Sharpening export workflow question

I have a sharpening workflow question. Say I have pictures from a portrait session I just finished. I have to send 10 pictures the client ordered to a print lab and I also will make some small facebook sized pictures and upload them to my business facebook page. The level of sharpening needed for large prints (I upload to print lab as RGB JPEGS) and sharpening needed for the very small sRGB facebook-sized pictures is different. In Lightroom I have the option to set the sharpening on export and have a bunch of presets that alter the export size, color space, sharpening, etc(WHCC print lab, facebook, Client CD, etc). I don't see how to do that in Aperture. I see they have the option if you have a printer, but not on normal export.
For those of you that have to export batches of pictures in multiple different sizes (with different levels of sharpening), what is your workflow? I could use some photoshop droplets/actions after Aperture export but I was hoping there was a way to avoid the extra step. Am I overlooking an export feature? The BorderFX plug-in looks like the only other option.
Thank you in advance for time and help!
Scott

Frank Scallo Jr wrote:
The thing is guys - Once a file is sized down it WILL lose sharpening - what we are doing is sharpening the full size RAW file or rather what the full size output would be like. Once we export a version sized down it will lose some of the 'bite'. LR has sharpening options on 'output' which is not only smart but a necessity. Adobe realizes that output for screen needs another sharpen. Apple either doesn't know or didn't bother. It makes ANY output for screen less than best.
Bear in mind that there seem to be two separate issues going on here - sharpening adjustments not being applied on export, and resizing.
As far as resizing is concerned, Aperture appears to use something roughly equivalent to Photoshop's Bicubic Sharper setting. Because of this I've never had much problem with Aperture's exports when used for the web, but obviously everyone's taste for sharpening differs which is why an option for output sharpening would be good.
Sharpening adjustments not being applied on export is a separate issue and should be reported via the feedback form ASAP by everyone who is experiencing the bug.
Now printing is another animal - I wouldn't print directly from RAW in aperture either if I'm printing small. Again, LR beats Aperture here as well since they include output sharpening for print.
Aperture has had output sharpening for printing since 2.0 came out (unless it in was 1.5). In A3 you need to turn on 'More Options' and scroll down, I can't remember where it is in A2. I don't know how effective it is as I print via a lab, but it's there and it's been there for a long time...
Ian

Similar Messages

Simple import/export workflow question

I don't use LR myself but I'm trying to plan out what I thought might be a fairly simple workflow for a photographer to get lightroom to spit out watermarked images at a certain size ready to upload via ftp to his website.
So far I have discovered that Lightroom does not offer simple ftp upload, it always wants to create a gallery of some sort whereas I just want an image dump into a folder on the server.
Secondly, if I try to export files to a folder on my Mac there's no way of getting them watermarked.
Anyone here fancy some simple step by step advice?
thanks
A

I also have a MAC and the interface is the same (the locations of the apps are obviously different). It may be that I use LR/Mogrify in this case rather than LR2/Mogrify as I have both installed and mix and match modules from the two plug ins (both work with LR2 on windows and OSX). I have been mixing and matching the modules from the two plug ins for so long I don't actually know which is which! Try installing LR/Mogrify as well as LR2/Mogrify and see.

RED Workflow questions with Mac Pro (including third party plugins)

