Adjusting image in Aperture for Apple TV (16:9)

I create an album from original master photos.
I cropped them in 16:9 and syncronize them via iTunes to Apple TV.
They not appear in Apple TV.
Which is the correct method to do that ?
I'd like not duplicate original master to save disk space.

Yes the problem seems related to update preview in Aperture.
After cropping picture to fit 16:9 ratio, i've now manually (not exists an autoupdatepreview option ?).
It's strange but only 1 photo is update also in Apple TV the others remain unmodified.
I've waited for the updatepreviewprocess to finish and then open itunes to update (automagically, isn't it?) photo also in Apple TV.
thanks

Similar Messages

How do you choose which photos from Aperture for Apple TV screen saver?

How do you choose which photos from Aperture for Apple TV screen saver?

How do you choose which photos from Aperture for Apple TV screen saver?

Interpolate images in Aperture for Stock Photos?

Hi Everyone,
Is there a way to interpolate 8-bit TIFF images exported from Aperture 3.0, which have file sizes of 36.6MB from Nikon D90 12MP camera, up to 50MB for submission to a stock agency?
If I can't interpolate in Aperture, what are the best Mac-friendly programs that will do this?
The programs I have currently are Aperture 3.0 and Photoshop Elements 9.
Thanks!

Hi D. Anderson,
I think your size checking program should be used more often by other parties! Thanks for the link.
My initial post may have been confusing.
I know the size of my files, however, I need to increase the size of my TIFF files from 36.6MB up to around 50MB in order to submit to a stock agency. I was told interpolation would do this. How to interpolate, I don't know.
Would you know if Aperture can do such a task or perhaps you can recommend some third party software?

Resizing images in aperture

Hi
I have a question, do you know if you can resize/interpolate images within Aperture for the purpose of stock submission. I usually carry this out in CS3 however I am trying to stream line work flow and wondered if this can be achieved in Aperture 2.
I only converted to Mac before christmas so I am still in the learning stages.
Many thanks
NW

Many thanks for the answer I will have a go at that later.
What is the image quality like, normally I do the upscaling in CS3 is the conversion in Aperture as good, or is there degradation of image quality. Just thought I would tad this question on the end as I will be submitting to the same location as you are.
What are the files you are uploading NEF or CR2,
Regards
NWKent

How-To: White-balance your image properly Attn: Aperture Team @ Apple

Since Aperture's white balance eye-dropper is more-or-less useless I have taken it upon myself to discover a means to accurately white-balance an image using Aperture.
My method is as follows:
1. Open my desired image in Aperture and hit Z to view at 100%
2. Open up /Applications/Utilities/DigitalColor Meter
3. In DigitalColor Meter, go into preferences and select the following options:
Magnification Factor: 8x
Refresh behavior: Refresh continuously
[X] Float window above other apps
4. Set DigitalColor Meter's "Aperture Size" to the third or 4th notch to get a fairly large radius
5. Move the cursor over the image until DigitalColor Meter's "Aperture" box is over a portion of the image that you want neutral and hit Command(Apple)-L
to lock it at that position
6. Adjust the White Balance controls in Aperture until DigitalColor Meter reads equal (or approximately equal) R G B values
You now have an image that's white balanced accurately for the area you selected. If it is not satisfactory, click on DigitalColor Meter and hit Command(Apple)-L to unlock and repeat the 5th and 6th steps above with a new area.
Notice to Apple's Aperture Team: This is how white balance should work in Aperture. The white balance eye-dropper currently produces pretty random results. When working on this tool for a future update, look at allowing the user to set a radius for sampling the image and build the DigitalColor Meter into the application. This would bring Aperture closer to being a real professional tool.
Dual G5 2.5GHz, 4GB RAM, GeForce 6800 Ultra DDL Mac OS X (10.4.3)

