645 PRO could be a "game changer" for many iPhone photographers
Sunday, April 15, 2012 at 9:25AM | Editor 
Following on from my last post, and developer Mike Hardaker being unfairly criticised over his use of the word "RAW" in 645 PRO's pre release description, I decided to take the final release candidate for a spin today, and here are my thoughts on this new (yet to be released/approved) app.
Before I start, I'm going to say one thing, and that is, "for me 645 PRO is a game changer", and an app that any serious photographer using an iPhone will want to own and use. I can hear many of you asking "why?" Well read on, and hopefully you'll see why, and agree with me.
The App
645 PRO offers 5 different film formats from square 6x6 to a panoramic 6x17, 7 live view film effects (4 colour and 3 black and white), focus, exposure and white balance locks, spot and average exposure metering, self timer, level indicator, grid and flash on/off options. Once configured (and you will need to read the manual), like Mike's other apps 6x6 and 6x7, 645 PRO is easy to use, with a well laid out UI, and with all film and format types/styles, produces excellent results.
The Hype
Many blogs (including the iPhoneography blog) may have hyped up the use of the term RAW in the apps description, and many commenters have criticised the use of this word. Now I'm not going to comment or pass any judgment on whether the use of the ward RAW in the description is right or wrong, or misleading, but what I will say, and as the photos below show, is the apps ability to capture unfiltered "raw data" is a "game changer".
Shooting JPEG +RAW
Whether you choose to shoot with one of the colour or black and white film stocks, if you choose to shoot with the RAW option enabled, then the app will save a standard JPEG version to the camera roll, and a raw, unfiltered version (TIFF format) to the apps internal documents folder. Whilst this copy of the photo can't be accessed or editing on the iPhone, it can be copied via iTunes to your Mac or PC for editing with a desktop application. Whilst some may ask "what's the point of this?", it becomes very clear when you take a black and white photo, as the app saves a high quality, colour "unfiltered" "raw" version, that you can use later, if/when wanted. Whilst this feature won't be for everyone, for me it is the "game changer" I keep mentioning.
Below are 3 sample shoots all taken with 645 PRO, using the 6x17 panoramic film back (with Schneider iPro wide-angle lens attached), and with JPEG +RAW enabled. The first photo was taken with one of the black and white film stocks, the second image is the unfiltered raw version, and the final image is the unfiltered raw TIFF version processed through Snapseed for Mac OSX, and saved back as a JPEG.
Final Thoughts
If 645 PRO gets approved by Apple (and I sincerely hope it does), then many serious photographers will find the apps ability to save a "raw unfiltered photo" (not to be confused with RAW file format) a god send. Whilst I think this is the single most important feature, the apps others advanced features and UI should not be forgotten, as this truely is a great app.
645 PRO in Discussion, Mini App Review
Reader Comments (30)
I can see how the use of the term RAW can be misleading but I can see the otherwise of the argument too, if you read the explanaition on the app's web site all becomes clear.
Fingers crossed it'll be out soon, any ideas on price?
The Pro 645 app has excited me more than any camera app yet. To regain all that control is huge to me and I'm sitting on the edge of my seat waiting and hoping it gets approved. As for the "RAW" .... I think that's awesome to be able to save a JPEG and "RAW" to download to my Mac .... wow .... I get to play with an image on my iPhone or iPad and also on my Mac ... it just doesn't get any better than that!
Thank you Mike for creating this app and Thank You Glyn for bringing it to light and reviewing.
So what really makes this "raw" TIFF a game changer?
This app clearly isn't going to be for everyone, but it is the app for me.
This app doesn't shoot RAW. They're misusing the word, using it more in the sense of a raw vegetable than a RAW file format. And, yes, that is one aspect of what a RAW file is, but that's only one part of it. Without the other capabilities of what IS a RAW file, one does not get RAW.
If Nikon or Canon released a camera that claimed to shoot RAW but only gave unedited TIFFs, they'd be laughed out of business.
