Aperture 3.6 and Photoshop
Option of "edit in external editor" is disabled in Aperture 3.6
How this issue may be solved?
What do you have set in Preferences?
Which version of PS?
Here is a screenshot showing my setup for PS CC 2014:
Similar Messages
-
Aperture 3.03 and Photoshop CS5
I tried using Photoshop CS5 as my external editor. The resulting PSD file does not display correctly in Aperture but will reopen correctly in Photoshop. What gives?
Hi Steven
If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that the picture you have edited in CS (after exporting from Aperture) is ....."automatically"..... saved back into the Aperture Library ?
This is certainly not the case, I'm using CS4 and after exporting to CS4 from within Aperture, any edits you make IN CS4, within CS4, are not included in the version that returns to Aperture if you do not save it IN CS4 first Steven....
After editing in CS4, if you try to close CS4 (cmd & Q) you are asked do you want to save the file before closing, if 'don't save' is selected, the version Aperture created to export to CS4 is saved, but with no edits. If 'save' is selected then all your edits are preserved on the version that returns to Aperture, as a .psd file.
The OP asked...."I tried using Photoshop CS5 as my external editor. The resulting PSD file does not display correctly in Aperture but will reopen correctly in Photoshop. What gives?"
So I wondered two things here,
1. Has the OP NOT saved the image in CS before returning to Aperture.....(no edits preserved)
2. Maybe the OP has not checked whether or not to Maximise file Compatibility ( In CS > Preferences > File Handling > Maximise PSD and PSB File Compatibility....) maybe the OP has 'Never' checked here in error......?? Instead of 'Ask' or 'Always'....??
If the OP has not checked '2' above, then the image will open in CS but not Aperture.
""To use an external editor in Aperture
Select an item in the Browser.
Choose Photos > Edit with > [application name] (or press Command-Shift-O).
Aperture creates a new master (leaving the original unchanged), converts it to the chosen file format, and then opens the file in the external editor. The file is tracked as a new master stacked with the original master.
When you’ve finished modifying the image, audio, or video file in the external application, save the file.""
The saved file is automatically updated in Aperture.
All the best Steven...... Gerry...
Message was edited by: windhoveruk -
I have a 3 year old MacBook Pro with MAC OSX 10.6.8, iPhoto ’09 version 8.1.2 and have downloaded two software programs: one is Aperture 3.2 and the other is Photoshop Elements 9 (which I got from a friend who didn’t need it).
I am totally happy with the way iPhoto organizes my photos and how I can work with iMovie to create slide shows with music from iTunes, etc.
I have been shooting mostly high resolution jpegs and I continue to learn more and more about photography, post processing etc. I realize that the small adjustments I can make in iPhoto are good, and are adequate most of the time. However, a have started to experiment with shooting RAW images and would like to go the next step, ie. post processing.I am totally technically challenged and need SIMPLE, INTUITIVE programs and am certainly NOT anywhere ready for Photoshop CS whatever!
After having these programs sit on my computer, I decided to try to see if I could figure them out. When I opened Aperture, this is what first comes up.
“Welcome to Aperture 3.2
Your library needs to be upgraded to work with this version of Aperture. Once upgraded, you will not be able to use this library with previous versions of Aperture.
Upgrading a library from previous versions of Aperture 3 generally takes a few minutes or less, though larger libraries will take longer. After that, Aperture 3.2 will upgrade your library's thumbnails, but you can use the application during that time.
Tip: To open a different library, quit Aperture and hold the Option key down while starting Aperture
Current Library Location:
Jadzia (home) -----Pictures------Aperture Library
QUIT UPGRADE”
I have heard horror stories about moving your entire library to Aperture, ending up with 2 libraries, etc. etc. hence my previous reluctance in attempting Aperture. In addition, many of my photography friends are saying: Go with Lightroom 3.....you’ll love it!
So here is my dilemma. I don’t want to mess around with my iPhoto library. All I want to be able to do, is to isolate a few photos, export them to Aperture, Elements, and work on them there, then bring them back into iPhoto.
Can I do this? Should I forget about Aperture and Elements and look at purchasing yet another program like Lightroom?Export those few photos via the File ➙ Export ➙ File Export menu option with Kind = Original to the Desktop. Then import them into the Aperture library. That would keep one copy in your iPhoto library and another in your Aperture library to edit, etc.
You can use Photoshop Elements 9 from within iPhoto as your editor of choice. However, if you edit a raw file in iPhoto with PSE9 the resulting edited version must be saved outside the iPhoto Library and imported back in as a new file. For editing jpegs just do a Save (not a Save As) and it all will be kept within iPhoto.
Using Photoshop or Photoshop Elements as Your Editor of Choice in iPhoto.
1 - select Photoshop or Photoshop Elememts as your editor of choice in iPhoto's General Preference Section's under the "Edit photo:" menu.
2 - double click on the thumbnail in iPhoto to open it in Photoshop. When you're finished editing click on the Save button. If you immediately get the JPEG Options window make your selection (Baseline standard seems to be the most compatible jpeg format) and click on the OK button. Your done.
3 - however, if you get the navigation window
that indicates that PS wants to save it as a PS formatted file. You'll need to either select JPEG from the menu and save (top image) or click on the desktop in the Navigation window (bottom image) and save it to the desktop for importing as a new photo.
This method will let iPhoto know that the photo has been editied and will update the thumbnail file to reflect the edit..