Test Results:
Aperture 1.1:
Image Temperature: 3594
Tint: -17
When using the white balance tool on a white section of a photo, the RGB values changed from R 255 G 234 B 192 to R 255 G 230 B 197 and the Temperature changed to 3946 and Tint to 12.
The photo still remained unacceptable.
When usint the white balance tool on a grey section of the same photo, the RGB values cahnge from R 211 G 178 B 126 to R 208 G 180 B 162 and the Temperatue changed to 3154 and Tint to 2.
The photo still remained unacceptable but was notably improved.
Using Capture One Pro, the results were as follows:
Temperatue: 3850
Tint: -10
When using the white balance tool on a white section of the same photo, the RGB values changed from R 255 G 241 B 200 to R 244 G 244 B 244 and the Temperature changed to 2500 and Tint to -16.
Photo was very acceptable with no perceivable colour cast.
When using the white balance tool on a grey section of the same photo, the RGB values changed from R 190 G 153 B 108 to R 153 G 153 B 153 and Temperature to 2550 and Tint to -2.
Photo was very acceptable with no perceivable colour cast.
From this quick test on a photo, I can draw the following conclusions:
1. Aperture interprets temperature and tint data differently from Capture One Pro, although this likely due to the use of a camera profile within Capture One Pro;
2. Using the white balance tool in Aperture on a "white" section does not neutralize the RGB values;
3. Using the white balance tool in Aperture on a "white" section does not correctly remove a colour cast within a photograph;
4. Using the white balance tool in Aperture on a "grey" section does not neutralize the RGB values; and
5. Using the white balance tool in Aperture on a "grey" section does not correctly remove a colour cast within a photograph, although it does work better.

Using Aperture for collecting and adjusting scans?

I am in the process of digitizing a few thousand LPs, DATs and even CDs. I scan all the covers and use them in a FileMaker database as well as iTunes.
Does it make any sense to get and use Aperture as the holding place for these? I know about Bridge and QPict and GraphicConverter has a nice browser too. But I'm thinking about the organizational abilities of Aperture as well as the nice image adjustment corrections it provides.
Is this overkill? Does anyone here use Aperture for managing images other than RAW photos?

Commentary (including mine) on this topic is at
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=753016&tstart=25
Bridge I personally do not think much of.
Since you own Photoshop and Filemaker I would just use those two apps, scanning into PSCS2 for editing then copying into FMP. Build your keywords in FMP and have each image have a unique I.D. number. The full resolution scans live elsewhere, identified by the I.D. number.
Put each image into a FMP container field, but before copying into FMP first reduce the image size as much as possible for your needs to keep the DB as small as possible. Do note that once you start the process you cannot make the images larger; you need to go find the original for that.
FMP 8 has a way to reference images without importing them but I have not used it yet. That may be appropriate for your purposes so you should check it out.
-Allen Wicks

Wrong image preview while I am moving adjustment sliders in Aperture

When I move adjustment sliders, a different recently and previosly adjusted image will frequently show in the viewer while the slider is being moved. Sometimes parts of two or more previous images will appear and sometimes in the wrong orientation. This makes it makes it impossible to see the result of the adjustment until I release the slider which is annoying. I cannot reliably replicate the problem but it happens often. It seems random as if the wrong image is in a cache and not refreshing properly.
Details:
MacPro (New) 6-core 32GB RAM, D300 Graphics OS X
Aperture 3.5.1
Moved Library from old machine (2007 MacPro) and rebuilt library
250K images all referenced
Library is big (236GB)
Files are RAW Canon 5dMk3 and tend to be about 30MB
Preferences:
Import: standard previews
Previews: generate automatically and share when quitting (half size medium quality)
library created new previews for all images when I rebuilt it
machine will run processor and memory hard, sometimes around 90%
Might it be a poor choice of preference settings or a corrupt library? Anyone else ever experience this condition? I would appreciate any suggestions.

