Adjustments in Aperture reduplicate

Dear All,
here is the latestes Aperture Installation (from Mac App Store) on this MacBookPro 6,2 (i5, 2,4GHz, 4GB) , 10.6.8.
Some Images that I add and do adjustments to it - these adjustments duplicate itselfe and even double the effect. If I add 25% of Contrast, the second adjustment also adds another 25%. Here's a picture of the Adjustmenttab:
System is used with Germany language settings. But I have no clue how to solve this. I repaired the Library, reinstalled Aperture. Anyone else is having this behavoir in Aperture?
Regards,
Nils

Hello Nils,
That is exactly as it should be - a feature, not a bug . You can define multiple instances of the same adjustment to layer them and to use them with different settings in different regions of the same image - it is most useful with brushes - anything that creates a mask.
You create these duplicate instances from the "Presets" menu ("Voreinstellungen") and selecting "Edit (Bearbeiten?)".
This will bring up the "Edit" panel, there, using the cogwheel, you can edit, add, and delete these preset groups.
P.S: Your screenshot shows several cogwheels to the right; these you can use to add and to remove these adjustments from the default set.
Hummel Hummel aus Hamburg
Léonie

Similar Messages

Skin tone adjustments in Aperture

I normally use Photoshop for editing, and Aperture as an "image management" and output system. However, I just did a shoot of my brother's baby and I have 200+ pictures to correct so PS is not an option this time. My nephew's skin is very red, so I'm wondering what the best way to correct that is in Aperture. I normally use selective color or curves in PS, but neither of those are available in Aperture.
Thanks,
Chris

Hi there,
Sounds like we use the same prcedure for similar reasons.
Yes and no to your question, and sadly, a bigger NO that there isn't a true workflow. We're into the best workaround FOR YOU. Mine is FOR ME, and (as my wife will tell you, I'm unique .... which I take as a compliment, errrrr).
Yes, the time to batch export and then import may be faster, technically, possibly, maybe, who knows?
No, the issue of getting the photos tagged back into the stacks (if this is of use to you) becomes manual activity and is unsupported by the system outside of sort conditions.
You can easily overwhelm memory with CS2 loading images and Aperture there as well, so I tend to do 10 or a dozen at a time ... more if image size and memory permits. Run an Action in CS2 unless masks are needed, Save and Close. On Save, the image is placed back into Aperture without any further work on your (i.e. MINE since I am LAAAZY).
BTW, somebody else mentioned this. I am a big fan, but have ghad to learn to work with quarter tone Levels. If the color shift is most needful on the skin tones, and less objectionable elsewhere, you may be able to use the quarter tone adjusts in combination with exposure and white balance adjustments within Aperture. Oh, how I would like selection and masks!!!!

File adjustments in aperture and bridge

Why are mey aperture adjustments won't follow when I open them in bridge camera raw
Thanks

hello, barto
quote: "Why are mey aperture adjustments won't follow when I open them in bridge camera raw"
Because you're opening a RAW file instead of an adjusted Aperture photograph.
What is your workflow?
How are you exporting them? Are you exporting a Master or Version?
victor

RAW adjustments in Aperture vs adjusting a JPEG

In Aperture their is a pull down menue for "RAW fine tuning". Other than those 4 or 5 adjustments am I correct that their is no difference in terms of adjusting a RAW or JPEG file in terms of exposure, contrast, levels, shadows and highlights, etc..? I understand that a RAW file is non-destructive but have not actually ever been able to see the advantage of adjusting RAW images over JPEG images. What am I missing?
Thanks.

