Aperture 2 vs Aperture 3 RAW conversion

I am new to Aperture and have been reading up on it. One point I thought was interesting was that v3 RAW conversion was considered improved over v2. I could understand that there could be a variance during the initial release of v3, but at some point v2 conversion would have been updated.
Is there a difference between v2 and v3 RAW conversion?
If so, how big of a difference? Would it be better to use Canon RAW converter instead?
Thanks,
Kenn

You need to eyeball the various conversions using your own typical photos. Each different camera model is a different RAW conversion, and each individual's brain/eyes see them differently. With the Nikon D2x I prefer Nikon's conversion over Aperture's and Aperture's over Adobe's - but Aperture's workflow is superior by a lot so I use Aperture.
If I was selling a thousand dollar large landscape print (I wish) shot on a D2x I would do the RAW conversion using Nikon Capture NX 2 rather than using Aperture, but that is just my personal preference with that particular camera model. And I see the difference as tiny, small enough that for most photography the workflow is more important.
HTH
-Allen

Similar Messages

  • Aperture 3 bad raw conversion with Canon files

    Hi, Aperture is converting my 6400 iso raws into images I can't work with to my satisfaction. For pleasure I shot a staged disco dance event with some fun colorful lighting. When imported into Aperture via card reader the previews look somewhat similar to the Rebel's LCD jpg rendition.
    One example, the stage light beams which are enhanced by smoke machines have one light with blue and another with magenta. When I click on that preview, the spinning wheel appears as usual saying loading which I believe is applying Aperture's interpretation algorithms. The results are stripping all the magenta and no matter what I do with the controls such as enhancement I can't get back the correct color. Remember the first loaded preview are similar to what I see in camera.
    I rarely shoot this high of iso and I'm finding adjustments with highlights to be extremely sensitive with a much lower threshold of adjustment. On most of the previews I attempted adjustment I preferred the look before Aperture converted them. Clicking "M" for master does not revert back to what I first saw before selecting it. I can't get back to that original first imported look. I can see the differences in the previews side by side, one I click on and a similar shot I didn't.
    I have never had this criticism before with this camera at 100 iso though it is recently acquired by a few months and never had this complaint with any of my NEF Nikon files. At first when beginning import the preview widow scrambled the order of the files where some images sat besides other images taken at an entirely different time. I closed everything and restarted and at first it did it again then corrected the order to which I hit the import button. I kept the images on the card and now will reload them directly onto my HD first. I'm reluctant to load into Aperture directly until I figure out what is going on.
    I did download Canon's DPP processor and it did hold onto the colors that you see with the thumbnails you see to the left of the selected image. Go figure. I have not touched any of the import settings in preferences.
    Your suggestions appreciated.
    John

    So what you're seeing initially at import is the JPEG that the camera generates as a preview for the image. All RAW files have this; the JPEG is what's used by the camera itself to give you the preview on the back of the camera.
    When Aperture imports, it will initially show you the JPEG. Then, once it renders its own version, based on the raw converter built into OS X, it will show you that updated preview (which is also a JPEG). From that point on, that's what you'll see, and you can't get the RAW-embedded JPEG again.
    If you use Canon's DPP, you're going to get a rendering that looks like what you saw on the camera, because they have access to their algorithms that they use for RAW->JPEG conversion. Apple doesn't have access to this; they make their own raw converter.
    It may be possible that there are issues with Apple's raw converter in specific circumstances (i.e. high ISO images on a certain camera with heavy magenta or odd lighting). You don't say what version of Aperture and OS X you're using, but it looks like it is not Aperture 3.6 + Yosemite. It may be worth upgrading to see if  it's something that's improved (an easier way is if you have access to a machine with Yosemite, just open one of the RAW files in Preview, as that uses the same raw converter, to see if it's better).

  • When does the RAW conversion take place in Aperture?

    Hi, could anyone tell me when Aperture makes the RAW conversion of files?
    is it upon import to Aperture or upon export to an external editor for retouching? i'm just wondering when to import my files into Aperture from Bridge.before i start using Aperture full time.is it ok to do it now or will i get better results when 1.1 arrives?
    thanks, Aidan

    You can do it now and then pick the new RAW engine after upgrading to 1.1. If your RAW images are the originals from Bridge, you will have nothing to loose by converting all of them using the new 1.1 engine. Of course, I would play with a test project to better understand the new engine's capabilities, presets, and features.
    Sam

  • Do you change the default RAW conversion settings?

