Legacy Mac-Based Processing?

[The Rigger]

Grrrrr...
Having just shot a load of test photos in the local university's horticultural gardens, I brought the new-to-me S5 back to the house and attempted to download the shots to my rusty-trusty mid-2011 iMac running High Sierra. Lo and behold, none of my old methods that worked so well for working on Canon-based .CR2 photo files works worth a tinker's damn for these new Panasonic .RW2 files. My Photoshop Elements won't even see them, let alone open them; plugging the camera into the iMac invokes Image Capture, but the app doesn't see either SDXC card, let alone any of the JPGs and RAW files on them. I even tried connecting the camera to the iMac and linking up with Lumix Tether, which would indeed let me save a .RW2 file directly to my desktop (provided I wanted to photograph only objets within one meter of my iMac), but once there I had no way of opening them up for editing, except for my Siril astrophotography processor (NOT the optimum tool for editing flowering plants).

I'm not inclined to sell my soul to Adobe as a part of their Satan's-spawn subscription "service" for Lightroom. And I'm not about to spend another ton of money on the new Mac that's required for an OS update - my current iMac can't run anything above High Sierra. Does anyone here still work in older tools?

Maybe trading my Canon system for the Panasonic stuff was a mistake?

 

[PJD]

You're looking at a $599 US problem (or less if you buy used), assuming you have a 1080p or higher-res HDMI-capable monitor or TV lying around. That's what a brand new barebones Mac Mini costs, and a barebones Mac Mini will run CIRCLES around what your current ancient iMac hardware can do. Included with all new Macs is Apple's "Photos" software (completely compatible with files your new S5 camera creates), and which is a very nice photo editing & organizing program, and which is slated to receive many useful new features in a coming free MacOS software update. Of course, if you go this route, other software you use may need to be updated or replaced to run on current & future MacOS versions.

If you don't want to spend any money on new hardware, I just did a quick search, and there are apparently MANY free or very inexpensive conversion online services & apps available to convert .RW2 files to other formats. I haven't used any of these 3rd party converters, so YMMV.

Two years ago I replaced my 2011 MacBook Pro 17" 8GB RAM running High Sierra 10.6.8 ... with a lowly MacBook Pro 13" (Apple Silicon M1) w. 16GB RAM & a 256GB internal SSD (plus various external SDD & HDD drives I already had, connected via USB-3 & Thunderbolt). I use it with a cheap 21" Samsung 1080p TV with a HDMI input via a cheap TB3-to-HDMI hub. Still works fantastically. I run all of Apple's free "office" apps, including Photos & Preview for stills, plus 3rd party apps such as Pixelmator Pro & Affinity Photo for photos, and Davinci Resolve Studio for video.

After reading your post I fired-up my old 2011 MBP17 (it's always fun to see it still works) and it was able to read a SD card I'd saved files to using my S5 (I have a S5iiX). My old machine could open S5 JPEGs in Preview, etc., and MP4 video files in the Quicktime Player. S5iiX ProRes files require a compatible app to edit (FCP7, etc.). Again, I haven't converted .RW2 files to TIFFs etc, but I don't see any reason why those wouldn't work too.

But if there's any way you can swing getting even a basic new (or _any_ used Apple Silicon M-series) Mac, they are wonderful for photos & video (and most everything else). Cheap, quiet & fast. Cheers.

 

[CharlesH]

To get you started you can run the software SILKYPIX Developer Studio SE. This is a free program that supports RAW from all Panasonic cameras, and will run on your High Sierra. There is also a non-free version, not very expensive, with more capability. Finally there is the free Adobe DNG Converter that will run on High Sierra and can convert Panasonic RAW files to the universal DNG format that will run on your Photoshop Elements.

 

[The Rigger]

Finally there is the free Adobe DNG Converter that will run on High Sierra and can convert Panasonic RAW files to the universal DNG format that will run on your Photoshop Elements.

Thanks for the heads-up on SilkyPix. I'll give that a try. FWIW I had tried to get a legacy copy of Adobe DNG Converter, but the only downloader I was able to find required Monterey (Mac OS 12) or later. I couldn't find any version that ran in an OS 10.x.x environment.

