Sky Posterization in Aperture 3.6

Hi, I'm getting some very obvious posterization in most of the skies in my images when using Aperture 3.6. Is anyone else getting this issue? I'm shooting with a Nikon D800, Raw, Lossless Compressed, 14-Bit.

I share your assumption about the cause.  I don't know anything — other than trying the uncompressed RAW format —  you can do except contact both Nikon and Apple, which I recommend.
The change when reprocessing is also expected.  I suggest _never_ reprocessing Images that have adjustments applied.  If you want to work with the new converter on existing Images, create a "New Version from Original".  The newly-created Version will use the current converter.  You can, if desired, lift your adjustments from the Image that is processed using the older converter and stamp them on the Image that is processed with the current converter.
Note that you can make adjustments on an Image that was converted using the older converter without reprocessing the Original.

Similar Messages

  • Imported RAW images badly corrupted, looks like red paint splashed all over the sky.  Photoshop and Iphoto have no problem with the images from my D800E.  Aperture worked fine for me in June with the same camera.  The Nikon software shows no problem.

    I am having a problem importing my images into Aperture 3 from my Nikon D800E.  The images appear as if red paint was splashed across the sky.  The Nikon software used to transfer from the camera does not show this problem and Photoshop 6 is fine with the images exported as jpg from the Nikon software.  Aperature does not even like the jpg images usable by Photoshop.  I am suspecting that Aperture is not correctly using the camera raw file.  Also, the histograms are radically different between the corrupted images and the Photoshop (good) versions.  Aperture worked just fine for me in June with the same camera.  All drivers and software are current as of this posting.  Anyone else out there seen this before??

    Are you sure you do not have Highlight Hot & Cold Areas turned on? (View->Highlight Hot & Cold Areas)?
    The bug in Digital Camera raw only affected Raw images. In your first post you wrote:
    Aperature does not even like the jpg images usable by Photoshop
    If the JPG's have the same problem then it isn't this bug.
    regards

  • Aperture - Edit with External Editor - Photoshop

    Hi,
    I recently made my first attempt via Aperture to "Edit with External Editor" and in my case I have the preferences set to export to Photoshop CS4 Extended. The External Editor File Format (in preferences) selected is TIFF and as advised by Apple's Help menu this is set at 16-bit. The External Editor Color Spaces is set to Adobe-RGB (1998).
    I selected an image with some barrel distortion, hit the export button, and Aperture sent the new master to Photoshop. I did my fixing and saved. This automatically sends the updated file to Aperture. This is very handy and practical but I was shocked to see the size of the new and fixed file. The original file was a JPEG at 4MB and the new fixed file was a colossal 200+ MB file. I ended up throwing away the new file - too large.
    I am just wondering if this is normal? This is my first time using the Edit with External Editor in Aperture and I am also quite clueless about using Photoshop efficiently and properly. Could I have done something differently and received the new and fixed file at a smaller size?
    Thanks for your advice and help.
    Chau

    Chau wrote:
    I am just wondering if this is normal? This is my first time using the Edit with External Editor in Aperture and I am also quite clueless about using Photoshop efficiently and properly. Could I have done something differently and received the new and fixed file at a smaller size?
    This is normal.
    TIFF files get rather large and the 200 MB sounds about right. If I send a 1.63 MB JPEG at the same settings in PS CS5, I get a 134 MB TIFF after applying the Lens Correction filter and saving.
    If I send the same file as a TIFF 8-bit in Adobe-RGB (1998), I get back a 54.73 MB file.
    You could therefore send as an 8-bit TIFF to reduce the size. Additionally, the PSD format tends to return a slightly smaller file size (51.xx MB in the case here).
    A JPEG file is actually only an 8-bit file, so it isn't really necessary to go to 16-bit, but many users like to protect against further degradation of the JPEG when editing externally (especially from posterization where smooth gradients - such as a sky - start to break down into visible steps in the color transition).
    I personally send as TIFF 8-bit in the sRGB color space and if the image shows degradation, then I might change to the TIFF 16-bit (or simply not use that image).

