ACR vs Aperture for Raw Processing

I have been using Lightroom for over a year (including beta versions on my old PC), but have grown tired of it's lack of worthwhile output options. I have a trial version of Aperture and think that it is a far superior product on the management and output side of things, but I am having problems getting my raw files to look good to me.
I could process all the files in Bridge first, then create tiffs or PSDs to import into Aperture, but that would negate have the purpose of Aperture. I need help with an Aperture workflow and probably with raw processing controls in Aperture.
Specs: 17" MBP with 10.5.1, Aperture 1.5.6
Camera: Pentax K10D ver 1.3
I typically convert my PEF files to DNG due to better compression in DNG, but have tried using the original PEF with identical results. Any help is appreciated.

I too came back to Aperture after a year of Lightroom's "workflow". It really is possible to match or surpass LR's output. There's a good guide to the adjustment tools here:
http://www.insideaperture.com/Site/AdjustmentToolGuide.html
Also lots of tips about workflow, etc. here:
http://www.bagelturf.com/
You probably won't want to spend too much money if you're just using the trial, but Ben Long's book
Aperture Pro training Series: Aperture 1.5 is very good.

Similar Messages

Aperture for Raw over Canon

Hello photogs
I have to use my 7D to shoot some photos in the middle of filming a documentary. Just wondering how well Aperture handles Raw over a third party or Canon software?
I will use Aperture as my organization and Photoshop to edit. Just wondering how the workflow and range for Raw was using Aperture to ingest?
Thank You!

Just because it's on the list doesn't mean the conversion will be satisfactory. Worth comparing a RAW import into Aperture with one done using the camera manufacturer's software.
Hope you Canon guys fair better than us Nikon guys
See: http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2743961&tstart=0

ACR 6.1 Lens Profile missing for Raw

My D90 18-105 Lens Profile shows up with jpg's in ACR, but not with RAW files. Both 12 bit dng and 8 bit files show up in PS CS5 with the D90 18-105 profile.
How do I get the D90 Lens profile to show up in ACR 6.1 for raw files?
Thanks

http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/lensprofile_creator.html
-Noel

Canon sx40 RAW processing

I shoot RAW with Canon SX40 HS using CHDK. Aperture reportedly has a profile for Canon SX50 (not 40) RAW. Does anyone know how Aperture might interpret a RAW image that's associated with the SX40? And is there a way to change the camera model to "fool" or force Aperture into using it's SX50 profile for RAW processing? I don't see any controls for telling Aperture to use a particular camera profile. (Of course, all this may be for naught since Aperture is being discontinued...)
thx
mike

I am having the same exact problem with my 60D. All of my photos process with a dark magenta hue in the blacks. Upping the exposure or brightness on any of my RAW photos causes the pinks to come out of the blacks and the photo looks even more overly saturated with pink. If I shoot in both JPEG and RAW simultaneously, the JPEG looks as it should be. But once the RAW version reaches Aperture, or OS X in general, the pink hue is very apparent and has ruined all of the photos I've shot since I first got the camera.
It should also be noted that processing the RAW files with the factory software supplied by Canon with the camera processes the photo as expected without the dark magenta hues. Could there be an issue with the RAW compatibility that Apple delivered in the OS X 10.6.5 update? I doubt this is a problem with the camera as the RAW file looks fine when processed with any software that isn't Apple related such as Aperture, iPhoto, or Preview.
Attached is a screenshot of a normally processed RAW file (top) and an Apple/OS X processed RAW file (bottom), same exact photo:
http://imgur.com/K9jQs.jpg

RAW Processing problems with Canon 5D Mark iii

I am having problems with the RAW files coming from my new 5D Mark iii in Aperture. I have the latest version of Aperture (and update) installed. Selecting a picture style on the 5D doesn't seem to yield any results because when I import the photo into aperture all the images go very dark. I have to pull the exposure levels up all the way to get a decent exposure. The histogram on my camera looks perfect but when imported into Aperutre the histogram changes. I have my custom picture style set to give me a very flat image (contrast off, sharpening off, saturation -2, color tone 0). The images looks very flat and perfect in my LCD but once imported into aperture the RAW processing makes it very dark. I even tried shooting the exact photo in three completely different picture styles but they all look identical once they are in aperture. What's going on??

Here is a side by side comparison of a RAW image in the latest versions of Aperture and Lightroom. I have never had these issues with the 5D Mark II only the Mark III. As you can see Lightroom produces a nice flat image while Aperture is under-exposing the image. Any thoughts? I really want to continue to use Aperture but with my recent camera upgrade to the Mark III I don't see how this is possible. Anyones help would be much appreciated.