Hello all,
I’ve been searching many forums for the better part of a day trying to get some workflow questions sorted. I’m experiencing (very) slow export times, and mediocre playback for a machine that should be screaming fast.
Here is what I’m working with:
2014 Mac Pro
-2.7 GHz 12-core intel xeon E5
-64GB Ram
-Dual AMD FirePro D700 6GB
-1TB Flash Storage
Editing all footage off 96TB Raid 6 mini-sas server (getting about 1100mbs read/write rate according to AJA system test) which is faster than any Thunderbolt/TB2 drive array I have.
Media I work with is footage from the RED Epic (normally 5K) as well as DSLR footage from the 5d.
Software:
-PrPro CC 2014 (8.1)
-Magic Bullet Looks 2.5.2
My question(s) pertains to RED post-pro workflow in combination with third party plug-ins and the different approaches to make it more efficient.
Right now, majority of the clients need a 1080p HD master, and they are generally anywhere from 2-8 minutes (usually). So my sequence settings are as follows:
Video:
Editing Mode: RED Cinema
Size: 1920 x 1080
Audio: 48Hz
Video Previews
Preview File Format: I-Frame Only MPEG
Codec: MPEG I-Frame
1920x1080
Maximum Bit Depth unchecked
Maximum Render Quality unchecked
Composite in Linear Color checked
Export Settings
H.264
1920x1080
VBR 1 pass
Target Bitrate 12mbs
Max bitrate 12mbs
Maximum render quality/depth/previews unchecked
Issues I have:
-Playback is fine at 1/2 or even full, but once effects (especially magic bullet looks) start to go on the clips, it’s very choppy and has difficult playback at 1/4
-Export times (especially with magic bullet looks) will take the better part of 1-4 hours for a video that is 3-6 minutes long. This doesn’t seem like it should be the case for a maxed out MacPro
So my questions are:
Do these seem like the right sequence/export settings for mastering at 1080p? If not, what would you suggest?
Would using offline editing help at all?
Do you place your effects on adjustment layers?
Is there anyway to improve export settings when using an array of filters?
Have you stopped using third party plugins for their inefficiency in unreliability and switched to more integrated applications like SpeedGrade?
Is there any other tweaks that you would suggest for RED workflow with PrPro?
Should I consider switching to FCPX or (besides the iMovie-likeness) does it carry problems of its own?

Hi This Is Ironclad,
thisisironclad wrote:
Hello all,
I’ve been searching many forums for the better part of a day trying to get some workflow questions sorted. I’m experiencing (very) slow export times, and mediocre playback for a machine that should be screaming fast.
The biggest issue is that most people have is that updating OS X causes certain folders to be set to Read Only. See this blog post: Premiere Pro CC, CC 2014, or 2014.1 freezing on startup or crashing while working (Mac OS X 10.9, and later).
thisisironclad wrote:
Hello all,
I’ve been searching many forums for the better part of a day trying to get some workflow questions sorted. I’m experiencing (very) slow export times, and mediocre playback for a machine that should be screaming fast.
Here is what I’m working with:
2014 Mac Pro
-2.7 GHz 12-core intel xeon E5
-64GB Ram
-Dual AMD FirePro D700 6GB
-1TB Flash Storage
It's a nice base system. How about an additional speedy disk for media cache files. You also did not mention which version of OS X you are running.
thisisironclad wrote:
Software:
-Magic Bullet Looks 2.5.2
The Red Giant website does not indicate that this software is yet updated to work with Premiere Pro CC 2014.1 (8.1). Proceed with caution here.
thisisironclad wrote:
Issues I have:
-Playback is fine at 1/2 or even full, but once effects (especially magic bullet looks) start to go on the clips, it’s very choppy and has difficult playback at 1/4
I would not use this plug-in until you get the OK from the manufacturer.
thisisironclad wrote:
-Export times (especially with magic bullet looks) will take the better part of 1-4 hours for a video that is 3-6 minutes long. This doesn’t seem like it should be the case for a maxed out MacPro
Again, I suspect your plug-in.
Keep in mind that exports are largely CPU based but you can make sure that GPU acceleration is enabled for AME at the bottom of the Queue panel.
thisisironclad wrote:
So my questions are:
Do these seem like the right sequence/export settings for mastering at 1080p? If not, what would you suggest?
It's OK.
thisisironclad wrote:
Would using offline editing help at all?
No need when you should be able to edit natively. Relinking might also be an issue.
thisisironclad wrote:
Do you place your effects on adjustment layers?
That's one way you can do it with the benefit of being more organized.
thisisironclad wrote:
Have you stopped using third party plugins for their inefficiency in unreliability and switched to more integrated applications like SpeedGrade?
I do. Of course, that's a preference.
thisisironclad wrote:
Is there any other tweaks that you would suggest for RED workflow with PrPro?
Try the following:
Sign out from Creative Cloud, restart Premiere Pro, then sign in
Update any GPU drivers
Trash preferences
Ensure Adobe preference files are set to read/write(Hopefully you checked this out already)
Delete media cache
Remove plug-ins
If you have AMD GPUs, make sure CUDA is not installed
Repair permissions
Disconnect any third party hardware
If you have a CUDA GPU, ensure that the Mercury Playback Engine is set to CUDA, not OpenCLYou have AMD GPUs.
Disable App Nap
Reboot
thisisironclad wrote:
Should I consider switching to FCPX or (besides the iMovie-likeness) does it carry problems of its own?
I really shouldn't answer that question.
Hope this helps.
Thanks,
Kevin

