Aperture workflow using Photoshop

All,
To those pro digital photographers out there, or anyone doing high volume and/or serious adjustments (beyond what Aperture can provide), I am interested in what the workflow looks like for those who are using both Aperture and Photoshop.
I am now in my fourth day of using Aperture, and I feel I've been brought to a crossroads of deciding whether to use Aperture at all, despite the fact that I love some of its features, and I'd like to use it. Here are the parameters acting on the situation:
1) I must have the ability to edit my RAW, original photos on open (first edit) using Adobe Camera RAW.
2) I have to have Photoshop as my image editor (for many reasons, just assume its non-negotiable).
Seems simple enough. But these things are my hurdles:
1) Inability to get at my Aperture files on the filesystem.
2) Inability to save from Photoshop directly into Aperture. This is very important if I decide to "Save As..." from Photoshop or do something like create a Picture Package which saves as a new PSD.
3) Inability to open into Camera RAW.
4) Inability to save layers in PSD files in Aperture.
I am trying to be the optimist here and keep an open mind. But honestly, if Photoshop is an integral part of your workflow, how are these obstacles not a deal-killer?
I'd like to hear from any of you who are using both Aperture and Photoshop together. What does your workflow look like?
Brad

2) Inability to save from Photoshop directly into
Aperture. This is very important if I decide to "Save
As..." from Photoshop or do something like create a
Picture Package which saves as a new PSD.
It's only a workaround rather than a proper solution, but for this bit have a look at the thread on tethered shooting, I listed the steps to set up a hot folder - any image copied or saved to that folder will automatically be imported into Aperture. There is even an option to delete the 'dropped in' file so that the folder doesn't clog up with temporary files.
Ian

Similar Messages

When I external edit an aperture photo using Photoshop Elements 9 and then get out, the changes are not reflected in Aperture when I return - this used to work for me but doesn't seem to have for some time - help please?

Have used Aperture for some time - at some point this stopped working - not sure when
workflow:
click photo and elect to use the external editor (Photoshop Elements 9)
Copy of the photo is created in Aperture with the "O" badge and I am rolled out to Photoshop
Have to change the type to 8-bit in Photoshop to start making changes
When done and I exit I am prompted to save the photo
On returning to Aperture however the "O" badged photo does not get updated/reflect my changes
Other Things:
I can find a changed photo sitting in the Aperture Library using finder or Photoshop itself - so I know changes have been made a new file saved (TIFF).
I am wondering if I am missing some (new) preference such that the changes are not proerly being saved for re-display/storage in the Aperture Library
I am running Lion OSX at the moment but the behaviour was the same under Snow Lepoard versions.
Current version of Aperture is 3.1.3, Elements is 9.0
Any help/suggestions greatfully received

Try using psd. Some rerports indicate some confustion between the apps with TIFF. See:
https://discussions.apple.com/message/15921933#15921933
I cannot confirm, nor test, since I use PS CS5, and not Elements.
Ernie

Saving to Aperture after using Photoshop as an External Editor

I'd be grateful for guidance please. I use Aperture but sometimes use the external editor (Photoshop in my case). When I have finished editing in Photoshop what is the best way to get the finished photograph back into Aperture? Do I have to do another import or is there a way to get the saved photo as another version next to the original but including the work I did in Photoshop. If it is possible I would expect this to be a flattened image (ie not preserving Photoshop layers). Thoughts and guidance would be much appreciated.