Nikon Support for raw

I have a Nikon D 50 and and confused as to whether I can open raw files with Photoshop Elements 4.0 for Mac. On the list of cameras supported there's an asterisk for Nikon. Do I need to buy the Nikon software for raw to open in PE?
Here's the note for Nikon in the camera's supported list:
*The file encryption found in some Nikon raw formats has caused some users to question the level of cooperation between Nikon and Adobe in providing solutions for raw processing. Get more information about Nikon's and Adobe's joint commitment to our common customer needs.

I have Mac 4.0 and a Nikon D200.
NIKON RAW support is fantastic for this very inexpensive program. They give you a terrific plug-in to pull in the files and make adjustments, then convert to .jpg for editing. Please note that is the way it works; you open the file first with the plug-in and do your preliminary adjustments (white balance for example) then open in PS to fine tune and enhance.
iPhoto doesn't support the D200 yet so this helped a lot.
jim

When will Aperture 3 support RAW processing for the Canon 5D III?

When will Aperture 3 support RAW processing for the new Canon 5D III?

We are no phophets and also do not work for Apple - so we don't know.
See this thread to join into a discussion with others who also are waiting:
Canon 5D Mk III - RAW update?
Regards
Léonie

Using Aperture and IPhoto together for RAW

Hi All,
I have just received my MBP and will be using Aperture to edit my RAW files from a Nikon camera.
I was wondering if Aperture works the same as IPhoto in regards to the library function or do you still use IPhoto to arrange, tag your images etc...
If that is the case how do you do that if you are using RAW files? Does IPhoto recognise RAW images?
I would like to hear your workflow on a MAC.
Cheers.

Sad to say Richard but you are close but not quite correct. Aperture has a much reduced set of RAW support vs. iPhoto. Of this I can personally attest, but they're both covered on the Apple site.
To add to some other points you address...
iPhoto is still needed for simple integration with other iLife apps., as Aperture has no iLife integration. There is an Aperture2iLife script available (Lightbox software) which automates an export and import process. If you carry an iPod around with photos, then you'll need to maintain iPhoto for that purpose. Welcome to the land of duplicates!
iPhoto does indeed process the RAW and all image work is performed on a JPEG version therafter. The RAW is never used, but is stored in the Originals folder (along with any original JPG or TIF files from the camera if these were shot vs. RAW).
Aperture's RAW converter is markedly superior to iPhoto, and the control and editing options likewise. As noted, Aperture does not change the original RAW (or other imported file), but saves the edit instructions (akin to adjustment layers in Photoshop) for rebuilding the image viewed from the original. Enhanced book and Web Gallery options exist vs. iPhoto ... so integration to iWeb isn't quite as important, though would be very useful.

Aperture Unable to process RAW files even though finder shows a preview

I have recently upgraded to Aperture 3.0 which decided to delete my library. Using PhotoRec i am slowly recovering all of my files.
The files that have been recovered are .cr2 files and .jpg files. The jpegs display fine without a problem however every 2 out of 3 cr2 RAW files will not import into iPhoto, Aperture or pretty much any other RAW processing software. Aperture just says "Unsupported File Type".
My issue is that Finder is showing a preview of the image in the icon, and is showing a preview in CoverFlow, but everything refuses to open the file. This must surley mean that the data is still intact within the .cr2 file? else Finder would be unable to display the preview of the file?
Does anyone know how to fix this or what could be causing this issue?
Apple please, please fix this issue with Aperture, I fear that I have lost a lot of photos in this process.
Please help!

Aarthek - the Canon PowerShot G2 is not supported centrally on your Mac.
http://www.apple.com/aperture/specs/raw.html
I've just finished importing my old archive produced by this camera. What I did was to produce fresh JPEGs (medium quality, so low file size) in the same directory as the original RAW images. I happen to have Photoshop CS3 and could easily do these in batches, but worst case, you should still have Canon's ImageBrowser suite which could do this. I then imported the JPGs for cataloguing, keywording, etc. Then, if I want to do some serious work on an image from my G2, I'll right-click the image and select +Show in Finder+ and get straight to my corresponding RAW image which I can then process in Photoshop.
but I don't understand why the thumbnail shows up when I'm importing as though there are no issues.
There's a small embedded JPG in the RAW files and that's what you're seeing. I think that's also what you saw on the G2's display when you were out shooting and stopped to review an image in the field.
Regards,
Gary

Why is the Raw processing so noisy and lousy in Aperture 3.3 vs LR4

I have been using LR4 to process my photos due to its image quality and its functions .
However I have always liked aperture for its file managmenet. when the 3.3 is out I thought
this could be me the game changer, ( I am shooting with 5D3)
However over the weekend I have found out that doing a side by side comparision the Aperture's Raw (CR2) processing
is simply not acceptable. it is lack of sharpenss and high noise is nothing but a joke if you compare to the LR4.
I hope it is some setting that I am doing wrong so I went to the apple store, and ther" Creative" guys was not able to solve
the issues as well, so now I am back to square one. I have to use LR4 to process my photos and APERTURE to store them...
Any one has better ideas?
The difference was to me day & night, it is not subtle ,,,
I hope someone can help me with my aperture issue so I can go back to using just one system.