Yet Another Workflow Question

Ok I too, like many others here, am new to the Mac (thanks to Apple's I'm a Mac, I'm a PC ads that my wife couldn't get enough of). I have done some searching around and I see that there are quite a few iMovie workflow questions out there. I have not quite found what I am looking for however, so I thought I would make my first post tonight. So here it goes...
I have 3 different ways I capture video:
1. Canon Vixia HF10 (HD)
2. Canon Powershot (SD)
3. Blackberry Storm (SD...I know it isn't a good phone)
I record everything to SD cards. I am wanting to know the best way to store my raw video for editing at any time. Do I copy the AVCHD file structure (for the Vixia) and .avi files (for the other non HD) to my hdd, or do I just import into iMovie '09 and let it reside there, or both? I noticed that iMovie had an archival option (which appears to just copy the AVCHD structure to my hdd), which is why I ask. I want to always keep my raw video in case I decide to go back later and create a new video.
After I have the raw video archived, I would like to know the best way to use iMovie. Depending on where I end up storing the raw video, should I keep the imported video in iMovie once I am finished with a project, and then reimport it at a later date if need be? Or, do I leave it in iMovie as events? I guess this all rely depends on the first question...where do I store the raw video for archival purposes...
Finally, when exporting my iMovie project, should I store that in more of a, pardon the Windows reference, "My Videos" folder with a original size, web optimized size, and ipod optimized size? Thus, keeping the actual exported version of the project separate from the raw video?
I hope I have asked the right questions here. I appreciate any and all help I can get!
Ron

Welcome Ron to the  iMovie boards..
very interesting : 'switchers' care sooo much for 'storage strategies' ..
the by Apple intended workflow/concept for iApps is:
any 'photocam' related material (still or movin') comes-in via iPhoto, and is stored in an iP Library (=you can tell iP to create 2/many Libs, if you prefer to organize manually....)
any 'camcorder' related material HAS to be imported by iM - why? because, iM has some internal routines to make such material editable (codecs, thumnails, stuff....). the same material as 'file by Finder' does not import.. in most cases!
storage..
iP stores in its Library (local/internal HDD and/or ext. HDD)
iM stores in Events (local/internal HDD and/or ext. HDD)
to make Projects/Albums accessible to any iApp, you should keep your fingers off that structure.
Erasing Events 'kills' projects.
allthough, once 'shared to media browser' there's a 'copy' of your project WITHIN the project file. (= the socalled Media Browser is no single Folder somewhere hidden in the system)
there's this Spacesaver feature to erase any Event content which is not in use in any project to keep Events lean.
use the Archive feature from within iM to keep things easy and convenient.. if you miss a single file of the SDcard file-structure, the whole card's content is kaputt ..
summary:
• use iApps as intended.
• use iP for cameras, it stores 'raws' (the avi too)
• use iM for camcorders, use Archive to store raws..
• purchase a dozend of HDDs to store your material..

How to Pass BAPIPWD from Export workflow in Web Services Connector MA

Hello,
I need to export users from FIM to SAP using web services connector. I have created Export Work flow and added the values like user name , first name, last name and etc. I couldnt set the value for password because the data type is BAPIPWD. Could you please
tell me how to create a user in SAP from FIM using Export Workflow and how to pass the password parameter.
Thanks,
Nallasivan

Hi you can add parameters to your FPM application and launch the aplication from POWL action.
Insder FPM, using FPM parameters you can access these varaibles inside your local webdynpro component.
Regards
Ravi

Exporting Each question to LMS

Hello,
Is there a way that we can export each question within a
captivate presentation to a LMS system. I do know that we can
export the results pass/fail etc.. Our issue is that we can't view
the errors in the questions or be able to review the problems with
our learners. Any help would be great
Thank you
Sergio

You can set Captivate to report Interactions and Score instead of just Score.
But whether you can dig down in the LMS reporting to find out how many users chose a particular answer depends entirely on the capabilities of your LMS. So allow it, most don't. You might need to get a special report created for your LMS that queries the database and digs out such info.