 

[The Rigger]

But if there's any way you can swing getting even a basic new (or _any_ used Apple Silicon M-series) Mac, they are wonderful for photos & video (and most everything else). Cheap, quiet & fast. Cheers.

Thanks for your thoughts. Believe me, I was looking at the local secondhand shops for a newer iMac or Mini - one of my amateur radio rigs and also my astrophotography tools run on newer Intel Minis - but what was out there exceeded both my budget and my patience, after having spent what I spent changing over from Canon to Lumix, and I still have a lens or two on my Wish List. I had looked at GIMP and a few other tools, but they were all either more than I cared to spend or didn't work at all with Elements. Hopefully SilkyPix as CharlesH recommended will do the job. To be determined...

What OS are you running on your old MacBook? I ask because my iMac of similar vintage, running High Sierra (10.13.6), absolutely refused to open the .rw2 files in Preview. And as I said, I can't update that machine's OS any higher. The only tool I have on this machine that'll open them is Sigil, which is used for astrophotography processing, and that's FAR from optimum for anything other than it's intended puropse.

I may find myself being dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 2020s, I suppose...

 

[PJD]

Thanks for your thoughts. Believe me, I was looking at the local secondhand shops for a newer iMac or Mini - one of my amateur radio rigs and also my astrophotography tools run on newer Intel Minis - but what was out there exceeded both my budget and my patience, after having spent what I spent changing over from Canon to Lumix, and I still have a lens or two on my Wish List. I had looked at GIMP and a few other tools, but they were all either more than I cared to spend or didn't work at all with Elements. Hopefully SilkyPix as CharlesH recommended will do the job. To be determined...

What OS are you running on your old MacBook? I ask because my iMac of similar vintage, running High Sierra (10.13.6), absolutely refused to open the .rw2 files in Preview. And as I said, I can't update that machine's OS any higher. The only tool I have on this machine that'll open them is Sigil, which is used for astrophotography processing, and that's FAR from optimum for anything other than it's intended puropse.

I may find myself being dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 2020s, I suppose...

As noted above, my old MacBook Pro 17" (which I no longer use) runs MacOS High Sierra 10.8.6.

Can your amateur radio & astrophotography software (or updated versions) run on an Apple Silicon (M-series) Mac?

If you were to buy a new or used Mac, what's your budget? For example, B&H has a new (not used) M2 Mac Mini for sale for $499:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1746353-REG/apple_mmfj3ll_a_mac_mini_with_m2.html

(B&H sells many configurations, and of course Amazon and other vendors sell new & used Macs, too.)

In general I recommend against spending money on an Intel-based Mac. Apple doesn't support them, and very few software developers do either.

Again: Even the most basic M-series Apple Silicon (NOT Intel) Mac will runs circles around you current iMac. If you read my post above, my 3 year old first-generation _M1_ MBP13" _M1_ Mac is fast enough to run industrial-strength software. A slightly newer _M2_ chip Mac will be even faster.

Also: Don't feel you have to buy lots of RAM for a M-series Mac. For many applications 8 GB RAM is plenty, and 16 GB RAM is usually more than enough. There are very few exceptions. M-series Macs use RAM extremely efficiently. Spend money on the internal SSD or an external SSD (the latter is MUCH less expensive (that's what I do).

 

[Travis Butler]

I have to admit, I agree with Peter; a M-series Mac will run so much faster than a 2011 Intel Mac that it's not even funny. A couple of years ago, I had a 16" Intel MacBook Pro from work, the last generation before the M-series was released; despite being towards the upper end of the available configurations, it was smoked by my personal 13" M1 MacBook Air when running photo software.

One other app you might consider is GraphicConverter, https://www.lemkesoft.de/en/products/graphicconverter/ - it says it still runs under High Sierra, and it reads .RW2 files from my first-generation S5. (I am testing it on my Air.) I used it to add lens info to the EXIF when using adapted film lenses, before that got to be too much of a hassle.

