A novel idea regarding RAW conversion

With the much debate about Aperture and ACR and RAW conversion, I had this thought: RAW conversion is really part of the image editing process, not part of cataloguing, selection, organization, or required for producing thumbnails.
I'm not exactly sure when the RAW conversion takes place, but I'm guessing on import, so that images can be immediately edited. Why can't thumbnails and organization take place in Aperture without converting from RAW? Adobe Bridge seems to manage this just fine. It would seem like the logical place to put RAW conversion is as a precursor to image editing in Aperture. For example, when you click the adjustment button, the conversion takes place. This would seem like a logical way to incorporate a RAW Converter plugin.
Why does the Aperture RAW conversion have to take place at all (except when a user demands it) ? Seems like this follows workflow more logically...
Brad

Interesting. Well this is confusing then -- why in
the world is Aperture not sending a RAW file to
Photoshop when you configure Aperture to use
Photoshop as its external editor?
It seems from my observations that this was a design choice on the part of Apple. This is going to get a bit technical...
When you choose to open in an external editor, Aperture automatically converts any 'master' file (tagged as 'isExternallyEditable' = false and 'isOriginalFile' = true in the XML file) to a 16-bit TIFF or PSD file, adds that as a new file stacked with the original RAW and opens the new file in the external editor. That new file is not really a 'version' in terms of it just being an adjustment recipe, but is a whole new file which is linked in the database to the RAW, just like a stack.
Once that new file is made, it's 'isExternallyEditable' tag changes to true and from then on Aperture passes the file directly to the editor. This state is shown by the target icon. This repeats until you make image adjustments to that image within Aperture, leading to your earlier problems with repeated editing of the same file in PS. If you DO make adjustments to it within Aperture it then becomes a new 'sub'-master with it's own versions.
Playing devil's advocate, there is actually a valid reason for doing things this way - pass the original RAW file to ACR, and how does PS know where to save the resulting file so that it goes back into Aperture, or which RAW master to associate it with?
A possible solution with Aperture 1.0?
The manual workaround at the moment which would give a reasonable amount of play back-and-forth would be to set up two hot folders using folder actions. One automatically opens any files dropped into it in PS. The other automatically imports any files into Aperture.
So, do all your choice editing until you just have final picks, not bothering with any image adjustments, then:
1) Go through the final picks, Apple-Shift-S (export master), saving them into the PS hot folder. They automatically open up in ACR, probably one at a time.
2) Do your RAW conversion with the superior toolset available.
3) Save into the Aperture hot folder and watch them be automatically imported.
4) Now the more manual bit - drag that converted file into the stack with it's RAW original.
You now have the original and it's converted file linked together in Aperture, although keywords etc. will be separate. Once the hot folders are set up it should be relatively straightforward. Not nearly as straightforward as it could be, but hopefully manageable.
Ian

Similar Messages

  • RAW conversion comments

    I respect a photographers personal opinions regarding their perceptions of differing quality levels in RAW conversions but in the commercial world these perceived differences between Aperture and say ACR are so minimal they certainly do not qualify as a deal breaker.
    In the real world of commercial photography, design and printing, photo images are ultimately used as 8 bit CMYK files or when used for Giclee printing as 8 bit RGB files. These files go through so much retouching and manipulation after the RAW conversion that the esoteric quality differences talked about in these posts are irrelevant.
    The proper use of any Camera RAW converter is to balance the image before outputting it as a 16 bit TIFF or PSD for refined manipulation in Photoshop. This would include refined levels adjustments sometimes with layer masks and appropriate sharpening at the final output size.
    We typically use the RAW converter to:
    1- Pull back highlights that appeared to be blown
    2- Open shadow detail that appeared to be plugged
    3- Correct color casts and saturation
    4- In some cases add special effects such as conversion to rich B&W
    Very few serious professionals in either the commercial or fine arts world are going to use the RAW conversion as their final image.
    We can argue forever about the pros and cons of this or that RAW conversion quality, but in the real world Aperture's solution, while not absolutely perfect, does an excellent job within a program that enhances real world productivity.
    Dual 2ghz G5   Mac OS X (10.4.3)  