The following series of events occurs without fail in aperture 3 and CSPS4:
I place a single JPG image on desktop. Then, in aperture, I create a new project named TEST. I then import this single JPG into aperture, making the choice to store the master on the desktop, rather than in the aperture library.
The JPG image now is in aperture in the PROJECT "TEST". I then select this single image in aperture and send it to CSPS4 to edit.
I can see aperture write a new image to the project with the same name as the JPG but the suffix is now TIFF (note two "f" in this suffix). This happens as photoshop is opening and i can briefly see the TIFF file in the aperture browser before photoshop completes opening.
I then edit the "TIFF" image in photoshop (which is by now completely opened) and SAVE (not save as...) it. Since I have previously chosen 16bit TIFF in the preferences I expect to get this file with the photoshop edits in the aperture project TEST. HOWEVER, the file is written with the suffix "TIF". Note that there is only one "f" in this suffix.
Now, on my desktop I have THREE files, a JPG, a TIFF, and a TIF. Aperture shows only 2 images in the TEST project, the original JPG and the TIFF. This TIFF was written by aperture before i edited it in photoshop. Apparently my edits in photoshop are in the file IMAGE.TIF, which is not in my aperture TEST project.
This has to be a bug regarding the suffexes "TIFF" and "TIF" This would explain why my "edited" file in my aperture project TEST shows no evidence of having been edited.
This has been difficult to explain clearly but perhaps someone has noticed.
imac i7,8GB Mac OS X (10.6.2)

Workflow using photoshop elements as external editor

Hi.
I am very satisfied with aperture 3. I think it is an excellent program, and the organization of pictures are excellent. I love all the editing options as well. However I looked at some tutorials on photoshop elements 9, and really like some of the editing options there, so I am thinking of buying that program. I would like to use aperture 3 as my main photo editing program and organizing all my pictures via aperture 3. However on some pictures I would like to use elements to edit (remove unwanted persons and do on). As I understand it, i will have to set up aperture 3 so that elements will be my external editor. Will the changes I make in elements then be saved in the project library in aperture 3.
Can anyone with experience on this elaborate?

Gunfighter, how did you do it? The only options the "home" screen provides are (1) welcome screen opens on start, (2) organizer starts behind welcome screen or (3) editor starts behind welcome screen. Surprisingly, when I start Elements 9 on its own, the welcome screen doesn't show and the program immediately opens in the edit mode. However, when I'm in Aperture and go to external editor, Elements 9 immediately opens with the welcome screen and the picture never transfers from Aperture to Elements; very frustrating! Appreciate any help you can provide.

Workflow using Photoshop under Parallels Desktop

Photoshop under Parallels
As a switcher from Windows, I still have some programs only for windows, one of them being Photoshop. So if I want to do some professional retouching I have to go to windows, which I'm running under paralells Desktop.
My problem is the following:
I do not really know the best way to access the photos that are stored in the iPhoto Database under Originals or Modified.
Do you have any workflow suggestions?
Thank you!!
Macbook Mac OS X (10.4.7)

Macbook Guy:
Welcome to the Apple Discussions. If you had an external HD, formatted for PCs but one that Macs can read, Fat32 I think, you could store your photos on that drive and then use iPhoto in it's alias mode (see iPhoto's Advanced preferences section) so that the source files would be left on that external HD where Windows could access them.
However, you would not be able to move or rename the source files in either Windows or Mac's Finder. Any editing on the Windows side would be visible by iPhoto but the thumbnail in iPhoto would not represent the edit. Any edit by iPhoto would stay in iPhoto (the modified file is saved in iPhoto's library folder) and not be available to the Windows side.
I don';t know if this method would work if the source files were stored on the Windows partition as I don't know if the Mac has access to that partition when you're in OS X. It might, however, eliminating the need for an external HD. Here are some Tutorials on the alias system that might be of use to you if you go that route.
Do you Twango?

Editing using Photoshop CS4 on PC

Hi
I want to edit photos in my MacBook Aperture library using Photoshop on my PC.
Is this possible ?
Thanks

This may sound totally obvious, but you can export a .tif or .psd (or the Master) from Aperture and send it to your PC in one of a dozen ways, then edit it in Photoshop. Does that help?