On a conceptual level, it should not be a problem, but a Preview is related to a Version, and a Version is related to one Original/Master. There can be multiple Versions, all of which must point to a single Original.
You are not adjusting a Preview, but rather a Version. What you see as you adjust is a new rendering of the Version, and is not the Preview you saw when you decided to adjust, I believe.
There are on the order of 8 or 9 other files related to every Original even if only one Version in the Package that is the Library. Very complex indexing going on at all times.
Please open an image, and before attempting to adjust, click on File, and choose Show in Finder -- is the Finder image the correct one? And in the correct location?
Now attempt to adjust. Does the image change? If so, again us Show in Finder and check.
Ernie

Apple working on a way of including geotagging images into Aperture?

Hi,
We have several ways of geotagging images before they are transported into a Aperture library, but I would have liked a way of tagging already existing images and have already suggested that apple could include this in the Import Menu.
Is it unlikely that Apple will have a look at ways to geocode images inside Aperture in the future?
Best regards,
Kjell Are Refsvik

You can read the AppleScript dictionary in Script Editor.
Assuming you would use IPTC tags for this, here is the relevant information:
IPTC tag n : This class represents an IPTC tag of an image version.
elements
contained by image versions.
properties
name (string, r/o) : This is the name of the IPTC tag.
value (string) : This is the value of the IPTC tag.
So you could create a tag for geographic location and put GPS coordinates or whatever in there. Writing something to iterate through your photos and update this information based on name/value pairs wouldn't be THAT hard.
Note Automator could also help here -- it has an action "Set IPTC Tags":
Set IPTC Tags
This action will apply the chosen IPTC tags to the Aperture images passed from the previous action.
Input: (Aperture Image)
Options: You can tab between the various text fields in the Action View. Select the checkboxes next to the text fields whose value you wish to apply. Checkboxes will automatically be selected upon text entry into a field.
Result: (Aperture Image)
This is just building blocks -- don't expect me to guide you how to write it -- but with experimentation this shouldn't be too hard if you have AppleScript and/or Automator experience. The latter is more approachable for the novice. The former is more powerful.

Suggestion for Sharpening and Adjusting Images

Recently Adobe has revealed that they are working with Bruce Fraser of Photokit fame on advanced sharpening, probably as a "module" for LightRoom. Apple ought to take this opportunity to forge an alliance with nik Software and work out a way to use nik Sharpener Pro and nik Color Efex Pro either inside of, or as a plugin to, Aperture. With those two tools, at least 90% of the reason to do roundtrips to Photoshop for anything except complex layering would be eliminated. More sophisticated sharpening is something we use with almost every printed image, and the filters available in Color Efex Pro are truly amazing.
Any thoughts?

Right on! I also think it would be very cool for Apple to forge another alliance with high end book maker AsukaBook. They use PDF templates, but they are very hard to do. You basically have to use Photoshop to lay out the pages and then save them as a PDF. If Apples templates corresponded to the approved AsukaBook format, we could automatically layout the books and order from a high end vendor with much better quality than whoever Apple uses as a vendor.
(Cost of the books, if you can prove you are a working professional, since they only sell wholesale, is a little more than double the Apple price.)

Aperture 2: malfunction when adjusting image date and time

Hello,
When I'm adjusting date and time for a group of images the following malfunction occurs:
The time is shifted by the difference between first and last image into the past, if the first image is the active one and into the future, if the last image is the active one.
E.g.:
Original: 23.02.08-12:00:00, 23.02.08 - 12:02:00, 23.02.08 - 12:05:00
Correction of first image to 20.02.08 - 12:00:00
Result: 20.02.08 - 11:55:00, 20.02.08 - 11:57:00, 20.02.08 - 12:00:00
Original: 23.02.08-12:00:00, 23.02.08 - 12:02:00, 23.02.08 - 12:05:00
Correction of last image to 20.02.08 - 12:00:00
Result: 20.02.08 - 12:05:00, 20.02.08 - 12:07:00, 20.02.08 - 12:10:00
Best regards, Jannes
Message was edited by: cumulusCE

Themes to be different depending on localized versions. I'm using a German Version.
With Update 2.0.1 it's solved.