 

[The Rigger]

The trouble is there are a couple of apps I need for work that don't run (yet) on M-series Macs. In fact upgrading my MacBook Pro from High Sierra 10.13.6 to Catalina 10.15.something-or-other broke them. The Astro stuff could be updated to run in a more modern Mac OS, and the ham radio apps run in Windows on a Bootcamp partition, so they're not a problem. But the automation stuff I pay the mortgage with is cutting-edge 2007 or so...

Re:GraphicConverter, I had clean forgotten about that. I used to run it back in the '90s... Thought it was dead and buried. I'll have to look at it again.

 

[PJD]

The trouble is there are a couple of apps I need for work that don't run (yet) on M-series Macs. In fact upgrading my MacBook Pro from High Sierra 10.13.6 to Catalina 10.15.something-or-other broke them. The Astro stuff could be updated to run in a more modern Mac OS, and the ham radio apps run in Windows on a Bootcamp partition, so they're not a problem. But the automation stuff I pay the mortgage with is cutting-edge 2007 or so...

Re:GraphicConverter, I had clean forgotten about that. I used to run it back in the '90s... Thought it was dead and buried. I'll have to look at it again.

If you can, perhaps keep your old iMac to run the “2007” software, and get a Mac Mini to run everything else.

On a related note: I vaguely remember some old iMacs could be used as external monitor for another computer. You might ask Apple if your iMac can do that for a new Mini.

 

[PJD]

...On a related note: I vaguely remember some old iMacs could be used as external monitor for another computer. You might ask Apple if your iMac can do that for a new Mini.

Apologies: Apple says no, your 2011 iMac can NOT be used as a monitor for an M-series Mac:

Use your iMac as a display with target display mode - Apple Support

Target display mode is a feature available with certain older Mac models.

support.apple.com

 

[The Rigger]

Apologies: Apple says no, your 2011 iMac can NOT be used as a monitor for an M-series Mac:

I would've been quite surprised if the Intel and Silicon CPUs talked to each other. Intel-to-Intel isn't a challenge.

 

[pdk42]

Grrrrr...
Having just shot a load of test photos in the local university's horticultural gardens, I brought the new-to-me S5 back to the house and attempted to download the shots to my rusty-trusty mid-2011 iMac running High Sierra. Lo and behold, none of my old methods that worked so well for working on Canon-based .CR2 photo files works worth a tinker's damn for these new Panasonic .RW2 files. My Photoshop Elements won't even see them, let alone open them; plugging the camera into the iMac invokes Image Capture, but the app doesn't see either SDXC card, let alone any of the JPGs and RAW files on them. I even tried connecting the camera to the iMac and linking up with Lumix Tether, which would indeed let me save a .RW2 file directly to my desktop (provided I wanted to photograph only objets within one meter of my iMac), but once there I had no way of opening them up for editing, except for my Siril astrophotography processor (NOT the optimum tool for editing flowering plants).

Yes, it's frustrating, but it's not really surprising that a very new camera isn't supported on old computer hardware and software. It is as it is !

I'm not inclined to sell my soul to Adobe as a part of their Satan's-spawn subscription "service" for Lightroom.

Setting aside whether the latest versions of LR will run on your setup, I'll just give the argument for subscription-based apps like LR:

• Software dev is expensive. And software always needs dev. New features are needed to keep the product competitive (without which the whole business model for it evaporates and it becomes obsolete); bugs needs to be fixed; new cameras need to be supported; operating system changes will require app changes; ... There's always work to do!
  
  
• The customer ultimately needs to pay for the software dev. If it isn't paid for by subscription, then it'll be paid for by the necessity to buy new versions from time to time. There's no magic bullet.
  
  
• The LR subscription model comes with other benefits such as cloud storage, a portfolio builder, mobile app (iPad), Photoshop, and syncing across the various devices.
  
  
• Adobe's track record for improving LR has been very good over the past few years. LR today is better than it was 3-4 years ago. It does more, it performs better, it supports more cameras, and it's less buggy.
  