Using Photoshop With Aperture-Flattens Layers

I am running into some slight issues when using Aperture 3 and Photoshop CS6.
I have used Aperture 3 for quite some time. As part of my workflow, I use Nik Software plug-ins for quite some time. In order to fully understand the issue, it would be best to understand a bit about my workflow.
After I go out and shoot the images, I download the images onto my internal drive so that the images are managed within the library.
I then proceed to rate the images. When the library is imported all the photos get one star.
I then go in and star photos that deserve a two star rating.
With these photos I take all the two stared photos and use the NIk Define plug-in to decrease the noise of the images. After this process this outputs TIFF files that are placed into my library.
I then make all these new TIFF files that have the noise lessened to three stars.
Previous to my new workflow, I would go from here utilizing the NIk plug-ins and then further rating the images.
New Workflow:
From here I enabled Adobe Photoshop CS6 is an external editor.
I would export the images I would want to work on in Photomatix Pro to my desktop. After using Photomatix, I would open up the file in Photoshop without importing into Aperture.
After all my work is done in Photoshop, I would reimport the photo back into Aperture 3.
While the file was in Aperture 3, I would reopen it in Photoshop.
The file would show as my layers being applied but not shown. I think it was a flattened image file.
What I would like to do:
Be able to reopen with Photoshop photos in my Aperture library but continue preserving the layers from Photoshop.
Would I need to save the files as PSD files in order for this to work? Any thoughts?
Anyhow for device would be appreciated.

leonieDF wrote:
Aperture does not handle layers, as far as I know. If you import an image with layers, as tiff or as psd, the layers will be preserved, but not displayed with transparency, since Aperture does only handle RGB. If you export the original (master), your layers will be preserved, but if you adjust the image in Aperture and export the edited version, then the resulting file will no longer have layers, all will be flattened.
If you Aperture only use as a database and not as editor, your approach should work, but if you want to use Aperture's editing tools and export versions, then the layers will be gone.
Sorry to revive this old thread, but I have a follow up question on exact subject...
I have run into the same issue and understand your explanation. I have confirmed that I can import a layered master to Aperture, its layers are preserved and if I export it later the layers are still there.
What I am really surprised about is that if I edit in Photoshop from Aperture, the file opens up in Photoshop, but the layers are not there. Is this right or avoidable?
Thanks

Workflow Differences - Photoshop vs Aperture

I am no expert. That said, everything that I have read or learned in forums, how-to books and other sources suggest that there is a difference in the recommended workflow when one compares Photoshop to Aperture.
Here's my contention: In Photoshop, I think one is supposed to crop, RESIZE, adjust the image, sharpen (USM) and then save (export).
In Aperture, the suggested workflow, if you follow the list in order of the Adjustment Hud, is to crop, adjust the image, edge sharpen and then export the image at a size of one's choosing.
I like the easy to follow Aperture workflow. But doesn't an image suffer somewhat if it's sharpened before being re-sized (as the last step during saving during export)?

I am no expert. That said, everything that I have
read or learned in forums, how-to books and other
sources suggest that there is a difference in the
recommended workflow when one compares Photoshop to
Aperture.
Here's my contention: In Photoshop, I think one is
supposed to crop, RESIZE, adjust the image, sharpen
(USM) and then save (export).
In Aperture, the suggested workflow, if you follow
the list in order of the Adjustment Hud, is to crop,
adjust the image, edge sharpen and then export the
image at a size of one's choosing.
I'm going to come at this at a bit of a tangent from the discussions so far....
First of all, the thing to know about the order of adjustments in the HUD (or inspector) is that they are not necessarily in the order you would work with them - instead think of that ordering as adjustment layer ordering, in that each of the steps in that list is performed on the image before the next one. As mentioned they are a lot like adjustment layers in that you can change any one at any time and all of the adjustments following will then be performed on the new, changed image - so you can for example duplicate a version and change the exposure and all of the color/shadow/sharpening adjustments are automatically re-applied based on the newly exposed image.
Another important thing to keep in mind for this discussion is that cropping does not actually change the size of the image - it reduces the number of pixels but leaves the pixels in the crop region alone. It is only on export that Aperture up or downsamples. Aperture also seems to do some sharpening on export, so that is where a resolution specific sharpening occurs. I'm not sure yet if it sharpens on upsampling or just downsampling.
I like the easy to follow Aperture workflow. But
doesn't an image suffer somewhat if it's sharpened
before being re-sized (as the last step during saving
during export)?
That's where you must carefully evaluate how much sharpening is OK to apply before you export. One possibility here is to make duplicate, unsharpened (or more mildly sharpened), versions for the intent of export at smaller sizes if it bothers you to export an already sharpened image. Or, if you want to print really large versions of images you may export a version, upscale that using something like Genuine Fractals, and then re-import that larger version for a last step of sharpening.
The key I think it to try some sample exports at the size you are thinking of and evaluate how they look after export with the settings you are thinking to apply (like sharpening).