Adjusting images for yellow stock

We have to adjust images to print on a yellowish stock that has a LAB reading of 94,-1,8 (CMYK=4,3,9,0). Should I just build a curve that pulls the cmyk down by those amounts? Or should I have our press actually run an IT8 chart on that stock, read it with a spectrolino and build a new ICC with GretagMcbeth?
The colors are really swatches in Illustrator, so each global color swatch would need to be tweeked. It would be much simple just to convert the documents color space from say US Sheetfed Uncoated to "Special Yellow stock.icc".
Any thoughts?

Thomas,
There are probably many different answers to this question depending on what you want the outcome to be. Normally, people select a warm, yellowish stock because they WANT the warmth of the stock to show, otherwise they would select a more neutral stock. This is true of jobs printed on an inkjet or press. I like a slightly warm paper for many of my prints, so I select a warm paper. Others look better on a cool white paper.
The color of the paper stock will always affect the quarter tones and highlights much more than the midtones and shadows, since much less ink hits the paper to cover up the substrate color. If you actually want your highlights to be more neutral, you will end up using some cool inks, such as cyan, to help neutralized the yellow of your paper. This will decrease the dynamic range of your print, since you are laying down ink in highlight areas. It doesn't always look natural, in my opinion (this is akin to using Absolute colorimetric rendering, which is fine for simulations, but I don't use it for printing a real job).
Gretag's ProfileMaker allows you to build profiles with a "neutral" or "paper gray" gray axis. It ONLY affects Perceptual rendering, not Relative Colorimetric. In paper gray rendering, the color of your paper base will affect the neutrality of the image all the way from highlights to shadows. It is like using the exact same press plates on two different paper runs, one on neutral white paper, and the other on warm, yellowish paper. The paper color will affect the entire tonal scale.
The "neutral" axis profiles will print highlights and quarter tones like the paper gray profile, allowing the color of the paper base to show through and skew the gray axis, but it adjusts the midtones and shadows so they are more neutral (more like absolute colorimetric in the mids and shadows).
I guess you could also attempt to edit the profile with a profile editor, but that might be a difficult proposition. I'm not sure you would like the results.
I'm not 100% sure what you wish to accomplish. Hope this helps some.
Lou

How do I get images from Aperture into print shop for mac?

Friends,
I have Print Shop for Mac and Aperture. How do I get images from Aperture into Print Shop? I'musing managed images with previews. Is there any option besides exporting to the desktop and importing?
Thanks!
Steve

if you have previews turned on in Aperture and they're all genereated, you can simply drag-n-drop them into any application (just about). drag-n-drop is essentially the same as copy/paste as long as the application is setup to accept "drops" onto its windows.
otherwise, if you're running Leopard (10.5) as your version of Mac OS X, when you import (or whatever it is in PrintShop), you should get a file selection dialog. from here, scroll down the left-hand side bar set of icons. near the bottom is a group called "Media". click on the triangle to open the group, choose Photos, and from here you should see an Aperture icon. click this and you'll see your whole library (or at least the portion of it that you have previews generated for. select the photo you want and viola!
scott

Is there any way to invert raw images in Aperture.

I am "scanning" a lot of old slides and negatives with a SLR camera using an old professional slide duplicator.
It is very fast and effective with slides and I have tried with negatives. It goes very well except for I have to invert the negative image in Photoshop and even in 16 bit theres at lot less quality left when I save it back in Aperture for the last color correction.
The solution would be to be able to do the inversion from negative to positive image i full raw quality inside Aperture.
Does anyone know if there is at "trick" to invert the raw-image in Aperture?

There is not. Inversion is more a rewrite than an adjustment -- best done between the scan and importing, imho.
See this link for further suggestions:
https://discussions.apple.com/message/12907195#12907195

Photos app vs Aperture, for adepts?