    I have used Sony (and formerly used Panasonic MFT) cameras (a900, a850) for two or three years and never had any reason to change the default RAW conversion settings.  Five weeks ago I started using Sony's new a77, and for the first time am not satisfied with Aperture's default RAW conversion.  (I recalibrated all my monitors -- twice -- thinking that something in my color workflow had got busted.)  The default a77 RAW file conversion results in an overly-saturated, "Disneyfied" picture.  I have found that by sliding "Boost" almost to zero, and cutting "Hue Boost" by half, I end up with a much more life-like, atmospheric, picture -- and one that closely matches the default rendering of RAW files from the a850 and a900.
    1.  Do you change the default RAW conversions settings?  Why?
    2.  To what units, specifically, do the scales of these controls refer?
    3.  It seems that Hue Boost provides a range of settings that corresponds to the print settings "Perceptual" (= zero hue boost) to "Relative Colorimetric" (= full hue boost); does that make sense?
    The User Manual, as usual, provides a solid concise explanation of the RAW Fine Tuning Brick.
    Any experience you can share is appreciated.  Thanks.
    (Added:
    (It seems conceptually wrong to me to have these controls be part of the RAW converter.  Are there other adjustments in Aperture that do the same thing?)
    --Kirby.
    Message was edited by: Kirby Krieger

    William -- many thanks for your help.  I will almost certainly change the default for my a77 (as well as for the Nex-7 I used for a week).
    Are there is any other adjustments mathematically similar to the "Boost" or "Hue Boost" sliders in the RAW Fine Tuning Brick?  I ask for two reasons:
    - Mostly I'm just trying to figure out what they do, and strengthen with knowledge my quiver of Aperture effects.  According the the User Manual, they change the overall contrast, and the amount to which the hue is changed as the overall contrast is increased. 
    - In practice, it makes sense to me to have the RAW conversion produce the "flattest", least "effected" image possible -- to leave _aesthetic_ adjustments to me.  I don't want to use the RAW Fine Tuning controls as part of my workflow; I want to know how to get the same increase in contrast and control of hues using other adjustments (that, specifically, don't require de-mosaic'ing).  Apple seems to indicate that the use of the RAW Fine Tuning controls may be the best approach:
    For images that consist of saturated primary and secondary colors, such as an image of flowers in a lush garden, shifting the hues to their true values has a desirable visual effect. However, this is not visually desirable for images containing skin tones.
    The implication is spelled out in the sentencesthat follow: use the max setting for flowers, and the minimum setting for portraits.  Isn't it odd that this recommendation is left to the RAW converter, and is buried deep in the User Manual?

  • 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

  • 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)  

  • RAW Conversion between CS2 and Aperture``

    Has any one done any sort of comparison of RAW conversation out put from CS vrs; Aperture? Recently I've been using CS2 for my port processing work and really have noticed that the CS2 processing seems to be much clearer, better tones, and detail. Lately I don't seem to be able to get a decent print out of Aperture, I've been using it since it first shipped and I know it fairly well, just feels like I'm in some sort of a slump with it.

    If you search this forum for deer.nef you will find a couple of recent threads on that topic.
    I have done my own tests, converting several images using both apps. My conclusion is that both deliver a good conversion. Some images may come out better from on or the other but you will probably get the best result from the one you have the most familiarity with.
    Note: the current RAW converson in Lightroom is not as up to date as the one in the Photoshop CS3 Public Beta. That will change next Monday. Try your own images in both. You may have a personal style that works better withh one or the other.