  • Question about Aperture slide shows

    Question about Aperture slide shows. How can I eliminate banding in a blue sky when photos are displayed in Aperture Slide shows?

    What kind of banding? Do you have a screenshot?
    It could be jpg compression related, I think the previews are all jpgs.

  • Does Adobe Lightroom 3 have polarizer effect as Aperture 3?

    I have been using A3's polarizer effect for nature and scenery photography, which is perfect. Today I tried Adobe Lightroom 3 in my office for the first time to make a comparison. To be frank, Lightroom 3's much touted noise reduction works better than A3. But I could not find the Polarizer readjustment function in Lightroom 3 to enrich the blue sky.
    I may be wrong as Lightroom boasts being more professional than A3. I know there are many shutterbugs who use both A3 and Lightroom 3. Does anyone know the answer?

    OK, I have posted the question to the Adobe Lightroom forum and carefully avoided mentioning Aperture 3, but have not got an answer yet. So I did some more research.
    http://www.garyluhm.net/bio/tips_0608.html
    [Polarize that sky (without a polarizer)]
    I have found another solution. But to me, it's still confusing and a little complicated.
    It is explained like the following:
    " For the polarized effect, I scroll down panel to color adjustments, choose HSL (Hue, Saturation, Luminance), and click on luminance. I then click on the round circle thing in the upper left of the color box, move it into the blue sky area, hold down the left mouse button and pull downward. This reduces the brightness of the blues, and the sky goes dark as if polarized. I stop at -70, a big reduction (image 3). The white mountains now glisten against the deep blue. I could also have used the blue slider, but the spot selection tool I did use is a handy instrument.For the polarized effect, I scroll down panel to color adjustments, choose HSL (Hue, Saturation, Luminance), and click on luminance. I then click on the round circle thing in the upper left of the color box, move it into the blue sky area, hold down the left mouse button and pull downward. This reduces the brightness of the blues, and the sky goes dark as if polarized. I stop at -70, a big reduction (image 3). The white mountains now glisten against the deep blue. I could also have used the blue slider, but the spot selection tool I did use is a handy instrument.
    Lightroom Develop wiht luminance adjustment
    Luminance blue brightness reduced to -70 by dragging any blue color down with the button (or use the blue slider), simulating polarizer. "

  • Using Aperture to proof for the web

    Hi friends,
    I work with photos almost exclusively to publish on the web. I was hoping to use Aperture to speed up my workflow without taking every image through Photoshop. However, it appears to me that Aperture doesn't do much to successfully proof for browser display. I'm wondering if anyone can correct me.
    Normally, in order to get an idea of how washed-out images will look on the web after being saved out as sRGB, I soft-proof for "Monitor RGB" using Photoshop, and edit accordingly. My hope was that I could use Aperture's 2-up view to compare the original image, without media proofing, to an adjusted image with soft proofing on and set to something like Monitor (so as to try and get the web-bound image close to how it looked out of the camera, plus desired adjustments). However, enabling proofing in Aperture, using all sorts of different profiles, doesn't seem to perceptibly change the image at all.
    Naturally, photo representation is far from reliable on different browsers and different monitors, however I have found for my purposes that working under soft proofed conditions provides the most predictable result. Would anymore be willing to share their Aperture workflow for getting images onto the web without too much degradation?

    My monitor is calibrated. My workflow consists of:
    Export to JPEG/SRGB and upload to web. Seriously, I've never noticed any noticeable color shift. And if you're "presenting" on the web, it's a crap shoot anyway unless you are guaranteeing everyone viewing the photos will be viewing on a calibrated monitor.
    Aperture's proofing does shift colors if you use a target that is a print target (e.g. when I use a profile for my Epson 3800 Premium Luster paper, there is a noticeable blue to purple shift). With some extreme output targets, you can get definite posterization as well. It does something, but I don't know if for "sRGB" it's going to make that large of a perceptible difference.