  
• Compared to the cost of the gear, it's relatively cheap. Adobe's Photography Plan is about the same price as three Starbucks coffees a month. I don't think that's a bad investment for the power of the tools and the convenience it delivers.

Of course, you could go with open source software. Both DarkTable and RawTherapee are very good, if a little harder to use than LR and not quick as slick overall. But open source is always reliant on a pool of people prepared to invest their time for no reward. I take my hat off to them !!

And I'm not about to spend another ton of money on the new Mac that's required for an OS update - my current iMac can't run anything above High Sierra. Does anyone here still work in older tools?

At some point you'll need to upgrade your PC. Even if the hardware still does what it did when it was new, the zeitgeist of software evolution will eventually render it obsolete. Maybe seize the new camera as the opportunity to upgrade the hardware. I think you'll be amazed at the performance of a modern Mac compared to your current setup. As pointed out in an earlier post, a Mac Mini isn't too expensive and it's blisteringly fast. You'll appreciate it every time you edit a file! Life's too short to be waiting for PCs to respond!

Maybe trading my Canon system for the Panasonic stuff was a mistake?

Well, I guess that depends on lots of things. What was your motivation in the first place? For me, I ditched my Canon gear years ago in order to go mirrorless. Was your Canon gear an older SLR?

 

[Travis Butler]

• The customer ultimately needs to pay for the software dev. If it isn't paid for by subscription, then it'll be paid for by the necessity to buy new versions from time to time. There's no magic bullet.

Of course. That's fine, understandable, and I agree completely.

The difference is that when I buy new versions, I do it on my timetable, when the new features are worth the money to me. Subscription software forces me to pay even if the new features are useless to me. It also forces me to pay even when the company doesn't release new features.

• The LR subscription model comes with other benefits such as cloud storage, a portfolio builder, mobile app (iPad), Photoshop, and syncing across the various devices.

None of which makes any difference to me. I don't need a portfolio builder, I prefer software other than Photoshop, I've tried mobile editing and haven't found it useful, and I use Dropbox for cloud storage and syncing - far more useful and versatile than photo-only software and syncing.

• Adobe's track record for improving LR has been very good over the past few years. LR today is better than it was 3-4 years ago. It does more, it performs better, it supports more cameras, and it's less buggy.

I can't speak for how it is now; at the time I dropped off the Lightroom train, Adobe's track record was much worse.

• Compared to the cost of the gear, it's relatively cheap. Adobe's Photography Plan is about the same price as three Starbucks coffees a month. I don't think that's a bad investment for the power of the tools and the convenience it delivers.

Eh. I've had too much experience with subscriptions raising prices to have any confidence this will continue to hold true.

And that gets to the root of my problem with subscription software - it turns you into a captive audience. Once you agree to the subscription train, you have to keep paying to retain access to your work. If you decide to stop paying, say goodbye to your edits; last I heard, LR does let you access your catalog in read-only mode if you cancel the subscription, but you can't actually do anything with all the work you've created. I've lost track of the number of times I've gone back to a photo a few months later and realized I could make it better with a few tweaks, so this is unacceptable for me.

I'd lose most of my resistance to subscription software if they had a 'convert to standalone' option - at any point, if you decide to get off the subscription train, you could pay a reasonable fixed price, around what a major version upgrade would cost, and get a full unlocked version no longer eligible for feature updates (at least unless you resubscribe). But Adobe doesn't offer that.

 

[The Rigger]

Setting aside whether the latest versions of LR will run on your setup, I'll just give the argument for subscription-based apps like LR:

• Software dev is expensive. And software always needs dev. New features are needed to keep the product competitive (without which the whole business model for it evaporates and it becomes obsolete); bugs needs to be fixed; new cameras need to be supported; operating system changes will require app changes; ... There's always work to do!
  
  
• The customer ultimately needs to pay for the software dev. If it isn't paid for by subscription, then it'll be paid for by the necessity to buy new versions from time to time. There's no magic bullet.