Using Photoshop as External Editor in Aperture

I'll be switching from PC to Mac soon. I use Photoshop to do all my editing. The database mgt tool for my PC does not have a Mac version, so I'm hoping Aperture 3 will fit my needs. I now make three versions of a photo - the original, a "working" version and the final version used for prints (I sell the prints). The PC file names are the same except for CAM or WORK or FINAL added to the end of the file name. Here is what I do. I find the original version (CAM) in the database and start PS and open the file from the DB program. I make my changes in PS and do a "save as" in PS with the WORK or FINAL in the new name. The new file will be added to the DB. So, now there are 2 DB entries - the original and the final along with 2 seperate files.
From what I read, Aperture doesn't like the "Save as" in PS. If I do a "Save" in PS, won't that just update the original file? How can I save the modified version as a new file (with all layers, etc.) and have it added to Aperture?
Looking for HELP!

When You use PS from Aperture, then Aperture makes a new version (a new file) that pass to PS.
When You save from PS don't change the name, the file will be updated with all the variations made in PS (if You want, also with layers).
This file is recognized in Aperture as a new file.
In fact You have two files on disc.
If You use directly PS without pass through AP, then You have two files, but the new file (made from PS) must be imported into AP.

Using photoshop elements 12 as external editor in Aperture 3.5.1

I have been using photoshop elements 12 as external editor to resize some photos and add some refinements not available in aperture....
It look like the file I send to PE becomes HUGE but is not marked as a separate version.....there is a little mark in lower right corner..
Is this correct?normal?
It is a problem, because I am also trying to use focus stacking software and it won't stack files with huge size differences...
thanks
sailmom

oh wow!
I started with a .orf (olympus omd em1) RAW file 13.73 MB...
I just right clicked to edit in photoshop elements...
so the one beside it...is 40.51.....it does not say new version but it has the "dot" on lower right.....
so I don't understand all the intricacies of this...but I am guessing sending a file out of Aperture gets a huge file in return.....
thanks!
sailmom

Using photoshop elements with aperture

I recently purchased and installed Aperture 1.5. I have yet to import my photos. I plan on keeping my photos on an external drive. The drive is shared with a windows laptop. I have about 5k of photos. Most of the time, the edits I make will only be colour correction and cropping, so Aperture will be the software of choice. For some photos I need to manipulate backgrounds, or cut out shapes, etc and drop them into other photos. I don't believe Aperture will do this.
So I'm wondering how to handle the photos I need to use Photoshop Elements 4.0 (Windows). Can I make the background changes, cut outs, etc. in Photoshop, save the changed image on the external harddrive and then import the reference to this image into Aperture?
mac mini

It seem to me that you have two separate issues to deal with.
First, using PSE4 as editor. The whole power of Aperture is in its digital asset manager. In other words, if you edit files in PSE4, then it will need to be imported into Aperture (referenced or otherwise). While it can be stacked, it will be a separate file, whereas if a version is created within Ap, then it is not a separate master file. Nothing wrong with it as long as you know that, and are willing to live with multiple masters of the same image.
Second, sharing an external drive-based image with XP laptop. Clearly you will need to make your Ap library a referenced master library. This also means that you will have to back up the file separately from using Vault (Vault will backup your referenced previews and versions but not your master files). Do you have this connected and working now? If not, pay attention to the external disk format for compatibility issue. I have MBP and Dell desktop that shares an external drive.
All that said, did you consider creating a logical directory/folder structure on your external HDD and use the Organizer that comes with PSE/XP? It is a quite nice program and will allow for PSE editing in an integrated manner. Not sure what you are gaining by using Ap, other than stacking feature.