RAW is a specific file format, not just an untouched file. While I wouldn't expect most people to know that, I would expect photographers who own DSLRs to know that, and I certainly would expect such misrepresentations to have been corrected through the beta stages of app development. Perhaps the developers weren't lying but, rather, they simply didn't know better? Doubtful, but perhaps. At this point, it's clear that they do know better but are intentionally choosing to misrepresent the app's capabilities. That's a shame since it does look to be a really good app. But it's a really good app by developers who choose to intentionally misrepresent what the app can do because they know the term RAW will be a big draw.
Like I said, this may be a great app, but they're intentionally misrepresenting its capabilities. I have a hard time trusting a developer who would do that.
"No" amount "of quotes" change what "RAW" actually "means" in terms of "photography."
I'd be curious to know this as well. I've always thought Save Original was a brilliant idea. What's different here other than that it's a TIFF instead of a jpeg?
The developers really should just say "unprocessed original."
And, I've been trying to stay out of this, but...
RAW is not "a specific file format" but a really very broad concept that involves (among many other things) many dozens - and probably hundreds - of specific file formats and many wildly different types of image data.
The term seemed the most appropriate for what we are doing, in the context of "RAW image data", as distinct from image data that has been subject to 1) lossy JPEG compression and 2) potentially other processing in addition to *that which is native to the camera hardware/firmware*. We are very clear that we are not creating "Camera RAW format files", but do feel that "RAW image data" is the most concise, accurate and descriptive term to use for the data we are saving, and fundamentally consistent with the many, many ways in which RAW is used in the image-processing industry, particularly in the context of an iPhone app using data from an iPhone image sensor.
Some disagree with that decision (and some, clearly, feel extremely strongly about the matter). They feel that the term "RAW" should only be used in a much narrower context. And it's very difficult to say that they're wrong because, to them, it does indeed have that narrow meaning (even if, to plenty of others, it does not).
We're not trying to mislead anybody or misrepresent anything and we don't - to be honest - think we really are, since we're very clear about what we're doing (and pitching to the sort of audience that is likely to read spec sheets *very* carefully).
One thing is pretty clear: the (few) people that have complained about our use of the word RAW are not in any way misled, but simply angry that we are using a word in a way with which they disagree.
So it's not about "lying" but, rather, the use of a word - or even a form of capitalisation - that some believe should have a very narrow meaning (making our use of it illegitimate), but we and others understand to have a rather broader one (making the converse true).
We will, of course, revisit our terminology - along with everything else - when we have rather more feedback post-launch.
What Mike is trying to explain by his app's raw or RAW is simply photo files that are not subjected to compression. As we can see, compression helps make photo files smaller and more efficient to use. If iOS doesn't have compression, it would take a much longer time for iphoneography to become what it is now. If YouTube is all HD, it wouldnt become popular as it is now because it is not economical to begin with it.
It's not like our standard JPEGs suck, only that the raw TIFF files are better because it is untouched. Yeah, on a note, TIFF are worse because it is larger but that's the price for inorganic optics.
It's all about having options. Another example I can think of is photo burst vs video extract. Would you rather record a 1080p video at 30 FPS and extract the desired frames or take super fast stills at the same pixel count like video (but lower than normal resolution) with comparable FPS? Who cares, they are almost the same--yeah maybe, but in stills, JPEGs are intercoded while in video frames, they are intracoded.
So yeah, don't think that JPEGs suck, but only TIFFs are better--in a way. ;-)
T'was my thought whilst I pondered as well.
Not sure how your comment regarding the legitimate use of "whilst" is relevant to the subject matter. You may find it irksome, but, as Mr. Evans points out, it's his blog. I used to point out and gain self-satisfaction from other people's grammatical variations and misspellings but realised it was an ego thing to feel so personally on matters that really are none of my concern. All the best.
This app gives you options and choices, and is up to the individual to take advantage of or not.
These are then blended to create the standard bitmaps with the interpreted colors for each pixel.
This software does not create RAW files. The Bayesian pattern has already been interpolated in a lossy fashion to create the TIFF.
In my opinion, this is a blatant deception.