No argumant there, regarding development costing money, however a long time ago, back when dinosaurs ruled the Earth and early humans carved their RAW files out of solid stone, back in the dark ages when developers actually sold software licenses instead of renting them out, I paid well over us$1,000 for a full copy of Photoshop... And I'm talking about REAL 'Murrican Dollars here, not the play-money "Dollars" we're shoveling around these days.

And when that version stopped working, and Adobe expected me to shovel out another pretty large-ish chunk of loot for the "upgrade," I decided I'd go to Photoshop Elements instead; it did roughly 90% of what I needed PS to do, and my needs had changed by that point - I was stitching panoramas like a demon before then, but that job changed, and thus did my requirements. So there went another hundred bucks, but that's a pittance compared to what Adobe wanted for a full PS upgrade, in my mind the loss of ~5% of the functionality (and having to relearn a few keyboard command layouts) was a fair trade for saving a Ton-o-Bucks. And then some bright spark came up with the Subscription model, so that [*insert software company name here*] could keep milking their customer base on a regular basis AND NOT DO MUCH OF ANYTHING TO EARN IT, as far as I can see. You pay your monthly tax, and they either keep upgrading your stuff, or they don't; it's not like you have much to say about it.

At some point you'll need to upgrade your PC. Even if the hardware still does what it did when it was new, the zeitgeist of software evolution will eventually render it obsolete. Maybe seize the new camera as the opportunity to upgrade the hardware.

Maybe so, but I don't have an unlimited budget, nor do I have a printing press in the basement to print up a few more thousand-dollar bills as needs arise. That's why I bought the S5 system used from MPB and KEH, and not new from B&H or Norman. A new-to-me Macintosh simply is not in the cards right now, whether I like it or not (hint: I don't).

Well, I guess that depends on lots of things. What was your motivation in the first place? For me, I ditched my Canon gear years ago in order to go mirrorless. Was your Canon gear an older SLR?

5D mkII, plus an assortment of very nice Canon L-series glass. Older, but not all that old, and still a capable machine, but I've kinda drifted sideways into astrophotography and the 5D's sensor, while impressive, has some pixel pitch & read noise issues that made the Lumix look pretty attractive. I shot the April total eclipse on the 5D, and the finished stacked images came out great in spite of the Canon, not because of it. And with a hugh-arse target like Old Sol giving me that much grief, I can't even imagine trying to de-noise anything as faint as an emission nebula a million light-years distant. So I finally yielded to all my compadres who've been laughing at me for the past few years for using one of those primitive cameras with an actual mirror inside it, of all fool things.

...And that's what brings me here.

 

[CharlesH]

You pay your monthly tax, and they either keep upgrading your stuff, or they don't; it's not like you have much to say about it.

...And that's what brings me here.

I respect that, and I hope we can help in any way. I did steer you wrong about Adobe DNG Converter - sorry about that, I read the specs wrong. I hope you've had a chance to try SILKYPIX Developer Studio SE. It should run on your Mac, it should open your S5 RAW files, and it can be used to convert those files to 16 bit TIFF files that will run on your iMac with High Sierra. And it can do batch conversion of these files. Here you can edit these RAWs to your heart's content. Maybe not, I don't have a Mac with High Sierra anymore to check this, but the specs I see indicate it should work okay. In SILKYPIX choose <File><Develop>. Here are the conversion settings I've used. Let us know if this helps.

 

[The Rigger]

Actually, Charles, the Silkypix appears to be pretty useful at first blush, albeit only semi-intuitive after a millenium in the Photoshop trenches. A bit of a learning curve, but it won't be the first time, nor I expect the last. Hell, none of us was born knowing how this stuff works, right? But it'll do what I need it to, and you sure can't kvetch about the cost of admission... At least the learning curve isn't a learning cliff I'm about to fall off.

Thanks again!

 

[pdk42]

No argumant there, regarding development costing money, however a long time ago, back when dinosaurs ruled the Earth and early humans carved their RAW files out of solid stone, back in the dark ages when developers actually sold software licenses instead of renting them out, I paid well over us$1,000 for a full copy of Photoshop... And I'm talking about REAL 'Murrican Dollars here, not the play-money "Dollars" we're shoveling around these days.