Sharpen in "workflow options" and "Detail" tab

how does the sharpen within workflow options relate to the sharpening applied within the detail pane?
Does one override the other or would the sharpening be additive?
thanks.

>I probably would never use the workflow settings, especially since they are not well defined settings, and I assume for "general" office work...
In my opinion, the workflow options for output sharpening in ACR are rather awkward to use. One advantage of parametric editing is that the edits are stored in the ACR database or in the XMP file in a compact form without the necessity of large and possibly multilayered TIFF files. After making the required edits, one has repurposable masterfile that can be used for derivative images.
However, when one uses the ACR output sharpening, the dimensions of the image and the resolution must be determined in advance. One then has an output file that is suitable only for printing that specific image, and repurposibility is lost.
Furthermore, the output sharpening in ACR requires the setting of the resolution in pixels per inch. When printing to a relatively large output size, one usually renders the image at the native resolution of the camera and then sets the image dimensions of the picture without resampling. In the ACR workflow one must manually calculate the needed output resolution from the intended output size in inches and the native resolution of the camera in pixels.
For example, if one is using a Nikon D3 camera with a resolution of 2832 x 4256 pixels and wants to print on super B paper with a short axis dimension 12.5 inches, it is necessary to predetermine the required resolution in pixels per inch by dividing 2832 by 12.5 to obtain the needed resolution of 227 pixels per inch. One enters this value in the ACR dialog box.The result is an image that is suitable only for printing at that size.
Personally, I would prefer to use ACR to make a repurposable masterfile which can later be resized and output sharpened as necessary. Currently, I use PKSharpener for this purpose.
It would be nice to be able to store several possible output options in the XMP file or database, and this is currently not possible. For example, one might want to store settings for 8 by 10 or 11 x 14 inch prints.

Lightroom to Photoshop CC noise/sharpening workflow question

Most of my images I process 100% in Lightroom. HOWEVER, I do at times need to send and image from Lightroom over to Photoshop CC to finish. Then when finished in CC the image goes back to Lightroom 5 as a TIFF. My question is should I apply sharpening and noise reduction in LR5 prior to sending the image to CC? Or should I apply sharpening and noise reduction after the end of the round trip to CC and back when the image arrives back in LR5 as a TIFF. And yes I have tried a number of different ways. I have tried sending the same image from LR5 with sharpening and NR applied as I would if I were finished. I have sent the same image over to CC with just the default sharpen and noise settings AND I have zeroed out the settings. I sent all images to CC as 16bit TIFF. I tried those various ways and have gotten mixed results. So I was looking for someone with expertise as to what the best procedure is to take when using this workflow.

Getting mixed results is normal as it depends on the initial image and what happens in PS. If you’re changing the overall toning or local contrast in PS then the noise will be different and probably needs more tweaking afterwards.
I would generally go part way toward my final Detail settings in LR, then do what I have to do in PS, then do more in either PS or LR as appropriate.
What I usually do in PS is use Smart Sharpen after I’ve resized down to whatever my final size is—usually my screen size for desktop wallpaper, because I like how PS SS works, an in that case I’ve probably done all my Detail work in LR and only do the resize and SS in PS.

Two workflow questions, (1) importing and (2) saving/exporting

Apologies if the below questions are too elementary. I've just started using Lightroom. I've been trying out various editing/organizing programs and I haven't yet found the perfect one. Can someone tell me if Lightroom is capable of the following:
1. I shoot in Raw+Jpeg format. When I copy images from my camera to my computer, I always create a new folder that represents my event and put the jpegs in \Pictures\[Event]\ and the raw images in \Pictures\[Event]\Raw\. Is there a way to instruct Lightroom to perform this function through the import module, i.e. have a single import event that copies jpegs in an \...\[Event]\ folder while copying dng to \...\[Event]\Raw\ and importing only the dng files into my Lightroom catalog. Is this possible?
2. Also, can someone explain how Lightroom handles edits? Say I've edited a dng in my library. Is the dng file changed on my computer itself? How about the jpeg (remember, I copy jpeg+dng to my computer)? Is there a way to instruct Lightroom to automatically (i.e. default behavior) overwrite the jpg file when any changes are made to the dng file, but prevent the dng file from being overwritten? What about instances where I also want to overwrite the dng - how do I accomplish this?
Thanks.
=|