    Tom...
    With respect, your logic is hard to accept. You state that in the commercial world, images are typically so heavily manipulated that initially quality of RAW conversion is non-issue.
    I am surprised that no one has bothered to challenge this idea. So I'll step up.
    If my RAW conversion out of ANY program is going to introduce banding artifacts, 'parquet flooring' patterns, or other noisy type data into solidly colored areas, that will need to be fixed in this manipulation of which you speak. Who could justify having to do this sort of thing when there are perfectly good RAW converters out there that don't add this particular headache to the workflow?
    Your message states that "Apertures solution, while not absolutely perfect, does an excellent job within a program that enhances real world productivity."
    That statement stands as a contradiction when you consider that extra 'fixing' may need to be done to some images coming straight out of Apertures RAW conversion.
    I suspect that you (and others) are not seeing problems because evidence is mounting to support the idea that Apertures RAW conversion works better for some flavors of RAW than others. So, perhaps some people are seeing consisten image trashing, and some not. If this is the case, one could easily understand why some are 'satisfied' and some are positively livid.
    However, I digress. I still don't agree at all with the idea that in the commercial world a substandard RAW conversion would make an acceptable starting point for any commercial image, regardless of how much manipulation down the track its going to go through. I can't see any art director being satisfied knowing this was going on in their shop.
    "Aperture - sure it mangles your images, but it does a heck of a job keeping track of them!"
    Jim

  • Contact Sheets / Proofing and useful Aperture RAW Conversion

    All,
    I wanted to appeal to all of you pro photographers out there to share about how you handle the proofing stage (contact sheets) with your clients. I'm curious about how you all make this process as efficient as possible.
    Ok, say you have taken 1000 pictures for a wedding or some other event (forget the accuracy of that number, its just a round number for discussion sake). You need to present your photos to your client, but you need to present a subset of the 1000 photos for a few reasons:
    1) Not all photos you are going to take are going to be great. I've heard a general quote by some pro photographers that their "keeper ratios" (the percentage of pics that are really good from a shoot) run around 10%-20%. Fair enough, I don't want to debate this percentage, but it gives us a target number of 100 photos to present to a client from a 1000 picture shoot.
    2) Your client is probably not going to be happy if they have to sift through 1000 photos. I recently had a friend who paid several thousand dollars for a wedding photographer who sent them 1000 photos to choose from. They weren't particularly happy with this, and told the guy there was just too many to choose from. Personally, I felt that this was putting part of the photographer's responsibility on the client, but whatever.
    Ok...so for the sake of the example here, we have to get 1000 photos down to 100 photos, so the client can choose what 50 (for example) they want to purchase and have printed, put in their photo book, slide presentation, etc.
    Sorry for the long intro, but here is the issue at hand: we want to work quickly for the client, and get them their 100 photos as soon as possible. We also want to put our best foot forward, and give them high-quality photos. But at the same time, we want to work efficiently, and if possible not spend time doing final retouching on photos that the customer doesn't want, but rather focus this time directly on the photos the customer does want.
    I have two questions from this which pertain to Aperture's RAW conversion and workflow:
    1) Do you do any significant adjustments on photos for the contact sheets you present to clients (the 100 photos now)? Is it just a quick exposure adjustment, or are you retouching all 100?
    2) Despite Aperture's RAW conversion problems and other adjustment glitches, is it sufficient quality in your opinion for a contact sheet?
    My purpose in asking these questions is that perhaps the Aperture RAW conversion issue can be mitigated if we can get to the point of customer contact and review using Aperture-only conversion and adjustment tools, and then isolate photoshop use for only the final, significant edits. The problems with Aperture's RAW conversion are well-documented, but the question is, could it still be sufficient for small-scale proofs, understanding that for large-scale, high-res images, it won't be suffcient.
    Your opinons are valued!
    Brad
    Powerbook G4-1.33GHz-17" / Powermac G4-1.4GHz   Mac OS X (10.4.2)   PB: 1GB RAM, Radeon 9600-64MB / PM: 1.25GB RAM, Radeon 9000Pro-128MB