  • Aperture RAW conversion and noise

    I've been using Aperture for many years and have recently learned something useful about how to tweak the RAW conversion settings.  Until recently I just left them at the default settings for my camera, a Panasonic GH2.
    Anyhow I've not been entirely happy with shadow noise (otherwise I reckon it's a great camera).  Many web sites say that a degree of shadow noise is normal for this camera, so I didn't figure mine was any different.  I tried a variety of noise reduction approaches but none really made a worthwhile improvement.
    Until a few days ago when I tried tweaking the 'Raw Fine Tuning' settings - and I found a way to make things *much* better.
    Please note that the following comments may only be relevant to Panasonic RAW files, and maybe only for the GH2.  I don't know if they apply to other cameras (though I think they may.
    It turns out that for the GH2, the default 'Raw Fine Tuning' setting includes 'Sharpening' of 0.78 and 'Edges' of 0.79.  This is fairly aggressive sharpening, but I didn't really realise what it was doing to noise until I  discovered that was significantly increasing shadow noise -even at base ISO!
    If I set these both the sharpening sliders in the Raw Fine Tuning section to '0', the 'grain' in the shadows is much smoother - a massive improvement.
    But, of course, the image is a bit less 'sharp'.  Well, this isn't much of a problem with 16+ megapixel cameras.  Unless you are making huge enlargements from originals, and really look closely at the finest details at 100%, it makes very little difference if you give up this 'sharpness'.  But the reduction in noise is actually very obvious indeed.  It's much better! 
    Most of the sharpness I need on these less noisy images can easily be added by including the 'Edge Sharpen' adjustment, either at the defailt settings, or marginally toned down a bit.  I'm currently using Intensity 0.7, Edges 0.3 and Falloff 0.4.  This leaves most smooth areas untouched, so the 'noise' or 'grain' in smooth areas is as it comes from the sensor.  By toggling the Edge Sharpen on and off, I can easily confirm no change in 100% or 200% loupe views. 
    That level of edge sharpening is a bit subtle, but actually achieves most of what I got from the Raw Fine Tuning sharpening sliders.  It will be applied only to in-focus contrasty things like eyelashes or hairs or other defined edges, and very nicely.
    So I'm sharing this in case other people also find it helpful.  I strongly suggest removing the default sharpening entirely, and only using the Edge Sharpening slider in a cautious manner if you want to enhance sharpness.
    Some related web pages:
    http://www.jonroemer.com/blog/2011/01/aperture-3-too-sharp-tweak-the-default/
    http://www.twin-pixels.com/raw-processors-review-aperture-bibble-capture-one-dxo -lightroom/
    PS - there is a different issue with the default Raw Fine Tuning 'Boost' and 'Hue Boost' sliders, both of which are set to 1' by default.  It turns out that these introduce a very large amount of contrast and exposure gain - turn them down to zero and the image goes quite dark and flat!  The Aperture user guide says something about Hue Boost changing colours when Boost is set to '1' and this is the case.  So I've experimented with turning them both to zero, and instead using a custom curves adjustment to achieve a similar level of exposure and contrast to the default conversion and the camera's default JPG image.  By fine-tweaking the curves one can get better control of blown highlights and the overall contrast.  I'm not sure if the colours are 'better', but I think so.  I am fairly sure that I get smoother transitions in the mid-tonal ranges with this approach rather than just using Apple's default settings.  Maybe they are a but strong for my liking.  Certainly I can make curves that rarely require the 'Recovery' slider to fix over-boosted highlights.  Anyhow, you may also find that this tweak helps a bit.  Interestingly on a Canon RAW file the effect is not nearly as great in exposure terms, but there is also a definite colour change.
    PSS - the end result is that I have set my camera preset for RAW fine tuning to zero settings for boost, hue boost, sharpening and edges.  I then add contrast as needed using curves, and sharpen only with a little edge sharpening.  I've then saved a few Presets with slightly different contrast curves and all with a little edge sharpening.  I can very quickly select the level of contrast needed, and I am very confident that my results are quite a bit better, with better tonal gradations and much less noise.
    Hope this helps
    Chris.

    Nice observations, Chris.  I think the RAW Fine Tuning is often overlooked, even though it's a vital first step in RAW processing, and really the whole point of shooting RAW in the first place.  Too much boost yields horrible skin tones in my experience.  I have a default of .50 Boost and Hue Boost, Sharpening and Edges at .25, Moire .50, Radius 12.0 and Denoise .25.  I've found these are "mid range" settings for the Canon 5Dii, and first make small adjustments to the Fine Tuning brick before moving on to exposure adjustments. 