Integrating Nik plug-ins into an Aperture workflow

Hi. In his response to a [posted question|http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2746051&tstart=0] about noise reduction, forum guru William Lloyd spoke highly of the Nik plug-ins.
I also like them alot, but have stopped using them and don't recommend them because they do not integrate into my Aperture workflow in any usable way. The suite of plug-ins (there are six, iirc) are designed to be used step-wise -- and therein lies the problem. Because of what I take to be a glitch in Aperture, any changes made within Aperture to an image edited and returned by a plug-in are lost when that image is sent back out to another plug-in. (The work-around is klugly: you have to create a new Version prior to every use of a plug-in other than the first use.)
I love the Nik tools (and paid dear for them), but haven't been able to find the right place for them on my workbench. William -- or anyone -- how have you integrated the Nik plug-ins into your Aperture workflow?
I am considering "upgrading" my Nik suite to the Photoshop edition in order to take advantage of all the tools. I'm pretty sure used w. Photoshop, the tools create editable layers. The upgrade, however, doubles the already expensive cost of the suite (and the Aperture→Photoshop→Nik→Photoshop→Nik→Photoshop→Nik→Photoshop→Aperture trip is sure to be cumbersome).
My goal is simple: to be able to take full advantage of the Nik tools while taking full advantage of Aperture. Any advice greatly appreciated.
TIA, and cheers.

Hi. In his response to a [posted question|http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2746051&tstart=0] about noise reduction, forum guru William Lloyd spoke highly of the Nik plug-ins.
I also like them alot, but have stopped using them and don't recommend them because they do not integrate into my Aperture workflow in any usable way. The suite of plug-ins (there are six, iirc) are designed to be used step-wise -- and therein lies the problem. Because of what I take to be a glitch in Aperture, any changes made within Aperture to an image edited and returned by a plug-in are lost when that image is sent back out to another plug-in. (The work-around is klugly: you have to create a new Version prior to every use of a plug-in other than the first use.)
I love the Nik tools (and paid dear for them), but haven't been able to find the right place for them on my workbench. William -- or anyone -- how have you integrated the Nik plug-ins into your Aperture workflow?
I am considering "upgrading" my Nik suite to the Photoshop edition in order to take advantage of all the tools. I'm pretty sure used w. Photoshop, the tools create editable layers. The upgrade, however, doubles the already expensive cost of the suite (and the Aperture→Photoshop→Nik→Photoshop→Nik→Photoshop→Nik→Photoshop→Aperture trip is sure to be cumbersome).
My goal is simple: to be able to take full advantage of the Nik tools while taking full advantage of Aperture. Any advice greatly appreciated.
TIA, and cheers.

Aperture Workflow

Hi, I'm relatively new to the photography thing. I had a point-and-shoot since a few years back, but recently got more serious about it. I used to just use Photoshop's browse feature to play with photos, but I tried Aperture and I really like the features it has.
The problem I'm having is that it appears that Aperture is based on a workflow that I don't have any experience in. I import my photos into a project, but then they just kind of sit there. I know how to export them in batches and what not, but it seems like this is going to get really messy after a few more months.
I'm curious about what the professional and "serious amateur" photographers here do with their pictures after that first import. And I also haven't figured how the vault thing is supposed to work yet. Thanks!

Joe,
I'm a photo hobbyist and typically shoot a few hundred photos for each project. Here's my Aperture workflow. Remember that there's more than one way to do it! Be sure to check out the how-to articles on this site.
I mostly target web output and make occasional prints. Each of my Aperture projects corresponds to a day trip, vacation, etc. For each of those projects, I'll make a smart folder of images with one or more stars that I'll export for my web site. I have a smart folder that pulls every photo with three or more stars for a "best of" gallery.
1. Import photos into a project and use a metadata template to fill in the essentials (location, credits, etc.).
2. Make a quick pass through the photos and assign ratings. I try to mark most of them as discards.
3. Make a second pass through the remaining photos to refine ratings. I'll often use the compare/select tools to pick between similar photos at this point and may make some quick adjustments.
4. Finish entering metadata, particularly keywords.
5. Make edits as needed to the photos with one or more stars and write headlines and captions.
6. Create the smart gallery for photos with one or more stars and export them to a directory where my web authoring software can find them.
7. Create an online gallery for those images.
This hopefully gives you some ideas.
Cheers,
Andreas