  • Bad Posterization With Onscreen Proofing

    Hey Everybody,
    I just recently got Aperture and I LOVE it.
    I'm only having one problem: I shoot RAW with my EOS 5D and need to output in the sRGB IEC61966-2.1 color space. I know I should have Onscreen Proofing turned on set to sRGB IEC61966-2.1 in order to correctly adjust my images for printing, but when this feature is turned on, the images in the preview pane show SEVERE posterization and poor image quality. Can anyone help me out with this?
    Thanks,
    Nick
    iMac Intel Core Duo 20"   Mac OS X (10.4.7)  

    Thanks for the input so far. The color profile I'm
    using for proofing is sRGB IEC 61966-2.1. This is
    because I don't print at home and my photo lab
    requests all files to be in this color profile.
    Even if you submit your files in sRGB for printing, using that for proofing will not help you understand what a print will look like, because most printers do not have as wide a color space as even sRGB. That merely helps them not have to do profile conversion before printing.
    You need to either get a profile from them, or figure out what printer they use and find a profile for that yourself.
    The weird thing is that when I export the image, it
    doesn't seem to have that posterization. It's only on
    the preview in Aperture.
    I'm not sure why you get this effect, I don't get anything very noticable when I use the IEC61966-2.1 sRGB profile.
    If I can think of any reason to proof for sRGB, the only one would be perhaps to see what an image might look like on a web page after exporting to that space. Still you should not see posteization you do not see outside Aperture after exporting.

  • Aperture and Canon 7D

    I am thinking about upgrading to a canon 7d. I read how there was a problem with Aperture reading RAW files, especially with red. I currently use Aperture 2 and dont want to buy the 7D if I am going to problem with Aperture.
    Has the problem been fixed? Any suggestions?
    Thanks

    sean ross wrote:
    nighttime shots indoors still have a cherry (magenta) red cast to the red colors that is awfully hard to get rid of. When you do, it often gets splotchy, and makes people, especially older people, have rosacia.
    This is probably going to sound really weird, and shows Aperture still has some issues it needs to figure out, but....
    On one of your high ISO indoor 'red' shots, add a vignette, but set both sliders to 0, effectively removing the vignette that is being added.
    Yes. I'm serious. This completely changes the red casts, and kills the nasty posterization I see on my system.
    Ben

  • CS5 Photomerge - how to avoid those strange jig-saw lines in the sky

    Here is one image out of 4
    that I am merging [just an example of one of many I do]
    you will note that the sky area to the left of the rainbow is clear and normal.
    When using Photomerge direct from bridge and on RAW files regardless of resolution I am getting nasty and annoying lines and areas of uneven-ness that are too hard to fix by retouching as they are widespread and large. They usually appear in smooth detail-less areas like skies and really stand out if you want to darken them. They are NOT anything to do with the joins of the images and they appear regardless of how many images you are merging. They appear regardles of which style - ie 'auto', 'reposition', 'cylinder' etc one chooses in the merge panel. As I am trying to sell large-scale and perfect panoramic prints for the wall, the only way I can avoid them is to keep these areas light so they don't show up - that's not what I want! The next pic shows an example - I have saturated to make it clear to see.
    Regards Mal

    Are you stitching 16 bits/channel files?  I would guess you're using 8 bit.  Posterization can be a problem with 8 bit.
    Try 16 bit.  I've done a lot of Photomerges of 16 bit files and I don't see what you're showing.
    -Noel

  • Aperture/MobileMe quality

    I recently purchased Aperture and have created 2 MobileMe albums.
    The problem I am having is the quality of the MM gallery. The pics look pretty bad. A lot of noise, artifacts, banding in the sky, etc. Also when I click on the photo info button in my gallery, all of the metadata is gone. No camera, no shutter, aperture etc. Another problem is under the file info it says the file size is only 75-145k.
    I am not sure what exactly is going on. Is it an Aperture problem, or a MM problem that I can fix. Are there quality settings I can't find? It seems that it is uploading the thumbs only. I am at a loss.
    I didn't have these problems with other galleries created in iPhoto 08, but that was done a while ago so I don't know if something changed in MM or what.
    Thanks for any suggestions.