theNE0one wrote:
I completely understand and appreciate how Lightroom treats raw images. However, if I shoot Raw+jpg, what difference does it make whether or not the jpg file changes? If my raw file is untouched, I don't also need to make sure that the jpg remains in its virgin state...even if the majority of users prefer to keep both untouched, at least allow the option for people that want a different method of handling their files!
Lightroom has no feature to overwrite your JPGs automatically.
Might I suggest a workflow change ... shoot raw only, when you need a .jpg, have Lightroom export one for you.
If Lightroom handled Face/Places/Sharing well, I wouldn't need to mess with a second program (i.e. Picasa), but right now it doesn't look like it can handle what I want. I understand that I can use Metadata/Keyword tags to identify People and Places, and that there are plug-ins to upload to Picasa web albums, but these options aren't executed well enough in LR3 for me to give up Picasa. The plug-in doesn't work nearly as cleanly as the native Google program, and "Faces" is a chore in Lightroom. Picasa can automatically detect faces and makes tagging/organizing/working with images much easier. While I'm on the topic, can anyone explain why such a useful feature (that's available on free and basic image software) is not included in Lightroom? Is there any possibility that it'll be included in the final version of LR3? What about the upcoming Aperture 3? Is it that "Faces" is perceived as a basic consumer feature that isn't used in higher-end software? Will this always be excluded from this "class" of software?
Using LR3 Beta to decide whether the software works the way you want isn't a good idea. I'm guessing, but I don't know for sure, that the uploading to Picasa will work a lot better in the finished product. Hard for me to imagine a program being easier to tag/organize than Lightroom, and while I don't use Picasa, I can't see how it could be easier in tagging and organizing. It is my opinion (and you might think differently) that using two different organizing software programs on your photos is more trouble than it is worth, especially since you have to constantly "synchronize" the two different organizers.
No one here works for Adobe, and even if there was someone here from Adobe, they can't tell you what will be in future releases. We can only guess, and we don't know.
Finally, can you explain xmp? I've done some keyword tagging on my images within Lightroom. If I were to later use another program, would the keywords be picked up? From your explanation it sounds like there are two aspects to a file, the image section and the xmp section. Is the xmp section the part that includes information about the photo? I.e. settings, metadata, etc.??
Keywords that Lightroom writes to xmp should be readable by almost every other photographic application. But please be aware that Lightroom, by default, does not write keywords to the photo files. You have to specifically tell Lightroom to do so, by either turning on an option, or by using Ctrl-S on selected photos. Xmp includes all the metadata, which includes captions, keywords, Lightroom edits, and basically any information supplied by the user rather than by the camera.

Import/export and workflow questions

I am using a Canon HF-S20, it shoots in 1080i AVCHD.
When importing into imovie, how much quality is lost by importing "large" and not"full". It seems like the "full" file sizes are 4 times the size. Is "large' going to still give me good results?
And what is the best export settings to preserve as much quality as possible?
I have a PS3, what is the best way to play the exported movie through the PS3? stick the file on a flash drive?
any tips you can give me as far as the best workflow to keep high quality would be great. thanks

Karsten said:
I export my Projects from within iM09 as mpeg4/Options: h264, 720, p, 25fps, 3-5Mbit - quality is superb ..
I use Share to Media Browser to export my Large (960 x 540) projects. I export as either Large or HD (1280 x 720). The HD export produces a movie labelled "720p.mov". Opening this in QuickTime, the Inspector reveals the following settings:
Format: H.264, 1280 x 720, Millions; AAC Stereo (L R), 44,100 kHz
FPS: 25 +(Karsten & I are both in PAL country)+
Data Rate: 10.11 mbits/s
For a one hour movie the file size is about 4.5 GB
So, using Share to Media Browser at the HD setting produces a similar movie to that generated by Karsten's export method. However, the data rate is much lower with Karsten's settings - but he is still seeing excellent results. I also achieve great results using Share to Media Browser (HD), but the higher data rate is probably resulting in a much larger file size than Karsten is seeing. Clearly, either method will give excellent results, based on what Karsten and I are seeing using different approaches.
John

Dynamic link with After Effects workflow questions... (exporting from PPro)

I have CS5 Master on Win7 x64 pc
I have a Premiere sequence with an AE linked comp in it...
If I am using proxies (created at high quality, not low) or pre-renders (in AE comp), would that have any affect on render/export times in Premiere Pro (or Adobe Media Encoder)?
What is the best workflow for having AE comps in Premiere to maximize export times in PPro?
Thanks all!