I understand that a RAW file is non-destructive but have not actually ever been able to see the advantage of adjusting RAW images over JPEG images. What am I missing?
In analog colour correction, the original is a viewable graphic which is preprocessed in the sense that the make and model of film introduces a look. The original is colour managed through capturing an IT8 target for the look of the make and model of film.
In digital colour correction, the original is not a viewable graphic. Instead of applying preprocessing in the film medium, it is applied in the camera which incorporates a kind of colour preprocessing which is dependent on the camera manufacturer.
There is no one RAW preprocessing any more than there is one film preprocessing, e.g. see Wikipedia. Image data and the colour preprocessing is coupled in the RAW file format, so to speak replacing the analog original as it is before exposure correction / colour correction.
RAW can be considered the equivalent of the high bit image data captured in a drum scanner before exposure correction in the scanner software, application of the corrections to the capture, saving of corrected and downsampled to 8-bit to disk.
There were intermediary implementations of non-destructive colour correction, the best known of which was Live Picture for which Apple's former John Sculley was in turn CEO. Live Picture started with 8-bit scans and converted into a tiered image data format.
Layers and edits were stored in a resolution independent format that was independent of the image data format. One could manipulate 1Gb image data on a Quadra with a NuBus card, beating Photoshop by many miles.
When one was done with editing, the resolution independent edit file was applied to the resolution dependent image data file in a high-bit calculation using Apple ColorSync 2 as calculation and conversion engine and ICC profiles as device characterisations.
Essentially, Aperture is an implementation of this idea to digital cameras.
With regard to JPEG, then JPEG is a final export format and NOT an editing format. It is not simply a change in the bit, but a change in the colourant data. Internally, the channels are rotated to a CIE-like model and the chroma channels are crushed. Saving to JPEG once for output is workable, saving to JPEG twice in the course of colour correction should always be avoided.
/hh

"Create new versions when making adjustments" - Lion, Aperture 3.1.3

I recently upgraded to Lion, and then shortly thereafter to Aperture 3.1.3.
While I don't seem to share everybody else's issues with Lion nor with Aperture, I do have one of my own.
In Preferences -> Advanced, I have a box titled "Create new versiont when making adjustment." It is checked.
My expectation, (and the way things have always worked under Snow Leopard) is that if I select a master image and begin to make adjustments to it from _any_ feature int he adjustments pallette, that I new version will be created, stacked next to the original, and that the changes I am making will be made to the new version. This is _not_ what is happening.
Instead, the changes are applied directly to the master image. This is annoying, and will probably be fixed in an update...    I thought the work around would be to manually create the version for the time being, until Apple sorts this out. That didn't work either.
If I manually create a version, and then proceed to make adjustments to the version, Aperture dows what I would have expected in the first place. It creates a new version and applies the changes to that.
For example, I right click on a master image and select "New Version form Master" A new version, titled "... - Version 2" is created. When I begin to modify Version 2, a new version is created titled "... - Version 3" and my changes are applied to this version... leaving me with the master and Version 2 which are now duplicates of each other.
Even more interesting is this:
Images that were imported into Aperture prior to the Lion upgrade, and the 3.1.3 patch behave as expected, in that a new version is created when adjustments are applied to a master image.
Images that were imported into Aperture _after_ the upgrade to Lion and the 3.1.3 patch act as describd above, in that no new version is created when adjustments are applied to a master image.
So... Here are the questions:
1. Is anybody else experiencing this?
2. Does anybody know how to restore the correct behavior?

Alright,   I have solved the problem.
Some time ago, I thought it might be neat to import pictures with the Auto Exposure adjustment in place. What I didn't realize was that if the master image is in the library with adjustments on it, it downs't create a new version when you add additional adjustments.
As soon as I disabled that, and imported some new imges the probelm went away.
Also... I went back to the six or seven project that I had imported while use Auto Exposure and removed that adjustment from those images...
All is resolved.

Performing any adjustments in Aperture corrupts image/viewer..HELP

I did an update on my mac today and Aperture was one of the programs receiving an update. This update brought me to 2.1.2.
Since the update I'm unable to perform any kind of "adjustments" on my photos. Moving any slider or making ANY change causes the image to go strait to black, or the image "breaks" and just turns into garbled noise. A quick "undo" with bring the photo back, but of course I lose any changes I just made.
Please, can someone help? I haven't had this problem at all until I did the update earlier. Very weird.
Here's my specs...
MacBook Pro
Intel Core 2 Duo, 2.4 GHz
4GB Memory
GeForce 8600M GT
Message was edited by: ericwebb

Eric
try trashing the preferences, could be that in the update process something has corrupted.
users/user/library/preferences/com.apple.Aperture.plist
Tony

IPhone Photos edited with iOS 7 losing adjustments in Aperture

I shot a few photos with iOS 7 this weekend while at the cottage and was importing them into Aperture (which I use to manage my rather large collection). I noticed that for some reason some of the adjustments were now missing. Yes my crops and auto enchancements were there but the colour effects I applied were not.
Just curious if anyone knows how to work around this? I figured I could always open the edited photos in another app like Camera+ and save them out again but that seems to be poor form as it'd result in generation loss.
Any suggestions?