Aperture, Bridge, And Photoshop Videos Online

I put these together because this stuff is so much easier to demonstrate than it is to talk about.
They are downloads, not streaming.
Be kind; public speaking is not my thing.
I hope this helps advance the discussion:
http://homepage.mac.com/frankpryor/openfiles/FileSharing95.html
fp

"You did not mention there is in fact a Redo that
will bring back each of those deleted versions, "
This is not true. You can re-open your file in
Photoshop, but all the work you just did on the file
the first time you opened it is gone.
My apologies, I had not noticed that and you are totally correct. Redo should bring back the changes but it does not, it just re-does the "open in external editor" command. That is bad.
This is an optimistic assumption. One would think
you'd notice there was a live round in the chamber so
why should there be a safety on the weapon?
Still think it an unlikely scenario within Aperture. You gave about the closest thing to a way I could see this happen (editing metadata and hitting undo when you make a mistake), but I'm not sure I've ever accidentally in the whole time I've been using computers hit "undo" more than once if I did not mean to. I just can't see many people making this mistake.
A flattened version without the functionality of
layers or the ability to leverage the work you've
already done creating layers and masks in the
previous version. NOT the same thing at all.
Not flattened, as I mentioned.
"Furthermore you neglect to mention how much space
you are using by keeping a separate PSD for each and
every one of your versions and backups."
This is a non-issue.
Actually it is, I know because I have worked the same way! It's damned annoying having to keep so many PSD files. Space is cheap but still not infinite, and the sheer pointlessness of keeping multiple PSDs with the exact same layers acorss them when all you are doing is something as simple as rotation and or cropping has always, always annoyed me long before Aperture was a gleam in Apple's eye.
Which brings up another issue you did not mention with your approach, layer synchronization. You make a PSD with a lot of layers, then you copy that and make another PSD with crop and rotation. Now you need to edit some layers (say a layer mask that was a little off) that appear in both (or perhaps three or four other versions). That *****, and has in the past artificially constrained me from making as many PSD files as I might really like to play around with variants on an image.
<...>
I'm not sure what you mean here. From within Aperture
if I duplicate a layered file the duplicate will NOT
be layered as far as Aperture is concerned.
Wrong, as the master file for that version is an exact duplicate of your PSD. Your problem (and the bug they have) is that it's not accessible to Aperture, but "as far as Aperture is concerned" it has a real copy of your real PSD.
The difference is this; if Aperture really were saving out a flattened version you would not be able to fix things with a simple software update. The way things are an update could easily change one flag and you'd be editing those duplcated versions with the layers you had stored. There is a large differenc in degree of the two possible bugs even though on the surface they appear the same.
Access to
any subsequent layered versions requires exporting a
Master and working on it outside of Aperture.
Or editing it directly in the Aperture library package, just like browsing any other directory and editing with Photoshop. Since I see no significant difference in time spent in Finder I can't see the problem.
In
point of fact the workflow is so unwieldy as to make
it much easier to do ALL of that finish-work outside
of Aperture and once it's outside I can't think of a
single compelling reason to bring it back in. I think
the vids demonstrate that.
Your vids claim that to be sure, but what I don't see is other scenarios when trips back into aperture are of use like comparing different versions you have made against one another (say different monchromatic color tones, or multiple different crops from the same image). That is why it's worth a small amount of effort to edit from within the Aperture library and maintain versions there.
Indeed if I were more suspicious I would wonder why the video on Aperture workflow makes such heavy use of the only adjustment that cannot be lifted/stamped across multiple versions.

Why aperture rather than photoshop? Please help!