    ">-DELETE project from Aperture because I can't use the app for the delivery
    of finals:
    Forgive me if I've forgotten the detail you may have posted elsewhere about this. I have seen you mention this several times, but I am really interested in the specifics behind the problems you have encountered. I have some needs in finishing that are beyond just regurgitating a photo. I'll be basically augmenting my photo with text, borders, special effects, etc. for more professional presentation, and the ability to market a photo in different ways. This is one reason I cannot discard Photoshop from my workflow. Anyway, let's assume for a moment I'm able to do all my editing in Photoshop, and those PSD files are sitting within Aperture. From there, what problems am I going to encounter? I'm tapping your brain here, as the time I have spent in Aperture has been primarily oriented toward everything prior to the finishing stage. "
    Hi Brad,
    If I've imported images into Aperture that have previously been worked over in Photoshop, none of the layers I may have created in those files will be available to me from within Aperture. This does not break but severely sprains the functionality of Photoshop. I'm keeping the images around because I think I or my clients will need them later, so what might I do with them?:
    1) If I'd like to do more work on them I either have to abandon access to the previously created layers and their magic, or export the file from Aperture, work on it outside, import it back into Aperture. Every time I want to work with those layers I have to do the same dance.
    2) If I'd like to send jpg or tif versions of those files anywhere I can choose to use the tools within Aperture or Photoshop to do so. Aperture's tools for these conversions are simply not of professional utility: no compressed tifs, no layered tif support, no quality choices for jpgs and no jpg previews. And in either case, using Aperture or Photoshop, the conversions are created OUTSIDE of Aperture and not managed by it.
    3) When I decide to archive my older projects I'm faced with the incredible limitation that Aperture will not allow me any remote search of any archive that is not "live" within Aperture. Not even Spotlight will search Aperture libraries!!!!!
    So moving already created projects into Aperture has absolutely no advantages and a number of problems, any one of which might be a deal-killer by itself.
    If I'd like to use Aperture to manage work that I create going forward I've got those limitations already listed above, but I CAN access layers in PSD that are created from within Aperture. I cannot make layered duplicates of those files in order to work on versions of those images so once again the Photoshop workflow is hobbled.
    All of this makes it a bad idea for my projects to make anything but a brief trip in and out of Aperture for sorting/proofing.
    Regards,
    fp

  • Panasonic LX3 raw conversion problem

    In Snow Leopard I had no problem with raw conversions with my Panasonic LX3 in Aperture, after ugrading to Lion my pictures come out very very dark with a deep green tinge.
    Does any one have any ideas what might be causing it. All the camera setting are normal and Aperture reads Nikon raw files perfectly.
    Mike

    What version of Aperture are you using?
    In MacOS Lion the raw conversion has been moved into the MacOS, but Aperture does not find the raw support for some cameras innitially.
    Two things to try:
    Force the generation of new previews by holding down the option key while selecting "Update Preview"
    If this only happened after you upgraded to 10.7.4 and worked well before, then register your camera with the lauch services database - see this post by Alan Roseman:Aperture 3 preview of raw file greenish, but read the follow up posts first (the lsregister command) as well, on how it is supposed to work and how to correct the typos.
    Added: if that does not help, try to remove the raw presets from ~/Library/Application Support/Aperture/RawDecodePresets.plist, to force a rebuild.
    Regards
    Léonie

  • Panasonic Lumex DMC-LX1 raw conversion for Aperture doesn't work.

    I've seen many people having raw conversion problems. Direct import of Lumex raw files to Aperture does not work.
    Adobe DNG conversion of raw to dng does not work.
    I'm running on Photoshop CS.
    Perhaps my DNG conversion settings aren't right? Tell me what they should be.
    Do I have to go as far as changing the raw.plist or whatever it's called.
    Would CS2 with the Raw conversion Plug-in work instead?
    Remember that..."If all the woman lived across the sea, what a great swimmer Yellowman would be"!
    2.0 Duelly G5 4gigs ram. 23" Flat Cinema   Mac OS X (10.4.6)  

    Joe,
    good to see that you are reading these posts. I am sure that many users whose cameras' raw files are currently not supported by Aperture would love to help out in any way they can.
    However, as we are living in a converging world, why doesn't Apple talk with Adobe and share some of the information used for RAW conversion? I'm thinking dcraw which (according to a note in its source code*) is using data provided by Adobe... and that same data is also contained in the Raw.plist.
    Thus, if Adobe knows something and shares it with dcraw, and Apple uses some of the dcraw code (at least the m2 matrices found in Raw.plist are equal to the dcraw ones), why can't you guys all share the same information, and thus speed up RAW support for all cameras?
    Just a thought.
    Kindest regards,
    Karl
    * This is the bit:
    Thanks to Adobe for providing these excellent CAM -> XYZ matrices!
    void CLASS adobe_coeff (char *make, char *model)
    powerbook G4 17 1.33 GHz   Mac OS X (10.4.6)  

  • "Unable to save the raw conversion settings. There was a write permission error."