Could you give more details please, so we can compare notes?
How are you editing and transfering your photos - editing directly in the Camera.app, the Photos.app, iPhoto IOS?
And what kind of IOS device? iPad, iPod, iPhone?
And how have the photos been transferred to your Mac? Photo Stream? Import by connecting the device?
I just made a test on my iPad with IOS 7 and all edits transferred:
Taking the pictures with the Camera.app
Editing them in the Camera.app and saving the edited version to the camera roll.
The edited version with all edits appeared in the Photo Stream (a few hours later ) and all edits were there.
But if you edited in the Photos.app and not in the Camera.app, it is harder to get the edited version to the Camera Roll. I use iPhoto to save an edited copy of the photo to the camera Roll (from the "Share" menu in iPhoto). That adds them to the Photo Stream as well.
But the biggest problem with this is, that saving back to the Camera Roll after editing in iPhoto appears to be changing all dates and the lens information anad Camera Make is now missing from the EXIF..
The photo I took yesterday should show the dates like this: Sept. 23,
But it is showing Sept. 24 for all dates:
So my suggestion would be to do basic edits in the Camera.app before the photos will be saved to the Camera Roll for the first time, and to postpone all further edits, until the photos are in Aperture. Or, to keep both versions in the camera roll, the original and the edited version.

Adjustments in Aperture first, or Photoshop?

So you're looking at your new image in Aperture.
Do you start adjusting it in Aperture first, or Photoshop (via Edit With... command)?
Why?
I'm looking for the least destructive, most flexible method.

Once you commit an image to an external editor, you give up all the flexibility that RAW files provide, the workflow becomes destructive and the image takes the additional disk space required for a new master.
Aperture is your RAW processor, and as many adjustments as possible should be done in your RAW processor before moving on. This is the most flexible way to work. You won't be going to PS with every image anyway so you should only convert your RAW image- and create a new master- when necessary.
Also, If you work on an image in PS first, then return it to A3 and make more adjustments- in addition to those adjustments being less effective- when you return it to PS the A3 adjustments will not show up until you return to A3.
DLS
Message was edited by: DLScreative

Adding adjustments in Aperture 2.0

Hi, when editing my pictures in Aperture I often want to include a sharpen and/or vignette tool to my pictures but I always seem to have to manually select them with the little plus box as they are not in my default adjustments list, is there a way to save them in my adjustments list so I don't have to manually apply them on each individual picture?
Cheers
(Aperture version 2.1.1)

Hi back Saddact,
This is an easy one: click the little gear icon at the top right of the brick you want to keep in your adjustments (Vignette for instance) and select +Add to Default Set+ - done!

Image Disappears when Adding Adjustments in Aperture 3

I am experiencing odd behavior when using the adjustment tools in Aperture 3. I tried to crop an image and instead of staying on screen for me to finish the adjustment, the image disappeared. I was able to save it by undoing. I created a version of the image and I could crop that OK. I have Add New Version when Making Adjustments checked but it does not seem to be working.

I've had a similar "disappearing" image problem when trying to apply the retouch tool. I don't have the "create version when applying adjustments" preference checked though. Hopefully these issues are additional 3.0 bugs that will get fixed in 3.0.1. Be sure to report the issue to Apple using the "Aperture > Provide Aperture Feedback" menu item.

Missing adjustments in aperture photos

Photos in certain my albums/projects have lost all flags, adjustments and captions (but not keywords). Others, including adjustments created earlier and later, are fine. I tried rebuilding permissions but no success. Help!!

I'm not actually sure as I haen't used stacks (at least knowingly) - and I have a referenced library. The point is, why can I see adjustments in otyher projects/albums and not these? Wouldn't it be all or nothing?
Thanks!

Are brushed adjustments in Aperture worth it?

It would be interesting to know if people have a different approach.
I often use Silver FX Pro and Color FX Pro, but I'm not sure if they are the best.
Also, I use Photshop mostly for brushing, cropping, and masking, but Aperture is for
making uniform changes in brightness, contrast, black & white vs. color, and some of those add-ons and funky filters.
Is there anyone here that thinks Aperture brushes are better than Photoshop brushes?