Umm... sure? To be perfectly honest, I've never tried it!
As it is, I don't think that's the case; you can set a post-render action in AE to import the rendered file back into your project, but I don't think there's an automatic replacement or addition to the existing comp. You'd have to do that manually. But given that, if you're already rendering out a finished comp, why not just import it into Premiere Pro and forget about the Dynamic Link?
A proxy in AE is essentially a low-resolution version of a footage item, not a finished comp. So short of doing a bait-and-switch where you build your comp, render it out of AE, import the rendered file back in, and put it as a layer into the finished comp (on top, presumably, since that will basically null the rendering of the other layers below), I don't believe there is a more straightforward workflow.

Weird Bug / Export Settings / Workflow Question

I keep running into this issue and have been unable to find a solution for it. I'm exporting HD video sequences (1080i 60i preset) from premiere pro CS4 using Adobe Media Encoder. I want to create files that are nice high quality without being huge, since I have to send these off to clients on a vast array of different systems, both mac and pc, and they have to be delivered via web.
I found that the H.264 apple ipod video large preset in AME works very well as far as file size / quality. The problem is, for whatever reason, this codec does not seem to play properly on 99% of clients systems, the playback seems to jump from one frame to the next and back, its a very odd looking jitter type issue. And no, not everyone is on a PC, even folks on MACs here in the office have the same issue playing it in quicktime. I'm stumped as to what is causing that, but I assume its a codec / quicktime issue, maybe not though...
So, in an effort to curtail that, I tried exporting video from AME as quicktime and changing the quicktime codec to H.264. The problem with that route is the files are huge. They play stably, but I can't send a 2gb file over the web in any reasonable timeframe.
If anyone could help me out either by telling me how I'm screwing up my export settings, or if they have a setting that works better I'm all ears. This has gotten incredibly frustrating.

I use to have the same exact issue when sending files to my clients for review.
What I starded doing is exporting to windows avi and throwing the file in..... believe it or not! windows movie maker to make it smaller and email it.
The TV Station that I do work for can only accept 5mb size files via email and that's the only way they want it.
They don't want to deal with "YouSendIt" or anything else. Of course the files I send are only 30seconds long. TV ads. but that was my workaround.
They did not get the best quality delivered but it's pretty good for them to see the ad and approve it.
They said it plays clean that way and I haven't had any more complaints.
those are my 2 cents, hope it helps.

Workflow Question - Recently moved from PC to Mac

So, let me say that I'm a die hard Windows user -- in fact, in my "day job" I own a software development company and we're a "Microsoft shop". But, my side business is Photography and I'm making the switch to the Mac & Aperture. So, what I'm hoping to get from this post is a "yes, you can do that" or a "no, you can't do that" with Aperture. I'm happy to figure out how -- I just need someone to tell me if it's possible.
Here's my current workflow (coming from the PC - which required several applications to accomplish these steps):
1) Import images and rename "IMG_1234.CR2" to "1234.CR2" -- essentially dropping the "IMG_" from the name. Is this possible w/ Aperture?
2) Do all of the processing on the images (No questions here yet -- got that pretty well figured out in Aperture).
3) Create a black & white version of each image. Currently doing this by making a duplicate version in Aperture. But, I would like it to be named "1234-BW.CR2" rather than just have "version 2" tacked on the end. Is this possible in Aperture?
4) "Develop" the pics into jpg's. Again, the final image names should be "1234.jpg" and "1234-BW.jpg" respectively. Again, the question has to do with renaming the original & duplicate version of the image.
5) Choose all of the color versions of the photos and then selectively pick some of the b/w versions and export them to a "Web" size along w/ Thumbnail versions that will be posted on my web site. (Again, this should be easy if I can name things like I want them to be named in question 3 & 4.)
So, right now I'm the biggest thing that I'm having a problem with in naming the images -- how flexible is Aperture with this? I've tried to customize the naming but can't see to figure out how to simply remove the "IMG_" when importing and then how to tack on "-BW" when creating a duplicate version.
So far I really like Aperture -- it will ultimately save me from having to use 5 different applications on the PC and thus greatly improve the efficiency of my workflow. There are some things I've noticed that would be nice -- for example, on the PC I used a program called Bibble Pro to "develop" my Canon RAW files. Bibble is a little smoother (read faster) when making some adjustments. For example, when I'm in full screen mode and adjust the exposure, contrast or sharpening Aperture is not as smooth and "real-time" as Bibble. (And, the Mac I have is the top of the line iMac made today w/ 2GB of RAM. So, I would assume that processor speed is not an issue.)
Anyway, if you have any insight into this post please let me know. Thanks in advance for any help you can provide... If you want to see my web site to understand what I'm doing the URL is http://www.level3photography.com/proofs.aspx
Thanks again!
TK Herman
[email protected]
iMac Mac OS X (10.4.8)