    I just built a new workstation for processing photos using PS CS5. I use external drives to store my images as I find it easier for backing up as well as for when I want use my laptop for sorting, etc.. I copied over all my old "Collection" files, and of course, had to "fix" them once on the new machine. Once pointed in the right direction, the collections all fill out correctly.
    When I go to process a collection though, I encounter an odd problem I can't seem to sort out. I can delete files, rename files, copy/paste to the external drives, etc.. What I can't seem to do is add Labels, Ratings, or modify RAW settings. I mean, I can use ACR to make adjustments, I just can't seem to save them.
    The system just ignores label, rating commands completely. When I try to save an ACR adjustment I get this error. "Unable to save the raw conversion settings. There was a write permission error."
    The files are NOT write protected. I'm set up as the owner of my workstation, with complete control of the system. I can't seem to find any useful information about this error because the "write permission error" seems to only be happening on installs, so that's all I can find help for.
    My system:
    Intel Core i7 970@ 3.20GHZ
    24.0 GB RAM
    64-bit OS - Windows 7 Pro
    DX58S02 Motherboard
    NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580

    Thanks for replying. I've been going crazy trying to fix this.
    To answer your first question; I use sidecar XMP files. If everything from my archive was shot in RAW I'd try converting to DNG and see if embedding the changes directly in a file worked. Unfortunately, a lot of my old stuff was shot in JPG, so sidecars seems to be the best choice.
    When I add labels, ratings, as well as change RAW settings on files I place on my workstations HD everything works. It's only when I try to do these things with the same files on removable drives that I run into trouble. The drives I use are Transcend 640GB StoreJet 25ms connected via USB.
    I don't think it's a UAC problem. At least, to my understanding, doesn't that control how your machine alerts you to program changes? I looked into how to change ownership, and did so, but that didn't work. Here's a link to what I mean: http://www.addictivetips.com/windows-tips/windows-7-access-denied-permission-ownership/
    I'm stumped. I also hate the idea that I'll have to go through various folders to find images from already created collections, copy them to a new folder on my HD and then work on them. Then I'll have to put them all back... ugghhhh

  • Raw Conversion: Colors not accurate. Correction with profile?

    Hi,
    When I create JPGs from my Raw files, the results don't look natural. Some colors have more saturation, some less. For example, the colors of the KoMi A series look somehow dirty; the reds of the Maxxum 5D seem to be oversaturated (dark reds are to bright, brown faces look rather pinkish).
    This is in comparison to the orignal objects, to the JPGs generated from the KoMi Raw converter and to the in-camera JPGs.
    Since Lightroom has tremendous color tuning options (under HSL and Color), I wonder whether a camera-specific profile can make the colors more natural. Has anybody tried for the KoMi cameras? Can anybody share a profile?
    I don't have a color checker, so this would be a tough one for me. I tried a bit, but whenever one color seemed right, another color had become worse.
    Here is my equipment:
    Cameras: Konica Minolta A2, Minolta A1, Konica Minolta Maxxum 5D.
    Other: My room has fluorescent tubes of type 950 (5000K, highest quality, Philips Graphica Pro) or of course daylight from outside. My screen is calibrated using ColorPlus hardware. I used a grey card for most of my photos. JPGs viewed with IMatch (color-profile aware).
    Regards,
    Martin

    Hallo Uli,
    there are two aspects of the color deviation:
    1. Displaying colors in LR
    This is what you are addressing in the other thread. I can confirm this behavior, but let's not touch this matter here.
    2. Raw conversion
    This is what I am talking about in this post. The effect is actually larger than the display deviation.
    Regards,
    Martin