Thank you for illustrating, Kirby.
I agree that Photoshop is ideal for combining graphics with photography. It's a no-brainer, really.
I did just that, yesterday... an attempt at humoring certain people (it worked):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mycophagia
Even Illustrator can be used for such purposes if you know too much about it. (That was a joke on how elaborate it is)
Me, I see Photoshop as the halfway point between Illustrator and Aperture, with Illustrator being the grand-daddy of all "graphics from scratch" apps, and Aperture the ideal tool for a photographer. But everything that can be done in Aperture can also be done in Photoshop, sometimes better. The biggest downside is that I get .psd files accumulating, inside folders littered all over my hard drive.
My use of Photoshop is done as quickly as possible (I prefer it simple) by working in only two layers. My brain cannot handle the concept of complex things like 'layer masks' and 'smart objects'. I just clone one layer, put the better, adjusted layer underneath it, and then erase what doesnt look good on the top layer... change the opacity or the softness of your tools and you have yourself whatever kind of "brush" you need. Of course, this does not always work without the assistance of the "marching ants", but it's easy to put them in.
The biggest problem in photography I have (and the chief reason I export to Photoshop) is washed out skies and skies with no blue in them. Without using a polarized filter (i dont like them), skies are captured more often than not, as white and washed out, especially on an overcast day. This is the bane of my existence. I'm surpised I havent figure this one out yet. Underexpose the picture? Sure, maybe, but I think it sounds like a horrible plan.

Good resources for learning how to use Aperture's adjustments

I'm a long-time visual artist who is just now getting into photography. I own both Lightroom and Aperture, and I must say that, for me, Aperture's interface and philosophy are my favorites. I love the way it handles photo organization. I have one problem, however. Being a relative photographic newbie, I have a terrible time with the adjustments. I seem to have a much easier time making good-looking adjustments in Lightroom. In Aperture, I just aimlessly noodle around, make a mess, and undo all my changes regularly.
I just found the Apple manual on making adjustments. I was wondering what other resources you more experienced photographers used to learn your way around.
Thanks,
Mark

Thanks I have that one on order from Amazon even as we speak. As an update, I've also found some information on bagelturf.com, and it looks as though Aperture Users Professional Network is going to start a 7-part series on Adjustments in Aperture. That sounds just like what the doctor ordered.
O'Reilly's "Inside Aperture" site also seems worthwhile. I'm sure you all know about these. I'm glad they're there. I've subscribed to a couple of podcasts as well.
Mark

Sharpening in Aperture 1.5.6

I'm using Aperture 1.5.6 on OSX 10.4.11
My camera is a canon 40d.
When I import RAW images from the memory card I've noticed that if i open the adjustments HUD and look at the Edge sharpening intensity slider, it's already at around 0.8
I'm used to opening my files, after any adjustments in Aperture, in Photoshop CS3 via the "open with external editor" command and performing Unsharp Mask on them. Should I slide the Edge Sharpen Intensity slider to 0 if I'm intending to sharpen with an external editor?
I'm not as familiar with the sharpening in Aperture as I am with the unsharp mask filter in PS.
It would be nice if I could get the same quality of sharpening in Aperture as I achieve in PS as that's all I'm using PS for in most cases.
Can anyone advise on how I can get similar results in Aperture or whether I should continue to sharpen in PS.
Thanks.

gah hey im having this problem too
and it all worked last week <?>
formatted flash drive on camera.
downloaded photos from a file reader via flash drive.
camera = canon mk3ds eos
can see previews in apeture (2.1.2) but large image on browser is unsupported.
error message "unsupported image format".
have tried downloading them again and importing them again etc.
both straight into apeture and via hard drive folder.
but it worked last week?
bit upset i love aperture and my new camera now nothing is working well
for info i loaded up canon photo professional which is canons own brand image processor (which is a bit rubbish imho) and the images worked on that.
they will not import to photoshop (an old version)