  • Aperture 2 raw conversion very bad with some subjects (like sunsets)

    Please take a look at this composite:
    http://amrosario.com/rawsun.jpg
    These conversions were done in Aperture 2 using only the three different raw conversion engines and no other adjustments. As you can see, the 1.1 version is more yellow than the other two. What, in fact, the scene actually looked like is closer to the 1.1 conversion. The other two are way off. Not to mention the extreme banding visible. What the heck is going on?
    The only way I was able to get something close to the 1.1 version using the 2.0 converter was to whack out some saturation to an extreme with not so goo results. I also processed the pic in ACR 4.1 and, even though I got a little banding around the sun, the initial color was correct. Also, the white balance is the same setting for all three images (including the one I processed in ACR).
    I mean, what's with all the red/pink in these conversions. I know Aperture 2 does away with some yellow in pix, but this is crazy. And the banding is quite unacceptable.
    Any thoughts?
    Antonio

    Yeah, thanks for that tip. I boosted and it helped, but I think it could be better. The color still runs a bit on the pink/magenta side. I'll keep trying and see what happens. Still, the change can be a little jarring if not expected.
    Antonio

  • RAW conversion with Aperture

    Has anyone compared the quality of RAW conversion of Aperture vs. Nikon Capture as well as other converters?
    I really like the quality of nikon capture and would not want to purchase aperture unless the conversion was at least equivalent.
    Thanks for any input.
    mark
    G4 17" Laptop   Mac OS X (10.4.3)  

    I've compared Aperture's conversion side by side with Adobe Camera Raw's. My method was to do some conversions with Camera Raw and save the result along with the RAW file. Then, in the Apple Store, I performed the conversions using Aperture.
    The results from Aperture are not good. They look okay at reduced size, but if you look more closely, the de-mosaicing Aperture performs is quite bad. On some images it is only "somewhat" worse than Camera Raw; on others it is so bad as to be unusable. Shadow detail suffers the most, but highlights are not immune. Some images showed color fringing that was not present in the Camera Raw conversion, even with all chromatic aberration adjustments set to zero in Camera Raw.
    I ignored differences in color and tonal rendering because I did not have enough time with Aperture to learn to get the best results out of it in terms of color. It takes a while to figure out how to get good color out of a RAW converter.
    In no case was Aperture as good as Adobe Camera Raw in terms of image quality. The difference was immediately obvious at 100% magnification.
    I would not use Aperture for RAW conversion.
    EDIT: I forgot to mention, in case it matters, my camera is a Nikon D2X.

  • RAW conversion, iPhoto vs Aperture

    I currently shoot in RAW, save the folder to my desktop, convert files in ACR and import into Photoshop for edits; I then create a master edited TIFF for each saved image a, plus make 3-5 variations (composites, B&W, etc) of every master image . When all that is in the (renamed) desktop folder, I then import that folder into iPhoto where finished files are routed to Smart Folders.
    For added security I routinely backup all the RAW files using Export to an external HD.
    The ideal workflow (for me) however, would be to use Nikon's free NX2 software to convert the RAW files into TIFF, do basic editing and import both the RAW and TIFF conversions directly into iPhoto.  So far, I can't get that to work without going through the extra step of NX2>Desktop>iPhoto.
    Am I missing something in iPhoto, or maybe it can't handle that?
    Would Aperture allow that direct NX2 > Aperture import? I'm a little unclear on the Aperture RAW conversion process, so could I import RAW files folder into Aperture and then convert those RAW files to TIFF and edit them within Aperture? That way the only time I'd have to go outside Aperture would be to do something in PS that Aperture can't handle.
    Brian

    No
    You simply have to set your editing program as the external editor for iPhoto - in the iPhoto preferences you can choose to send RAW to the external editor or not - if you do then once you edit the photo you must save it to the desktop and import the modified photo into iPhoto creating a new photo - if you do not pass it as RAW then you save in the editor and it is returned to iPhoto and the database properly updated
    As to the process iPhoto uses - all originals are saved unmodified - RAW , TIFF or JPEG.  as they are imported a small JPEG preview is generated for quick access by iPhoto and other programs - with RAW an additional large JPEG preview is saved  --  when you edit in iPhoto the edit steps are saved and applied to the preview and to the thumbnail - future edits steps are also saved so you always start yoru edit with the unedited original and add edits so you never are but one step form the original eliminating the multiple editing losses that cause some people to use TIFF rather than JPEG   --  hence my comment
    Both can import and convert your RAW photos and both provide lossless editing so using giant TIFFs would not be necessagy
    and
    Unless you have very unusual requirements your work flow seems uncessary and overly complicated to me
    as to
    but if I want to see the original RAW file, and the edited versions stored within iPhoto
    If you want to see both then they both have to be there - since iPhoto always keeps the original and while editing in iPhoto you can view it at any time by depressing the shift key most people prefer to simply their work flow and save the disk space and let iPhoto handle this
    It really sounds like you do not want iPhoto and yoru best choice is to shoose a different photo manager that works like you want - or learn and understand iPhoto (and most if not all Digital Asset managers - DAMs - which work much like iPhoto) and use it the way it works
    You can use what you please and do what you please, but if you use iPhoto you are making life very difficult by going against its standard procedures
    LN