What ISO are you shooting with?
Lightroom's noise reduction is better than Aperture's on noisy images right now. Lightroom's controls can easily knock down luminance and chroma noise, while Aperture's tools are fairly limited. You can use 3rd party plugins (Nik Dfine, Noise Ninja, etc.) that will do a good job but that renders a TIFF file which I'm not overly fond of for just this purpose.
But, still, the 5D Mark III has awfully good noise performance. Are you shooting at ISO 12800 or higher all the time? Is the noise frequently visible in all of your shots when you're not pixel peeping?
I ask because, while Lightroom is certainly better w.r.t. noise reduction than Aperture at the moment, I don't have all that many of my shots that really, really need noise reduction.

Best iMac I can afford for Raw files work in Aperture 3

I'm looking to purchase a new iMac soon. I work mostly with a lot of RAW Nikon files with Aperture and I do a lot of adjustments with them. I'm debating between the 21.5" iMac but upgrading the processor to the i7, or, getting the larger 27", but can't affford the i7 with that model, would have to stick with the i5 processor. The xtra sceen real estate is nice of course, but would it be better to have the i7 processor since I could always add a second monitor to the 21.5" iMac for additional screen area for menus, etc...Would adding that second monitor affect my processing and/or graphics speeds at all, somewhat negating the xtra power from the i7 processor, or, would adding that 2nd monitor not really affect my processing and graphics power at all?
Also, the 21" and 27" base models have the same graphics card with 512mb vram, is that ok for Aperture with RAW file also?
Thanks!

All 2011 macs have nice performance improvements over previous models. However Aperture is a hardware hog: GPU, CPU, i/o, RAM. Those intending Aperture as an important app will do far better with the strongest available hardware in a given category.
The GPU will be key as to which iMacs are stronger, after that the CPU. RAM should be 8 GB via third party.
The second display will suck (some) power from the less-than-best GPU in the lower end iMacs. Note that every Mac is really a synergy of its parts to run Aperture, so it is hard to say how much effect a second display has onoverall Aperture performance, but I would not worry about it unless using a Macbook Air. I have a 17" MBP plus $300 Viewsonic VP2365wb and the setup works great. IMO for graphics desktop work a second display is a huge benefit.
IMO hard drives are obsolete as boot drives. If I was buying an iMac (I will not, preferring just-as-strong mobile Macbook Pros with their inexpensive SSDs instead) and could not afford the expensive iMac SSD configuration I would get an i5 model and have OWC retrofit an SSD into the Superdrive slot.
Note that iMac hard drives are not upgradable except by Apple so you might as well order a large hard drive now.
BareFeats.com has all kinds of relative graphics performance tests up (more coming), including this link:
http://barefeats.com/mba11_02.html
HTH
-Allen wicks

Workflow for Post Processing Magic Lantern RAW Video?

Dear Adobe Community,
I am interested in learning what steps/workflow fellow DSLR, Magic Lantern users take to Edit, Color Grade and add FX to their RAW video? Here is my untested thought process so far:
Adjust the Exposure, White Balance, Lens Distortion, Etc of DNGs in Adobe Camera Raw.
Import DNG image sequence into Premiere Pro for Editing
Use Dynamic Link to Color Grade in Speed Grade
Use Dynamic Link to add effects in After Effects
Render out in Premiere Pro
One of the concerns I have is that I've read on the Magic Lantern Forums that Premiere Pro will reduce 14 Bit DNG to 8 Bit. Is this something you've encountered? Is there a workaround?
I am fairly new to all of this and would greatly appreciate any feedback to point me in the right direction for Post Processing Magic Lantern Raw Video files. I have a subscription to Lynda.com as well if you have any suggestions for courses to look at.
Thank-you for your time.