Why I like Aperture

I need to preface this by saying that no application is perfect for everyone. Different people have different workflows, different post-processing needs, and different priorities. I'm not saying Aperture is perfect for everyone. Nor should anyone else say Aperture is useless. It may be useless to them, but not to everyone.
I shoot mostly fashion and advertising type work. I'm a pretty serious amateur, in that I have good gear, and I'm very serious about photography, but I have a day job doing something else (security architecture, which I also love). I shoot only RAW as it gives me way more latitude if I want to adjust the exposure after the fact to change or increase a look (i.e. I want to make things darker and moodier, or I want to blow things out a little). My post-processing requirements are usually the following (in order of frequency): Exposure, white point, saturation, sharpening, levels, blemish fixing. On very rare occasion I'll need to do something beyond that.
My pre-Aperture workflow looked a lot like this:
Copy files from CF card. Due to my camera putting them in different folders based on the sequence, I had to write an automator script to pull out just the image files from all the folders and put them in a new folder on my desktop. This works, but takes a little while, and is something I had to write myself.
Create a folder for my project "Sarah-DarkWear hoodie".
Create the following folders inside that: "raws", "all-jpeg", "best-psd", "best-jpeg". Move all the RAWs from my automator action's results folder into the raws folder.
Open up Adobe CS2 Bridge. View the files. Try to pick the best ones. I can't emphasize enough how laborious and time consuming this task is. Out of 200 shots, about 20 are really good, and about 5 are worth using (in a portfolio or ad or whatever). Bridge has no way to compare two pictures other than switching back and forth between them. You also can't see the pictures at 100% so figuring out sharpness or focus is pretty impossible unless you open them up in Photoshop. Which requires a multi-dialog process and a conversion time.
Once I get my 20 good ones, batch convert them all to PSDs using an action I wrote. This takes a while. The PSDs go into the "best-psds" folder. They each take up about 40-70 MB of space vs. 3-6 MB for each RAW file.
Make the levels, saturation, sharpness adjustments as needed with each file. Using another action I wrote, batch convert the best PSDs to full rez jpegs with my copyright notice on them. As this action involves opening a 70 MB file, creating a new layer for my copyright, setting it up, converting to srgb, converting to 8bit, saving as jpeg, this takes a while. Several seconds each file on my dual 2.5 with 2.5 GB ram.
Using another action I wrote, batch covert all the RAWs to small rez jpegs with my copyright notice on them. These are for the model if it's a tfcd shoot, or for my records, or whatever. This takes a good long while. Now my 1 GB of raws are about 2.3 GB of raws, jpegs, psds.
Open up iView Media pro and update it's index so that all my new files are in it.
Done.
With Aperture, I put my card in the reader.
Aperture pops up and asks if I'd like to import these images. I pick a destination, specify the metadata and keywords for this shoot, and it loads them all in.
I turn on auto-stack. I make a few manual stacking adjustments. I start picking the best shoots. Aperture has excellent compare modes, including 2-up, 3-up, more-up, full rez zoom, a loupe tool for instantly checking focus at full resolution, a 0-5 star rating system, a quick-select key for picking an image as five star, a quick-reject key for an image I know is junk. Within in a stack I can promote, demote, and pick the stack "pick" very quickly and easily. I can do this with just the keyboard. I can easily compare any pictures next to each other. I can go full screen with drops off all the unneeded junk and keeps the various window and toolbar colors for interfering with my vision on my color calibrated display. Picking the best shots is amazingly faster and less frustrating due to the features mentioned above.
I can now make my adjustments (exposure, levels, brightness, saturation, shadows, highlights, spot and patch blemish fixing, red eye, etc...., and then can apply them to all the other similar condition pictures. (In Photoshop/Bridge you can batch apply things like white point and exposure changes, but you can't do saturation, sharpness, etc...). My adjustments go into a 24kb xml file, instead of a 70 MB psd. Each adjustment can be turned on or off, removed, modified, etc... I can instantly create different version of an image. I might want a crop to zoom in on the model's face, or I might want a black and white version, etc... The versions are just a tiny amount of data in the xml file. In photoshop I'd need a new 70 MB psd for each version I wanted.
Once I'm all done getting the images rated and adjusted the way I want them, I can at any time use the export function to generate the jpegs. Since the copyright is a watermark layer and is rendered by Core Image in my video card, the export is about 10X faster than the Photoshop batch action processing. I haven't timed the two side by side, but I will. It's about 10X or so faster though. For me.
Done.
I just converted my 70 GB working library into Aperture over the weekend. I was able to duplicate my photoshop adjustments in Aperture and drop my psds. This took my 70 GB lib to 35.5 GB. That's about half the size.
So for me, and my workflow, and my post-processing requirements, Aperture is faster, uses less hard drive space, is easier to use, and does a great job. It will pay for itself during the first shoot's sorting and post-processing.
There have been reports of the RAW conversion not doing as good a job as Adobe's. It turns out many of those people bringing that up left the default sharpening turned on in Adobe. Since raw files, at least Canon raws, pretty much always need sharpening and a small saturation boots, comparing a converted raw to a converted raw with sharpening will clearly show the one with sharpening looks better. So most of them aren't valid tests. There may be some real issues with Apple's image handling vs. Adobe's. Hopefully if there are, Apple will fix them. My personal experience is that the raw conversion looks pretty much the same to me as Adobe's non-sharpened conversion. I've found that Apple's noise-reduction looks better than Adobe's or Fred Miranda's action. I've found that it takes me less time to get a look I like in Aperture than in Adobe. I've found that my workflow is vastly quicker. To me it is an amazing program that will only get better with each revision.
Devon
2X2.5 GHz w/2.5 GB + 2X2.3 GHz w/4.5 GB + 17"pb Mac OS X (10.4.3)