  • 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

  • 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 :-/

  • Aperture RAW conversion colour noise with Canon 1D Mark II

    I'm using Aperture 2.1 and am wondering if anyone here is having this problem - basically highlights end up with false colour with this camera/RAW conversion combination. The problems appears to have been introduced with the 1.1 RAW converter as 1.0 conversions don't seem to have the problem. I'm not sure if this is camera specific, or whether there is some tuning which can be done to the RAW converter to minimise the effect - attempts have so far failed with this approach.
    The best subject to produce the effect is strong reflections from water - i've attached a crop of an image which shows this problem, and I can supply a RAW with this problem.
    Conversion using RAW 1.0 (less or no colour pixelation):
    http://www.loftsoft.co.uk/pictures/KC7U5116%20-%20RAW%201.0.jpg
    Conversion using RAW 2.0 (colour pixelation):
    http://www.loftsoft.co.uk/pictures/KC7U5116%20-%20RAW%202.0.jpg
    Any suggestions as to what to do? Is this simply a RAW conversion problem which can be addressed or am I using the tool wrong?
    Many thanks,
    Cesare

    Hmm. I can see some color effects in the 1.0 conversion as well.
    Those are some touch photos... you have lots of specular highlights with the sun reflecting off the water and the railing.
    Aperture 2.x and 1.x handle the RAW conversion differently. I would suggest you try playing with the RAW Fine Tuning brick, specifically with the Moire and Radius sliders, and try fiddling with the Auto Noise Compensation checkbox.
    I don't know whether you'll be able to make the problem go away completely or not.
    With my ~30,000 1D Mark II files I've seen something similar to this (though much less extreme) on a couple of them. Always with specular highlights though -- off water or metal objects.
    Still, you may wish to submit Aperture feedback and include the RAW file.

  • Aperture 3 RAW conversion and hot pixel problem

    I've used every version of Aperture since release, but I'm not very happy with the RAW conversion in Aperture3.
    My images from earlier versions have no hot pixel problems but if I update to the new processing I can see them.
    Single red or green pixel in the 100% crop image, that didn't show up before and also don't show up in LR.
    The images I'm importing are NEF files from a Nikon D2x.
    Is this a bug in the new RAW conversion for this camera?
    It makes all of my images now unusable through Aperture if I reprocess them?

    I haven't noticed the pixel issues that you mention, but I wasn't looking for that yet. Instead, my images from my Nikon D300 have been stressing A3 out as follows....
    I have been having new issues with A3 now. I bought A3 when it was 1st available and had all of the same issues that plagued some users, I worked through it and until recently have loved A3.
    While editing I noticed that A3 had a large number of my photos, about 30% of 34,000 images, labeled as being processed under an earlier version (A2). I decided to go ahead and re-reprocess the images, even though this step took a couple of weeks and countless crashes when I first purchased A3. Again, just over a week later, the images are now re-reprocessed within A3. And a new problem cropped up.
    My Macbook is...
    [img]http://jasonksepka.smugmug.com/photos/942470326_QzaME-M.png[/img]
    and when I open A3 and begin looking at my images, the program is slow to respond and when it opens an image I get a very unprocessed version of lines for up to 5 seconds before the image finally loads. The image and all edits do load, but the workflow is significantly effected and I would like to know why this is happening now, and how to fix it. Below is an example of what happens with each image.
    [img]http://jasonksepka.smugmug.com/photos/942470341_Q2WUZ-M.png[/img]

Maybe you are looking for