    TyWahn wrote:
    I recently purchased Aperture and have created 2 MobileMe albums.
    The problem I am having is the quality of the MM gallery. The pics look pretty bad. A lot of noise, artifacts, banding in the sky, etc. Also when I click on the photo info button in my gallery, all of the metadata is gone. No camera, no shutter, aperture etc. Another problem is under the file info it says the file size is only 75-145k.
    I am not sure what exactly is going on. Is it an Aperture problem, or a MM problem that I can fix. Are there quality settings I can't find? It seems that it is uploading the thumbs only. I am at a loss.
    I didn't have these problems with other galleries created in iPhoto 08, but that was done a while ago so I don't know if something changed in MM or what.
    Thanks for any suggestions.
    Aperture and iPhoto compress the JPEGS even further as part of MobileMe integration. In the Gallery it is unavoidable. One way to get around it, you need to publish to Web Pages/Journals at high rez displays and default Preview JPEG settings.
    Follow the instructions here:
    http://www.apple.com/aperture/tutorials/#publishoutput-webgallery

  • Aperture 3.03 Weird Behavior

    All 46 images in a folder suddenly disappeared into thin air during a session editing images, I've searched everywhere in my intel imac without success. Fortunately I've been able to re-import these images from my 'Saved Original Raw File', but I'm none too happy about the time wasted.
    I'm at a loss to understand whether it's a problem with the Magic Mouse, the Computer or Aperture 3.03.
    Another issue I have is that changes to the 'Hot & Cold Areas' of an image are fugitive, Aperture simply refuses to save any changes I make to my images, when I inspect images that have been previously edited I'm pretty fed up to find that on many occasions I have to re-edit.
    Anyone any ideas?

    Kevin R. Roberts wrote:
    So, if I don't see edits (like brushing in a blue sky) then how do I fix it. And why w ould apple make it so complex?
    To paraphrase robogobo: if you don't see edits that you think you have performed in previous sessions,
    1) Make sure that you have *Create new versions when making adjustments* unchecked in Preferences->Advanced
    and/or
    2) Make sure you are not inadvertently filtering the displayed contents of your library and hiding your edited versions
    -Steve

  • How to only edit the Sky within an image?

    Hi. I'm trying to fathom how you can, say, change the saturation; brightness;..etc of one particular section of an mage instead of the changes being applied to the entire image. Say, I wanted to tweak the adjustments for only the sky within a landscape picture but to leave everything else alone...how would you achieve this?

    Thanks for the responses so far. This seems crazy. Here we have a Pro Application like Aperture yet it appears a user cannot do a relatively straight forward task of adjusting a particular area of an image.
    Dodge & Burn is ok but doesn't allow me to adjust colour for example?
    The colour eye dropper is ok but like you said if you alter the sky (blue) then you end up messing up other blue areas within the image unintentionally.
    I am familiar with 'Layers' within Photoshop and was hoping Aperture could do something equivalent. Are 'Stacks' similar to layers? Could you have multiple stacks with each stack addressing an individual aspect of an image then stamp them all into one?
    Back to my original question, my friend said Photoshop Elements allowed you to do what I want i.e. select just the Sky for editing by performing a 'Colour Cast' operation.
    Is Aperture missing something really obvious?

  • Aperture vs Lightroom: any head-to-head comparisons/reviews?

    I've spent a good deal of time looking for a head-to-head comparison of Apple's Aperture and Adobe's Lightroom and haven't been able to find anything. Can anyone point to to something?
    I'm an amateur photographer who is progressing toward semi-professional (from a hobby standpoint anyway). I've been thinking about "upgrading" from iPhoto to Aperture or Lightroom. I've downloaded the demos of both but at this point I'm a little overwhelmed at figuring out which I like better (I know it's ultimately my decision, but would like to see some sort of comparison of the two). I use Photoshop Elements, but tend to be a bit of an Apple fanboy, so am leaning toward Aperture.
    Thanks for your thoughts....