Hi guys,
Are all Aperture adjustment tools available to a semi-adept like myself who migrates to the Photos app? Can I adjust my images in Photos to the same level of precision and have as many options (and stay within the Apple universe), or do I have to look elsewhere, like Lightroom? I need high-end software.
I'm offered a Beta version, but not sure whether it's for me. BTW, I have just installed Yosemite and am keeping my fingers crossed.
Thanks,
Raphael

Hi Raphael,
With the _coming_ demise of Aperture, users are either:
- staying with Aperture for a bit: it works well; migrating the database is, _at best_, tricky, incomplete, and inefficient; Aperture will continue to work well under Yosemite for as long as you have a Mac running Yosemite, or
- using another program/programs for the digital asset management and digital camera image editing that they used to do in Aperture.
Those who are moving are either:
- putting only or mostly new/recent digital camera files into another program(s), and developing a workflow with the other program(s), or
- porting all of their Originals, all of their adjusted Versions, and as much of the database as possible into another program.
The other programs that are most often mentioned as being useful to Aperture users are:
- Adobe's Lightroom. Functional overlap with Aperture is nearly 100%. Widely used. More support and resources than you can use. Aperture users general don't like being constrained by a modal interface, and don't like the actual interface.
- Capture One Pro. Functions similar to Aperture. Well-liked by those who use it. Strong editing tools. Less strong digital asset management tools. Very much smaller installed user base. Imho, a more Aperture-like experience than LR.
- Apple Photos for OS X. Properly understood as the successor program to iPhoto (it is _not_ a successor to Aperture). The design emphasis is on ease of use. Adequate editing tools. Strong but non-customizable digital asset management tools.
All three feature non-destructive workflows (your digital camera files are never over-written). All of them — like Aperture — store _the information needed to create new files_, rather than new files themselves.
rshammaa wrote:
If I am to switch, I would like to switch to a software that is elegantly thought out, that offers at least as much control as Aperture does, and that is widely supported and understood; and that has a forum like this one with competent people responding.
An excellent list. Imho:
- LR is the least elegant of the three.
- LR and C1Pro offer as much editing control as Aperture. Neither offers as much digital asset management options/utility.
- All are (or will be) well supported. LR is much more used and discussed, and has many more supporting materials available, than any of the others.
- This forum provided — not just my opinion, and something I'm proud of — a rare combination of quick response, high-quality content, and little chaff. There are (afaik) good forums for both LR and for C1Pro.
HTH,
—Kirby.

I can't see the adjustments under the Adjustment tab in Aperture. Where is the data?

Several months ago I dragged photos from Aperture into a Burn Folder on my Desktop. Today I dragged the photos from the Burn Folder on my Desktop into Aperture. My photos are all still edited, but I can't see any of the adjustments I made under the Adjustment Tab in Aperture. Where is that data? How do I get it back?