  • ORA-22835: Buffer too small for CLOB to CHAR or BLOB to RAW conversion

    Hi all,
    the following query select to_char(nvl(round(pc.target_cost*xx_primavera.geteurtolvrate,2),amount),'FM999G999G999G999G990D00') detail_amount,
    nvl(ct.cost_type, description) detail_description,
    tm_desc.memo_id,
    primavera_prj_name detail_prj_name,
    hp.party_number detail_party_number,
    xpid.interface_line_attribute1,
    utl_i18n.unescape_reference(replace(regexp_replace(utl_raw.cast_to_varchar2(tm_desc.task_memo), '<[^>]*>'), chr(13)||chr(10))) document_description,
    REPLACE(regexp_replace(utl_raw.cast_to_varchar2(tm_id.task_memo), '<[^>]*>'), chr(13)||chr(10)) prim_memo_client_id
    from XX_PRIMAVERA_INVOICES_DETAIL xpid
    join admuser.xx_ar_hz_parties xahp on xahp.orig_system_bill_customer_id = xpid.orig_system_bill_customer_id
    join hz_parties hp on hp.party_id = xahp.party_id
    left join admuser.projcost pc on pc.proj_id = xpid.primavera_prj_id and pc.cost_type_id != 29 and xpid.service_code = 8 and pc.task_id = xx_primavera.getTaskId(xpid.primavera_prj_id,'A1020', 'Изготвяне на оферта') and delete_session_id is null
    left join admuser.costtype ct on ct.cost_type_id = pc.cost_type_id
    left join admuser.taskmemo tm_id on tm_id.proj_id = xpid.primavera_prj_id and tm_id.memo_type_id = 53 and tm_id.task_id = xx_primavera.getTaskId(xpid.primavera_prj_id,'A1020', 'Изготвяне на оферта')
    left join admuser.taskmemo tm_desc on tm_desc.proj_id = xpid.primavera_prj_id and tm_desc.memo_type_id = 55 and tm_desc.task_id = xx_primavera.getTaskId(xpid.primavera_prj_id,'A1020', 'Изготвяне на оферта')
    where amount != 0
      and xpid.interface_line_attribute1 = :ra_ctp_attribute1
    ORDER BY xpid.primavera_prj_name, xpid.description;returns error:
    ORA-22835: Buffer too small for CLOB to CHAR or BLOB to RAW conversion (actual: 2371, maximum: 2000) I found that the error occurs in the row : utl_i18n.unescape_reference(replace(regexp_replace(utl_raw.cast_to_varchar2(tm_desc.task_memo), '<[^>]*>'), chr(13)||chr(10))) document_description,and tried to change it to: utl_i18n.unescape_reference(replace(regexp_replace(utl_raw.cast_to_varchar2(dbms_lob.substr(tm_desc.task_memo,1,2000)), '<[^>]*>'), chr(13)||chr(10))) document_description,....but it returns not value for that field... am i using dbms_lob.substr at the wrong place? The column 'tm_desc.task_memo' is BLOB type.
    Any ideas how to cheat it ?
    Version: Oracle Database 11g Enterprise Edition Release 11.1.0.7.0 - Production
    PL/SQL Release 11.1.0.7.0 - Production
    "CORE     11.1.0.7.0     Production"
    TNS for Linux: Version 11.1.0.7.0 - Production
    NLSRTL Version 11.1.0.7.0 - ProductionThanks in advance,
    Bahchevanov.

    Your second example has the parameters reversed. The amount (length) comes first and then the offset:
    DBMS_LOB.SUBSTR (
       lob_loc     IN    BLOB,
       amount      IN    INTEGER := 32767,
       offset      IN    INTEGER := 1)
      RETURN RAW;
    DBMS_LOB.SUBSTR (
       lob_loc     IN    CLOB   CHARACTER SET ANY_CS,
       amount      IN    INTEGER := 32767,
       offset      IN    INTEGER := 1)
      RETURN VARCHAR2 CHARACTER SET lob_loc%CHARSET;
    DBMS_LOB.SUBSTR (
       file_loc     IN    BFILE,
       amount      IN    INTEGER := 32767,
       offset      IN    INTEGER := 1)
      RETURN RAW;Also, remember that # of bytes is not necessarily the same as the # of characters depending on your character set. So 2000 bytes might become 4000 characters. And you have to make sure the BLOB is actually character data and not arbitrary binary data.
    Post the results of reversing the parameters and using a smaller chunk size.

  • RAW conversion in 16 Bit?