    This looks interesting.
    The Showdown: Apple Aperture and Adobe Photoshop Lightroom
    A new breed of software has recently emerged that promises to shift the digital photography landscape. Designed to streamline and integrate the digital workflow, Apple’s Aperture and Adobe’s Photoshop Lightroom represent an exciting new generation of imaging applications.
    What sets Aperture and Lightroom apart from the current stock of programs is the unwavering focus on digital photography, integrating the most critical aspects of the digital workflow from image import, metadata management, and cataloging to image correction and output.
    But how well do these applications capture the nuances of the typical professional workflow? How do they compare with existing applications? And what does it take to integrate these applications into your existing operations?
    Join us in March for a highly instructive and information-packed evening as we jump headlong into both Aperture and Lightroom and discover the nuts and bolts of how these applications work. You’ll learn how these programs were designed from the ground up to help you tame the digital avalanche and help you manage, select, and output your best images.
    You’ll also learn how Aperture and Lightroom fit in with your existing tools ranging from raw converters to digital asset managers such as Microsoft iView Media Pro and Extensis Portfolio. You’ll discover when it makes sense to perform image manipulation within Aperture and Lightroom, and when you’ll need to turn to a higher-end image manipulation program, such as Photoshop, for advanced adjustments.
    Our panelists will provide expert advice on how to use advanced new features in both programs to quickly examine hundreds of images, and how to organize your libraries for maximum flexibility and efficiency. You’ll also learn about new high impact options for outputting your images to print or the Web.
    So be sure to join us in March for a lively and comprehensive exploration these two exciting new applications. You’ll come away with a good understanding of what these applications do, and how they compare with existing tools you are already using. You’ll also discover time-saving tips and learn important best practices that will help you maximize efficiency and capitalize on the state of the art in digital tools.
    Speakers:
    TBA
    Sponsors:
    TBA
    Venue:
    Blue Sky Rental Studios
    2325 Third St.
    San Francisco, CA 94107
    415.626.7232
    Date:
    Tuesday, March 13
    7:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.
    Social hour: 6:00 p.m.
    Cost:
    ASMP members Free
    Students $10
    General $20
    Advance Tickets: through Pay Pal
    Jeff

  • Aperture Exporting JPEG's from RAW: file size and quality questions?

    Hey Everyone,
    So, I'm using Aperture 2 and I've got some questions about exporting from RAW to JPEG. I shoot with a Nikon D70 so original RAW files are 5-6mb in size. After doing some basic post processing when I export the pics at "full size" with picture quality of 11 out of 12 then the resulting JPEG is about half the file size of the original RAW file. For example a 5.6mb RAW becomes a 2.6mb JPEG. The resolution in pixels per inch and and the overall image size remain unchanged. Have I lost picture quality due to the exporting JPEG being smaller in file size?
    My friend who works with me prefers to edit in Photoshop and when he follows the same workflow his saved JPEG from the identical RAW file in Photoshop is minimally smaller in file size, say 5.6mb to 5.3mb. He's telling me that my Aperture edited photos are losing quality and resolution.
    Is he right, are my pics of lesser quality due to being a smaller file size? I've always been told that the quality of a picture is not in the mbs, but the pixel density.
    I've bee told that Aperture has a better compression engine and that the resulting files are of the exact same quality because the PPI and image size are the same. Is that what explains the much smaller file sizes in Aperture?
    I tried changing the picture quality in the export menu to 12 out of 12, but the resulting JPEG then becomes larger than the original RAW at over 7mbs.
    Can someone please help me understand this better? I don't want to lose picture quality if that is indeed what is happening.
    Thanks in advance for your help.