Nothing Adobe makes can read MLV or RAW video files, so you have to use something else to convert them into CinemaDNG (a folder of images) or a high bit depth movie file (ProRes etc.) - there are many tools listed in the ML forum which can do that.
Premiere Pro can import cDNG footage but it struggles to play back in real time, and will not allow you to grade it using Camera Raw. To do that you have to use After Effects. The workflow is supposed to be "ingest in Prelude, edit in Premiere Pro, color in SpeedGrade", but quite frankly the learning curve for SG is massive. Adobe's attitude to CinemaDNG is strange; although the standard is open, support is only coded for very specific models of camera and the CC suite assumes a Hollywood workflow where professional colorists (who spend years learning how to use the software) operate offline from the rest of the edit, usually after all the cuts are made. It's not set up for a typical lone DSLR filmmaker, which is quite frankly why a lot of ML users prefer another well-known way to resolve the problem.
The 'fast and dirty' approach to getting a cinematic grade in Premiere would be to apply LUT files to the footage using the Lumetri effect (basically running SpeedGrade presets), or you can hand-grade it using the inbuilt Color Corrector tools - but that doesn't cover the other important stuff that ACR can do, such as lens correction, alignment, noise reduction, camera calibration profiles, etc. - for that, you should import the cDNG footage into After Effects (which does support ACR), correct and calibrate the frames, then export back to something high quality that Premiere can work with (such as DNxHD or ProRes 444). You won't notice any visual loss in quality, and Premiere then will play the timeline without struggling, but it takes a loooong time to chew through every clip.
As to if Adobe applications will ever support MLV files natively - well, since Adobe relies on close partnerships with camera manufacturers including Canon, you can guess what would happen if Adobe ever endorsed it. The only scenario I can imagine is if MLV is adopted in-camera by a major DC manufacturer (Alexa, etc) so vendors can support it without slapping Canon in the face. Flying pigs come to mind.

HT3946 Raw processing for Fuji X1 Pro

Raw processing for Fuji X1 Pro - when can we expect it to be supported in Aperture

This is a user forum, so none of is will know officially; you probably have found already the list of raw formats supported by Aperture: http://www.apple.com/aperture/specs/raw.html
Apple has been rather quick with adding raw support for pro cameras lately, so keep your fingers crossed.
Use the feedback form in the Aperture " - menu > Provide feedback to Apple" to ask for speedy raw support.
Regards
Léonie

Is ACR as good as Photoshop for jpeg processing?

I have CS3 and use ACR 4.1 for processing my RAWs. I love it's intuitive easy workflow.
I have many many jpeg files from my pre-RAW days that I'd like to improve by doing slight adjustments i.e. crop, adjust tone, WB, set white point, contrast, saturation, colour tweaking,resize, sharpen. I do this so they can be displayed online on a Zenfolio or pBase account, NOT for printing.
I like ACR's workflow and myriad of adjustment options yet I wonder if it is a better platform for jpeg processing than Photoshop. For ease of use it clearly is, but what about end product?
For best results, Photoshop requires me to create a new adjustment layer for each adjustment. I DO speed up the workflow by creating Actions that convert the files to 16 bits as well as creating new adjustment layers upfront. I still have to apply batch processes to merge layers, resize, sharpen, convert back to 8 bit and save as jpg. But I still have to go in to each layer and make adjustments. ACR 4.1 is much easier because all the sliders are more easily accessible. But I wonder if it sacrifices results because I don't know if it is working in 8 or 16 bits. With ACR workflow is easier to recover shadow/highlight detail (though I am not sure if it is more effective).
For the best results am I still better off using PS for jpeg tweaking, despite its more cumbersome workflow, because I can work in 16 bits?
I really like ACR's workflow. But from what little theory that I do have it sounds like PS ability to work in 16 bits still gives it the edge.Or am I missing something here?

"...if you open a JPEG...it is converted to 16 bit, linear Pro Photo RGB for editing. It's been shown (by Lightroom) ...that the totality of the edits in CR are in linear ProPhoto you could see a real benefit to processing camera JPEGs (as apposed to already edited JPEGS saved out of like Photoshop) over doing similar edits in Photoshop."
This is interesting and good news! Now my grasp of all this technical talk is limited so bear with me if I am not up to speed. I just want to make sure I understand this.
ACR opens all 8 bit JPEGs automatically in 16 bit ProPhoto workspace BEFORE the actual editing is performed?
At the risk of hopelessly confusing myself even further, why would ACR be a better platform for JPEG processing with out of camera jpegs but not previously edited JPEGs?
Jeff, I know you've stated "it's beed shown by Lightroom" but can you show me this? Where has it been shown? A link, webpage? That way I can look at this myself, spare you trying to explain it to me and (yes this is pure self interest) hopefully free time up for you to work on the ACR 4.1 book I am looking forward to.
Thanks for the time you devote to helping us noobs pursue our passions!!

My student has been using Lightroom 4 with Photoshop CS5 on her Mac for well over a year. Because of the difference between the Camera raw version available to her in Photoshop CS5 and the raw process in Lightroom 4, she has been exporting her raw images

Any ideas?

My student has been using Lightroom 4 with Photoshop CS5 on her Mac for well over a year. Because of the difference between the Camera raw version available to her in Photoshop CS5 and the raw process in Lightroom 4, she has been exporting her raw images from Lightroom and choosing the "Render using Lightroom option when it popped up in the dialogue box. She has been doing this for over a year and a half without any problem. Today when she hit Command E no dialogue box appeared and the image just opened in Photoshop. I'm concerned that all of her Lightroom edits are not being rendered to Photoshop. Anyone have an idea as to how we can get the "Render using Lightroom" dialogue back?

ACR vs Aperture for Raw Processing

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for