Hi everybody, I have a noisy question in my mind. Today I have bought an apple pro training manual for Aperture. I work with photos, I am a photographer and today I have done my first steps into the world of aperture.
I was happy using it, learning lesson by lesson but than my friend asked me : "I do not know photographer who use Aperture. they just use Photoshop, why do you want to learn it?". I said "well...."
Now the question is : why shall I use Aperture rather than Photoshop? what does it gave me more or different than Photoshop? I know that I can easily handle RAW formats and I know the "nondestructive" thing, but...
I really would like to have an opinion from you.

rmrpix,
i have read your "5% photoshop theory" before in some
other threads, and in my (humble) opinion, this is
wrong. for me, only the combination of both, aperture
AND photoshop make it work. aperture is perfect for
managing the images etc. however before any of our
photo is used/released/printed, we run it through
photoshop. even a near perfect image can be improved.
and such changes can (to use your 95/5% theory) in
95% of the cases only be achieved with photoshop.
so for me it's the combination of both - and on a
personal note - i love aperture, but couldn't work
without photoshop.
Steebow,
Neither could I work without Photoshop, and I agree that any image, no matter how perfect, CAN be improved in Photoshop. But my point is why do that unless the image absolutely needs it? Where does a little image improvement cost too much in post-processing time and effort? Let me give you an example:
Let's say I have a shoot of 250 photos from a corporate or community event. I shoot a lot of events like golf tournaments, community and corporate functions, so that's what I'll use as my example. I recognize this size shoot (as well as the client requirements) may be far less than some posters shoot for typical weddings or other assignments, but it's still a decent batch of images.
Out of these 250 images, I might throw out 40-50 at image ingestion - they are too flawed to merit ANY post processing.
Out of the remaining 200 or so I might find 50-60% that are not "proof image quality", either because:
1) they have some flaw that is not bad enough for discard, but not good enough for "proof quality"; or
2) they are near duplicates of the same image, taken to make sure no one is blinking, or to bracket exposures, or as part of a sequence to catch a candid action/facial expression, etc.
I don't discard these images, documenting them with metadata and keeping them in Aperture for a complete record of the shoot. But I don't perform ANY post processing on them, in either Aperture or Photoshop.
The remaining 80-100 images will be submitted to the client as proofs. For proof purposes - and I make this clear to my clients - I perform ONLY global image processing - straighten the horizons, globally adjust tones and colorcast, occasionally adding a bit of highlight-shadow adjustment or sharpening (over the default Raw Fine Tuning paramaters if the image needs it.) All of this can be done quite adequately in Aperture. The proofs are submitted as low res images on contact sheets, CD/DVD, or - more and more frequently - on a private access web page. Why should I "Photoshop" the images more at this stage? What value does that add for the time expended?
A typical client for my practice is using the images for flyers, newsletters, perhaps an occasional annual report. So the client select rate is perhaps 1-in-5 to 1-in-6, possibly lower. In this example that's maybe maybe 15-25 images out of 250 taken. Many (but not all) of these client selects may require Photoshop to produce finals, depending on the clients output needs. (If they only need 1/4 page B&W images for a newsletter, I will usually do this in Aperture.) So for this type of shoot I hit Photoshop for maybe 6-10% of the original images. Even then I make extensive use of batch processing actions to minimize Photoshop "mouse time".
Everyone's business (or personal style) is different, but I'm convinced that careful workflow/digital asset management will in the end reduce, not expand Photoshop processing time. Having, like most, started out trying to "Photoshop" everything I shot, (the "After all, that is MY IMAGE and I want to make it perfect" syndrome), I learned long before Aperture was released that careful image capture, even more careful image evaluation, and always thinking about efficiency of workflow, is the best way to spend less time in front of the monitor so I can spend more time behind the camera. To me, and for my uses, that means using Photoshop when I need it and not a minute more. But YMMV.
Mike
PowerMac G5 Dual 2.0GHz, Radeon X800XT Graphics Card; MacBookPro 2.0Ghz Mac OS X (10.4.6) iMac800 and Powerbook G4 also in household

Aperture workflow using Photoshop

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for