then edit.
In either case... for every picture I decide to keep (edited or not)... then I keep both JPEG+RAW.
Here is another way of looking at it. I personally have a pretty large Aperture library... at about 400GB. At today's prices... moderate sized HDDs (2-4 TB)... retail for about $40/TB. Hence... each copy of my entire Aperture library costs less than $20 in HDD space. Not worth a minute of worrying.
Bottom line: Storage is "free".
/Jim