    Hi to all!
    I'm using Aperture for quiet some time now, and i like the way i can select and organize all my files, and doing and adjusting my projects and albums.
    But since I'm starting shooting Nef files I seem to be more and more in a dilemma. I also like the way I'm working with CS4 now, and all the options I have in Camera Raw, and I'm still trying to figure out, whether there is a way in working with both apps inter-active.
    My library is now a referenced, external one. So all editing of my Raw files is stored in the Aperture library internally. My 14 Bit Nef files are converted into 16 Bit in the moment Aperture is opening or converting it? As soon I open them with External Editor they are a 16 Bit (if I want so) but they are no more Raw.
    Most of my files are not getting extensively edited, so it's fine with me doing my conversion and a few tweaks, and leave them so. Now I tried to open the same Nef files in Adobe Camera Raw, and as long I let Adobe store the edit files separate from the Raw files, it seems Aperture is not disturbed, and I can even open and adjust them again. So far it seems to be no problems.
    But I noticed now 2 problems.
    The first is that all given keywords and description are only inside Aperture library (and they would only accompanied if I export the files as Tif)
    And secondly that Adobe Raw seems NOT to convert my Nef files into 16 Bit.
    If someone sees somehow a workaround pls give me ideas. Also how important is this 16 Bit question at all during this RAW conversion? Would it make sense to Raw-convert a 8 Bit file, and open it after to 16 Bit to make than more layer-work or clean-up?
    I'm sorry if my questions sound a bit confusing.

    mogli365 wrote:
    I also like the way I'm working with CS4 now, and all the options I have in Camera Raw, and I'm still trying to figure out, whether there is a way in working with both apps inter-active.
    You can use both but not interactively, and it's probably not a good idea unless you really know what you're doing because you could lose track of some images that way. Many will say that there's no reason to do this, but there are some things I do starting in Bridge/ACR. I keep these images in a folder called "NOTinA2", and I browse that folder with Bridge.
    My library is now a referenced, external one. So all editing of my Raw files is stored in the Aperture library internally. My 14 Bit Nef files are converted into 16 Bit in the moment Aperture is opening or converting it? As soon I open them with External Editor they are a 16 Bit (if I want so) but they are no more Raw.
    Neither program is affecting the actual RAW file: Bridge/ACR are storing instructions in a sidecar file, and Aperture is storing instructions in the Library. When you export or open in Photoshop, a new file is created. There's no need to open either in Photoshop unless you need to do Photoshop work.
    Most of my files are not getting extensively edited, so it's fine with me doing my conversion and a few tweaks, and leave them so. Now I tried to open the same Nef files in Adobe Camera Raw, and as long I let Adobe store the edit files separate from the Raw files, it seems Aperture is not disturbed, and I can even open and adjust them again. So far it seems to be no problems.
    The two programs are both referencing the same files, and one doesn't even know the other is there. If you open a file in Photoshop from either program a new file will be created. However, if you open it from ACR, Aperture will not know it's there.
    The first is that all given keywords and description are only inside Aperture library (and they would only accompanied if I export the files as Tif)
    You can not share Keywords from Aperture with Bridge.
    And secondly that Adobe Raw seems NOT to convert my Nef files into 16 Bit.
    At the bottom of the Adobe Camera RAW window, you'll see what looks like a web link. Click it to open the workflow options dialog box. There you can change it from 8bit to 16bit, set your print resolution and tell it if you want to open them in Photoshop as Smart Objects. (that last option will "embed" a copy of the RAW file in your Photoshop document and allow you to revisit you RAW conversion settings.)
    DLS

  • Awful canon raw conversion for photos with dramatic (i.e. underwater) non-standard white balance

    I'm shooting underwater (and white balancing as I shoot using a white disc) with a canon s90, and have noticed that the raw conversions done by aperture are way worse than those from jpegs when I shoot in raw+jpeg and those done by raw processing using the canon digital photo professional software. In particular, reds are pretty much lost. It may be a false lead, but I notice that in aperture, the rgb histogram shows a dramatic spike of the red channel on the far right (possibly clipping?) that doesn't show up in the rgb histogram in the canon software.
    I'm not sure whether this is related to the plethora of threads about canon raw processing and overly green output. Has anyone else experienced this or have any ideas? I could batch convert to tiff in the canon software but I'd really rather not do that... For one thing the 16bit tiff files are so much bigger than the raws and it is an annoying extra step. Also, note that I can't just batch fix the white balance because (a) I'm having a hard time getting aperture to do it properly (possibly b/c the red channel is clipped as far as the aperture UI is concerned?) and (b) The white-balance changes from picture to picture as I change depth, which is the whole reason I white-balance as I'm shooting in the first place..
    I've attached two versions of a picture, one of which I processed the raw in aperture and one of which I processed the raw (and converted to TIFF to give to aperture) in the canon software. I then exported both as small jpegs from aperture.
    Canon Digital Photo Professional (correct):
    Aperture RAW processing (very wrong):