...the Mac I have is the
top of the line iMac made today w/ 2GB of RAM. So, I
would assume that processor speed is not an issue...
Many folks from other disciplines think that applications should, well, just run on any computer. Not so with graphics apps. Photoshop, for instance, slows if not provided a second physical hard drive for scratch disk; Aperture craves GPU hardware; both gobble RAM; etc. Existing PSCS2 Photoshop performance improves up to 8 GB RAM, and we have not yet empirically determined the max amount of RAM Aperture will benefit from but it certainly is more than 2 GB.
iMacs are consumer machines, not pro graphics boxes, even though many folks successfully use them as such. And, "top of the line iMac made today" would include not the 7300 GT graphics but the 7600 GT graphics card and 3 GB of RAM rather than 2 GB.
All that said, your iMac should run Aperture well if you keep the box well maintained. Just don't be surprised if you do see some hardware imposed limitations.
-Allen Wicks

A Few Workflow Questions

I shoot Raw or Raw plus jpg and I am not yet clear on how to include Lens Correction in my workflow. In the past, I have typically opened in LightRoom and set white point, exposure and black level to start. Occasionally a crop and straighten might be required. Then I'd typically reduce noise and sharpen the image. In this new era, where exactly do I use Lens Profile Correction?
A another question is that there seems to be a lack of richness in the ACR 6.1 version of lens correction, I therefore, much prefer to us CS5 Filter to make those corrections. From LR this would require an Export to CS5; when and how should this be done?

The lens correction happens at very early stage of the raw processing pipeline. The subsequent raw processing steps are all made "lens correction" aware so that you can combine them anyway you want. Precisely because ACR/LR is able to handle the lens correction at such an early stage, they are the best place to do lens correction (for vignetting for example), compared with the LC filter in PS CS5. When processing raw, the LC is also more predictable and subject less to what the user might have done to the image in the past, such as cropping, scaling, color transform, on-camera LC etc.
The LC in ACR/LR emphasizes the auto/batch operation for its target users; The LC filter in PS CS5 gives more controls to the user. Overtime, I would expect the two take the best of each other.

A Print workflow question

I outsource my printing using the "Print to File" option in the Print Module. My workflow is straight forward: Import, Image Editing (using the Develop Module) and Printing (Print to File). I sharpen my images during the Image Editing phase using the Develop sharpening tool. I use a calibrated Monitor to makes sure that I am seeing a representative image on my screen. In the Print Module (under Print Job) I can select an option “Print Sharpening” (low, standard and high).
Question: Does does the “Print Sharpening” negate my sharpening settings in the Develop Module? If not, what is the difference between the two sharpening tools?

Panagon-1 wrote:
Question: Does does the “Print Sharpening” negate my sharpening settings in the Develop Module? If not, what is the difference between the two sharpening tools?
Print Sharpening (often also called output sharpening) work in combination with the capture sharpening you set in the Develop module. This constitutes 2/3 of the sharpening workflow concept by Bruce Fraser see: Out of Gamut: Thoughts on a Sharpening Workflow
The aim of the capture sharpening in the Develop module is to regain the loss of apparent sharpness cause by the optical system and the sensor. The goal is to have the image "look good" at 1:1. If properly accomplished, the Print Sharpening combines with the capture sharpening to sharpen for the final output–which really can't be judged visually...
So, make it look good in Develop then add the Print Sharpening on top.

Sharpening export workflow question

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for