    mscriv wrote:
    So, I'm using Aperture 2 and I've got some questions about exporting from RAW to JPEG. I shoot with a Nikon D70 so original RAW files are 5-6mb in size. After doing some basic post processing when I export the pics at "full size" with picture quality of 11 out of 12 then the resulting JPEG is about half the file size of the original RAW file. For example a 5.6mb RAW becomes a 2.6mb JPEG. The resolution in pixels per inch and and the overall image size remain unchanged. Have I lost picture quality due to the exporting JPEG being smaller in file size?
    JPEG is a "lossy" file compression algorithm. Whether Aperture or PS, *every time a JPEG is saved some loss occurs*, albeit minimal at the 11 or 12 level of save, huge losses at low save levels. Some images (sky, straight diagonal lines, etc.) are more vulnerable to showing visible jpeg artifacts.
    My friend who works with me prefers to edit in Photoshop and when he follows the same workflow his saved JPEG from the identical RAW file in Photoshop is minimally smaller in file size, say 5.6mb to 5.3mb. He's telling me that my Aperture edited photos are losing quality and resolution.
    *Both of you are losing image data when you save to jpeg.* IMO the differences between the apps is probably just how the apps work rather than actually losing significantly more data. The real image data loss is in using JPEG at all!
    Is he right, are my pics of lesser quality due to being a smaller file size?
    I doubt it.
    I've always been told that the quality of a picture is not in the mbs, but the pixel density.
    The issue here is not how many pixels (because you are not varying that) but how much data each pixel contains. In this case once you avoid lossy JPEG the quality mostly has to do with different RAW conversion algorithms. Apple and Adobe both guess what Nikon is up to with the proprietary RAW NEF files and the results are different from ACR to Apple to Nikon. For my D2x pix I like Nikon's conversions the best (but Nikon software is hard to use), Aperture second and Adobe ACR (what Photoshop/Bridge uses) third. I 98% use Aperture.
    I tried changing the picture quality in the export menu to 12 out of 12, but the resulting JPEG then becomes larger than the original RAW at over 7mbs. Can someone please help me understand this better? I don't want to lose picture quality if that is indeed what is happening.
    JPEG is a useful format but lossy. Only use it as a _last step_ when you must save files size for some reason and are willing to accept the by-definition loss of image data to obtain smaller files (such as for web work or other on-screen viewing). Otherwise (especially for printing) save as TIFF or PSD which are non-lossy file types, but larger.
    As to the Aperture vs. ACR argument, RAW-convert the same original both ways, save as TIFF and see if your eyes/brain significantly prefer one over the other. Nikon, Canon etc. keep proprietary original image capture data algorithms secret and each individual camera's RAW conversion is different.
    HTH
    -Allen

  • Image edited in Photoshop appears as blank white version in Aperture

    I am editing images in Photoshop this way: export RAW file to ACR for adjustment. Go back to Aperture and open the same file in external editor (PSD format). Then I select the ACR version, paste it into the Aperture export, flatten, reduce to 8-bit, and save.
    This works fine as long as I choose 8-bit in ACR. But when I choose 16-bit and go through exactly the same process, I end up with a blank white image in Aperture. The edited photo won't display at all.
    Any ideas why this is happening?
    Thanks,
    Chris

    <...>
    Here's the thing. When I try to go through the steps
    in the action "manually", I am not able to paste the
    ACR version into the Aperture PSD. What happens is I
    choose select all, then copy, then close the ACR
    version... and then when I go up to the "Edit" menu
    to select "paste", it is greyed out. I can't for the
    life of me figure out why this works in the action
    but won't work when I go though it myself.
    Finally, I tried re-opening the white file from
    Aperture "in external editor" and it opens into
    Photoshop white as well. In the layers palette the
    original image (the exported version from Aperture,
    not the one I adjusted from Photoshop) is clearly
    visible in the background layer, with one all-white
    layer on top. I imagine this is very confusing... I
    hope you can make sense of it!
    The last part actually made the most sense to me...
    It really seems like just as you are noticing in the manual operations, something is going wrong in the process of selecting the ACR image and pasting it into the exported PSD. That all-white layer is a giveaway that something in the pasting process is going wrong in the action, and basically just creating an all-new layer that has nothing in it. My guess is if you remove that all-white layer and save the file that returning to Aperture would show you the background image from the file.
    I am not sure what could be going wrong there except that it could be the process you are trying does not work well with CS, and needs CS2 to work properly. I have not tried the whole smart object approach posted earlier so I am not really sure of problems that may arise.
    Have you thought about batch-converting your RAW files in Photoshop ACR to 16-bit TIFF files and importing them instead? You'll still get the same degree of flexibility in alterations you can make to the images. You can even edit these TIFF masters directly in Aperture through the Finder without going through Aperture, if you want to save a little space and avoid the creation of a new version for some Photoshop work.
    You can also import 8-bit TIFF files as well but if you plan to do any alterations it's really better to work with 16-bit images from the start as it gives you the maximum ability to work with tones in an image without posterization.

Maybe you are looking for