    >Is MS Picture Viewer a colour managed application? I don't know, but don't think so. Lightroom is however which might be the cause of your problems.
    Not in XP. In vista it is color managed. From the sound of it, the problem is a bad monitor profile but you might also have a corrupt Lightroom database. You need to recalibrate the monitor and NEVER use canned profiles from the monitor manufacturer. They are almost always corrupt. As a very last resort, you can use sRGB as the monitor profile (delete any profile found in the windows display properties) but only to hold you over until you can really calibrate it. The other problems with weird errors are pretty worrisome though. Do you also get them when you start a fresh catalog?

  • Raw conversion problem

    I have Photoshop Elements 6 (Camera Raw 4.2) and a Nikon D7000 (Camera Raw 6.3 minimum).  I am using DNG converter 8.1 to create DNG files, but these still will not open in Elements.  I am selecting compatibility of Camera Raw 4.1 in the conversion program.  What else can I do?

    Sorry it took me a long time to reply.  If I send to dropbox (which I can), can I restrict the images to specific email addresses, or will it be accessible to anyone?  Not that I care about the image particularly, as it was only a test.
    Once I have an idea of this, I will do a final test & send the data to dropbox.
    Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 15:12:51 -0700
    From: [email protected]
    To: [email protected]
    Subject: Raw conversion problem
        Re: Raw conversion problem
        created by ssprengel in Photoshop Elements - View the full discussion
    It seems like you're doing everything that you're supposed to be doing, and it is not working.  I don't have an explanation why that is, but can you share an original NEF and its DNG via www.dropbox.com or similar and others can test with a newer version of ACR to make sure there isn't something corrupted wtih the files.
         Please note that the Adobe Forums do not accept email attachments. If you want to embed a screen image in your message please visit the thread in the forum to embed the image at http://forums.adobe.com/message/6225513#6225513
         Replies to this message go to everyone subscribed to this thread, not directly to the person who posted the message. To post a reply, either reply to this email or visit the message page: http://forums.adobe.com/message/6225513#6225513
         To unsubscribe from this thread, please visit the message page at http://forums.adobe.com/message/6225513#6225513. In the Actions box on the right, click the Stop Email Notifications link.
               Start a new discussion in Photoshop Elements at Adobe Community
      For more information about maintaining your forum email notifications please go to http://forums.adobe.com/thread/416458?tstart=0.

  • Bad D3 RAW Conversion - Clipped color in shadows...

    ...and other issues.
    Well. My thread was deleted last time and I didn't get any reasons as to why. What is up with this place? Good thing I always copy my message before posting. Never know when the internet is going to go kaboom... (or somebody is going to delete your thread.)
    I just shelled out $200 for this product and the moderators are deleting my threads?!
    I think I smell fish.
    - Issue 1.
    Aperture's raw conversion for the Nikon D3 is clipping the color from shadows.... generally. (About 99% of the time.) It is possible that the couple of images I haven't seen the problem occur in have color detail just above the clipping threshold.
    This really makes for some ugly images.
    Aperture team: How about we get an update to fix this?
    I just spent 5 hours importing and organizing ~3k images into my existing library now that Aperture finally supports the D3 but now I can't use it. Unfortunately I have been forced to use Bridge for the last couple of months due to no D3 support. Through this, I have become accustomed to its (Bridge's) speed and ACR's RAW conversion. Now Aperture flies and it is MUCH appreciated but the raw conversions are a little noisy and the colorless shadows is a BIG problem.
    In the samples below, watch the shadow on the brown wall behind her as well as the shadow areas on the neck in the close up. Note that the red strap in the file with the color clipped has almost no red left.
    I have another image I took that I was playing with to see how far I could pull the file and still retain shadow detail. The image is in color and looks alright when opened with ACR but when I open it in Aperture, there is almost no color at all in the image. This leads me to believe that Aperture's D3 raw conversion is throwing away color information at a specific level.
    I have a couple of sample images side by side here:
    http://www.uberfoto.com/images/misc/temp/colorclipfull.png
    http://www.uberfoto.com/images/misc/temp/colorclipcrop.png
    - FYI, I don't have any of these issues with D200 NEF's.
    - Issue 2.
    The RAW sharpening has absolutely no affect on any of my D3 images. I bring up the camera model because it could be a specific camera issue. I haven't heard of anybody else having this problem.
    - Issue 3.
    Where are the CA removal tools?
    I don't mean this in any sort of rude way. My intention was to bring up some issues that I have come across and see if I could get some feedback.
    -Josh