I have used Aperture quite extensively over the weekend and I also see a lot of potential. I also see the typical amount of bugs for a first release of a software of this complexity and I also see a few software architecture problems.
What did I do with Aperture so far?
First I have imported a few 70MB Tiff scans. Probably less than hundred and played around with it. Rated them, defined some searches, added some keyword hierarchies, tried some image manipulations, created a light table, printed the light table to pdf, created a book and created some example web pages. I played also with the fullscreen mode.
There were a few user interface glitches: The light table sometimes has problems with selections. Creating a query takes too long since it tries to update live. I can't seem to create a book with a light table visible at the same time. While entering a query I clicked on a triangle to open a folder - Aperture didn't like that. And some more.
Lots of stuff worked fine. Some (like the book designer) didn't have enough features. Some features I did understand after some time.
Now I copied my Aperture library to an external firewire disk. The disk is a fast RAID 0 disk connected via firewire 800.
Next I loaded my iPhoto library into Aperture. Something like 17000 photos. This took a few (five?) hours and went without any problem. I got a few hundred projects - I would like to join some of them. I created a query to get the iPhoto edited photos (1900 photos) and removed them. This took about ten minutes. Next I created some queries. No problems with that. Speed is okay on the Powermac.
Next I did some film scans with Nikon Scan and imported them (hundred maybe) large TIFFs into Aperture in small batches.
Then I imported probably hundred RAW images from my Canon EOS 350d. I tried the raw import patch mentioned somewhere else to get Mac OS X 10.4.3 to recognize. This worked fine. (I later tried another method which I cannot mention here, but that worked also fine.)
So currently my Aperture library is about 55 GB.
I never like the rendering of iPhoto too much. Often I used Graphicconverter to view, scale, batch convert, ... Graphicconverter also has quite a good (IMHO) rendering of images. So I was a bit sceptical about Aperture's rendering, but actually I don't have a problem with its on-screen rendering. I kind of like it. I haven't tried to print yet, though.
I also have Photoshop Elements, though I don't use it very much. GraphicConverter is used though. I also have the Canon tools which I also don't use much. I use the scan application sometimes. For the Filmscanner I use Nikon Scan which is okay. For my taste the Aperture application looks & feels better than those - though I'm not a big fan of an all-grey interface (which may have some advantages with being more neutral).
So I had a few crashes (two maybe) and had to force Aperture to quit (three times maybe). But I didn't seem to have lost any data and Aperture started quickly again. Sometimes I restarted Aperture when it acted strangely (like didn't want to provide a working crop tool - maybe four times).
So, would I buy it again? Yes, without a doubt. It's lots of fun... Can't wait to show my friends Aperture loaded with some of the scans I did over the weekend.
Regards,
Rainer Joswig
PowerMac Dual G5, 2.5Ghz, 4GB RAM, 22" Cinema Display, Canon 350d + Canon s80 + Nikon Coolscan IV ED Mac OS X (10.4.3)

Adjustments in Aperture reduplicate

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for