I'll cover most of this because I'm too busy to trim it, but be sure to read Léonie's post.
barbst wrote:
Can you explain to me the difference between a Preview and the Master image? I checked my preferences and they are set "Photo Preview: Half Size" and "Photo Preview quality: 8 Medium".
The Master is now known as the Original. (Apple changed the term. I don't know why.) The "Original" is the term Aperture uses to designate the image-format file you imported into your Library. When you import, Aperture creates a record in its database and creates an Image that you see in the Browser and the Viewer. Every Image has an Original.
Aperture creates additional files that it uses. Among these are a Version, which is a text file containing instructions regarding adjustments and metadata changes you make, some thumbnails, which are image-format files in small dimensions, and a Preview, which is a JPG-format file that is automatically updated to include any adjustments you have made.
The Original is _never_ altered. Aperture is a _non-destructive_ photo developing workshop. "Non-destructive" means that your original files (the ones that Aperture calls "Originals" once you import them) are never altered.
The Preview is _always_ altered. It always is updated to include all the adjustments you have made to any Image.
As you know, you set the JPG parameters (size and quality) for your Previews in Aperture's preferences.
Does this mean that all the photos I have dragged to Burn Folders and burned to DVDs are lesser quality than my Masters in my Aperture Library? I thought I was backing up the Masters!
Sorry for the bad news, but the latter is not correct, and the former is. When you drag an Image from the Browser or the Viewer, Aperture creates a copy of that Image's Preview. (The User Manual should make this clear. Currently it is incorrect.)
Note, too, that your Masters (now "Originals") are never altered. What you might have wanted to back up were the Images in your Library. Now -- get ready for the weird part -- those Images do not exist as image-format files. There is no file that we can access in order to to back-up an Image. You can either create share-able image-format files from your Images, and back those up, or you can back up your Aperture Library, which, when restored, will give you the opportunity to create share-able image-format files from your Images.
Aperture is structured this way -- it saves the imported file, untouched, and text instructions telling it how to create your Images on-the-fly -- specifically to save the space you would need to store full-size files of every Image in your Library. Rather than save "the thing itself", it saves just what it needs to create "the thing itself". The storage savings are enormous.
This is why your workflow is (in general): import, make adjustments and add metadata, sort, group, and organize, and export _only when you need an image-format file to share with another program_. You then share that file, and delete it (because if you need another, you can create it by exporting from Aperture).
How about when I drag photos from my Aperture library to an external hard drive icon on my desktop? Am I dragging the Masters or Previews? If so, are the Previews lesser quality than the Masters in my Aperture Library?
When you drag Images from Aperture, you create copies of those Images' Previews. If you haven't made any adjustments, then they are Previews of your Masters (now called "Originals"). But Previews are JPGs with the dimensions and quality you told Aperture to use, whereas your Originals are whatever format, dimensions, and quality they were when you imported those files. The quality of an Image's Preview is always less than the quality of that Image's Original. (I'm using "quality" to mean "amount of useable data".)
You should test this right now. Create a new Finder folder. In Aperture, select an Image with adjustments applied. Drag it into your newly-created Finder folder. Then export it's Original into the Finder folder (File ▹ Export ▹ Original). Then export the Version with whatever settings you want (File ▹ Export ▹ Version). Compare the three files you just created.
I think I'm going to be sick! Please tell me it isn't so! I have 1000s of beautiful photos from trips on both DVDs and a Western Digital external hard drive, but I dragged them all from my Aperture Library to either a Burn Folder or a Western Digital icon on my desktop, then I deleted the originals from my Aperture Library. I did this to make room on my Mac Book Pro hard drive. This is how Apple One on One taught me to backup my photos!
I'm sorry .
To back up your Originals, back them up. They are files. If they are in your Library, they get backed up when you back up your Library.
To back up your Images, either make files from them, and back up those files, or ... back up your Library with the knowledge that that way you can create new files from your Images after restoring your Library from your back-up.
To shrink the size of your Library so that it leaves more space on your system drive:
- remove un-needed Images
- relocate some Images' Originals to a second drive (almost always external). Aperture makes this easy to do.
Alternative, put your entire Library on a second drive. Libraries on external drives connected via USB-3 or Thunderbolt work fine.
In general, a photographer's commitment to an image-management database system (of which Aperture is one) is complete: it works best when it is all-enclusive. I recommend against removing Images from your Library either to save space or to archive them. My personal Library catalogues all my photographs. Using it I can find, and make available, any photo I've taken and decided to keep. Once I decide to keep it, it stays -- forever -- as a record in my Library.
Note that your "Library Set" (I just made that up, but it should exist) includes your Library package (that shows as a file in Finder) and any Referenced Originals that belong to Images in your Library. You must back up your entire Library Set.
The Geniuses at the Apple Store generally do great jobs in demanding circumstances. They are, by need, generalists who must be reasonably adept with a lot of software. It seems you were (badly) misinformed. Please recommend this post to the one who coached you, so that s/he makes sure that others aren't similarly misled.
HTH,
--Kirby.

Adjusting image in Aperture for Apple TV (16:9)

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for