    The email I received was strictly regarding my post being deleted. I have not heard anything in reference to the RAW 2.0 problem.
    Here is a comparison of the same image. One exported from Aperture and the other opened in ACR and saved as a JPG.
    http://www.uberfoto.com/images/misc/temp/colorclipAP-ACR.jpg
    http://www.uberfoto.com/images/misc/temp/colorclip_AP-ACRzoom.jpg
    Another thing I noticed is that Aperture preview generator does not clip the color data like the raw converter does. Previews created after image adjustments retain their color in the shadows while the full composite view displays in monochrome. This is an image I took in the studio where the PW died and the flash didn't pop so it was very dark. The original image was nearly all black with no discernible details until I pulled the exposure back up. The ACR conversion looks nearly identical (discarding small differences in brand interpretation) to the "Preview" in AP2.0.
    http://www.uberfoto.com/images/misc/temp/colorclipraw.jpg
    http://www.uberfoto.com/images/misc/temp/colorclippreview.jpg

  • Aperture 3 Raw conversion from Nikon D700 - Bad results - Anyone?

    I recently upgraded to a Nikon D700 and have noticed I am getting some really bad conversion results from my raw files which involve my having to do a lot of work to get decent images. Most images are too dark and with strong orange cast... Any ideas? I thought it might be the camera, so I tried another computer with photoshop raw converter and images are fine. I have noticed the original import settings are strange on Aperture but cannot seem to change them, they always revert back to maximum hue boost and max boost ect... Any help would be great! thanx!

    I have a Nikon D700 and have just tried the Aperture demo- same results as you guys, disappointing RAW conversion. Contrast and sharpness quite poor and blues are 'off'
    I currently use Capture NX and was looking for something a little less 'clunky'. Though it may not be as slick as Aperture, its RAW conversion is spot on (as you would expect from a Nikon sponsored app)
    It's easy to compare the differences- open an unedited RAW file in Capture NX and save as an uncompressed, 16 bit TIFF. Import this and the original RAW file into Aperture. Prepare for disappointment :-/

  • Missing Exposure EXIF Metadata After RAW Conversion

    I am running Photoshop CS6 on a 64-bit Windows 7 PC.  Since upgrading from CS5 I have noticed that the Exposure EXIF metadata as viewed in Bridge vanishes after RAW conversion/adjustment of my images.  I've read at least one other posting to the forums describing a similar situation, however, I've not seen an acknowledgement of an issue or bug in Bridge.  Clearing the RAW conversion settings restores the missing EXIF metadata.
    Regards,
    TonyQ

    Have you seen this post?  http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1014540?tstart=30

  • I have an A77 and see that DxO RAW conversions look different

    Several RAW conversion comparisons on the web amongst A77 users are pointing to markedly better conversions and noise handling currently within new DxO 7 eg. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1037&thread=39970661
    I know that Sony's RAW have historically taken a while to arrive at optimal conversions from previous experinece with my A350. When Lightroom 3 came along it was like getting new cameras for most Sony Alpha users with from RAW performance at last matching Nikon from effectively the same sensors.
    Can you let me know the likely time lag till ACR and Lightroom will have an update to this initial default to really match the DxO performance. Otherwise, to be honest, despite being a Lightroom user since the original Beta stages and a passionate supporter and advocate, I may have to consider jumping ship. Working exclusively in RAW I do need to be using the very best conversions possible to make the best out of my investment in my camera equipment.
    I don't know if this lag with ARW conversions is because Sony don't co-operate with Adobe early enough or whether because Sony is only number three in DSLR share it gets less priority within Adobe than Canon and Nikon, but some timeline on a revised version of Lightroom to address this for the new Sony Alphas would be great.
    Many thanks from a long time advocate who really hopes I can stick with Lightroom,
    Cheers,
    Paul

    Hi Hal,
    Many thanks...I’ll give it a try. Not trying to cause trouble as I genuinely am a fan of LR, but if they always lag on getting to grips with Sony RAWs it’s a major drawback for Sony users.
    Cheers,
    Paul

Maybe you are looking for