And when that version stopped working, and Adobe expected me to shovel out another pretty large-ish chunk of loot for the "upgrade," I decided I'd go to Photoshop Elements instead; it did roughly 90% of what I needed PS to do, and my needs had changed by that point - I was stitching panoramas like a demon before then, but that job changed, and thus did my requirements. So there went another hundred bucks, but that's a pittance compared to what Adobe wanted for a full PS upgrade, in my mind the loss of ~5% of the functionality (and having to relearn a few keyboard command layouts) was a fair trade for saving a Ton-o-Bucks. And then some bright spark came up with the Subscription model, so that [*insert software company name here*] could keep milking their customer base on a regular basis AND NOT DO MUCH OF ANYTHING TO EARN IT, as far as I can see. You pay your monthly tax, and they either keep upgrading your stuff, or they don't; it's not like you have much to say about it.


Maybe so, but I don't have an unlimited budget, nor do I have a printing press in the basement to print up a few more thousand-dollar bills as needs arise. That's why I bought the S5 system used from MPB and KEH, and not new from B&H or Norman. A new-to-me Macintosh simply is not in the cards right now, whether I like it or not (hint: I don't).

I respect all that. I was just trying to put the case for the defence ! For me, I'm OK paying £10 a month for the Adobe sub - I pay more for Netflix and Spotify and I resent them both more!

5D mkII, plus an assortment of very nice Canon L-series glass. Older, but not all that old, and still a capable machine, but I've kinda drifted sideways into astrophotography and the 5D's sensor, while impressive, has some pixel pitch & read noise issues that made the Lumix look pretty attractive. I shot the April total eclipse on the 5D, and the finished stacked images came out great in spite of the Canon, not because of it. And with a hugh-arse target like Old Sol giving me that much grief, I can't even imagine trying to de-noise anything as faint as an emission nebula a million light-years distant. So I finally yielded to all my compadres who've been laughing at me for the past few years for using one of those primitive cameras with an actual mirror inside it, of all fool things.

...And that's what brings me here.

I had a 5Dii back in my Canon days and it delivered some fine images. My main motivation for moving was to go mirrorless, and go smaller (I bought into m43). My nephew is big into astro and he still uses Canon - mostly a 6D but also his 7D and gets good results. I guess it's all about using the kit you have and knowing how to work around its limitations. But the 5Dii sensor is a little noisy. I found the 16Mp Sony m43 sensor was no worse (and even slightly better) at shadow pushing than the Canon sensor.

 

[Pete_W]

I pay more for Netflix and Spotify and I resent them both more!

Agreed. We have too many... Netflix, Prime, Paramount Plus, Apple Plus, Britbox, Foxtel.

 

[Nevyn72]

Agreed. We have too many... Netflix, Prime, Paramount Plus, Apple Plus, Britbox, Foxtel.

Same Here: Netflix, Prime, HBO Max, Youtube Premium, Videoland (dutch), Disney, Spotify...

For me Youtube and Spotify is enough, but wifey wants also the rest and I cannot complain ofcourse.... With all my gear purchases ;-)

 

[The Rigger]

I had a 5Dii back in my Canon days and it delivered some fine images. My main motivation for moving was to go mirrorless, and go smaller

I can relate to that. The S5 is MUCH less of a load on its mount than my 5D2 was, even when using the Sigma 135mm Art lens, which seems as though it was constructed out of lead - I'm using a Skywatcher Star Adventurer GTi mount, that has a payload limit of 11 Lbs (4.9Kg).

But I primarily went for the sensor upgrade. The S5's pixel pitch is tighter than the Canon's, down from 6.41um to 5.94um, and it's got a much lower read noise level over a much wider ISO range, and runs quite a bit cooler under prolonged operation. There are a few other factors that enticed me away from Club Canon, and as I said, I did run the 5DII for a good long time with excellent results - I have a bunch of theatre interior panoramas shot from the stage, a "performer's-eye view" collection, as it were - but that was another lifetime and a different sort of photography.