NOTE: With Photoshop Elements the Saving File preferences should be configured as shown:
I also suggest the Maximize PSD File Compatabilty be set to Always. In PSE’s General preference pane set the Color Picker to Apple as shown:
Note: to switch between iPhoto and PS or PSE as the editor of choice Control (right)-click on the thumbnail and select either Edit in iPhoto or Edit in External Editor from the contextual menu. If you use iPhoto to edit more than PSE re-select iPhoto in the iPhoto General preference pane. Then iPhoto will be the default editor and you can use the contextual menu to select PSE for your editor when desired.
OT -
Aperture 3 and Photoshop workflow
I have recently been opening a lot of my RAW files in Photoshop (via external editor). However when I do so Aperture comes becomes quite sluggish when viewing the newly saved 256MB PSD with the context of Aperture.
I am just wondering what people use as a general workflow when combining the two applications...specifically to get around the speed issue.
Flatten the PSD that is linked to Aperture, and save a copy of the layered PSD elsewhere?
Export from Aperture and import into PSD manually?Ernie: I should have been -- and need to be -- clearer. Thanks for sticking with this.
there is no "send as is" command. No image can be SENT to the external editor except a New Version created as either PSD or TIFF file, which will be flattened.
I realize there is no "send as is" command. The commands in question are (each from the context menu):
. "Edit with +{Name of External Editor}+, and
. "Edit with Plug-in"
The treatment of the image files for each of these commands is, afaict, the same. In an effort to indicate either of the two commands, I confusingly shortened it to "send as is".
I just tested this. I believe that there has been an important change since Ap3.0. The situation is improved, but still murky.
Here is what currently happens:
Adjust an image.
Send it to an external editor (a new Master is created, stacked with your original Master, and sent out)
Edit it
Save it
It comes back as a (sometimes layered) file. So far so good.
If you want to open that file again in the same plug-in, you can, and you can access all your layers.
But if you make adjustments to that file, and then send it using the exact same command as you sent it before, instead of (as before) creating a new Master with your adjustments baked-in, Aperture sends out +the current Master with NONE of your subsequent adjustments+.
You can edit this Master. When you save your changes, the new (now third Master) replaces the second Master, and your adjustments are applied to it.
The first time you use one of the external edit commands on an image, a new Master is created and all your adjustments are saved (by being baked into the image format file created).
The second time you use the +exact same command+, the Master is sent out for editing without your adjustments, and the edited Master ends up replacing the Master you sent out. +_That Master is, afaict, lost -- unrecoverable -- gone forever._+
That the same command does two different things is totally wrong. That it is possible to overwrite one of your Aperture Masters, is also wrong.
In practice, the commands to edit with an external editor, when applied to +an image+ which has already been edited with an external editor, is equal to "Edit Master". This might end up being slick, but currently it is very un-Aperturish.
Or -- and this is not unlikely -- there's something I'm missing.
Two additional anomalies I noticed when testing this today:
. After an image has been edited with an external editor, the Aperture command "New Version from Master" is unavailable for that image. This makes no sense. You can create a new Version from the Master by duplicating the Version and "Reset all Adjustments".
. Aperture makes no distinction which plug-in or external editor has been used. A file edited in PS can be then edited with Nik tools. The Master will the image and file format of whatever was the last external editor used. (IOW, invoking a second plug-in or external editor does not force Aperture to create and stack a new Master. It just creates a new Master and disappears the old one.)
I want to keep this as clear as our terms allow. Your statement:
No image can be SENT to the external editor except a New Version created as either PSD or TIFF file, which will be flattened.
is (sorry) doubly wrong. When you +"do a repeat open in Photoshop"+ you are in fact not creating a new Version. So in that case it CAN be sent NOT as a new Version. And the new file which is created by Aperture when it does create a new file prior to sending it out is not a Version -- It's a Master which is stacked with the original Master. (Versions are text files. Masters are image format files.) -
Using iPhoto, Aperture 3 and Photoshop Elements 9 together...
Hi everyone,
I recently upgraded from iPhoto to Aperture. It does almost everything I need but there are some much more advanced editing tools in Photoshop Elements that I need occasionally and also I like to be able to quickly create attractive template based e-mails using iPhoto, so I need all three apps.
Currently I have my photo library in Aperture 3 but it's really clunky to create attractive photo emails using iPhoto because I have to click 'Show Aperture Library', which is very difficult to navigate and is pretty much unusable. My next attempt is going to be to see whether I keep all my pictures in an iPhoto library and then browse and edit them in Aperture and Photoshop Elements.
Has anyone got any tips on this topic?
Thanks,
JimHi Ernie,
Thanks for your post. I will try to explain in a little more detail what the problem I'm having is. If I want to create an iPhoto picture template e-mail, say a postcard, then I select File/Show Aperture Library. A browser window pops up. If I browse to 'Projects' then the previews of each project are huge - about 6 fit on a screen with the window maximised. I can't find a way of zooming out in order that I can browse the hundreds of projects in my Aperture library. Is there a way of doing this? Also, I can't seem to control the sort order. The options in View/Sort Order seem to sort the iPhoto album, not the Aperture library browser.
If I select Photos from the navigation tree then I get previews of all my 13'000 pictures and about 100 fit on the screen. Again, I don't seem to be able to zoom in/out nor control the sort order.
What surprised me this morning is that I finally deleted my old iPhoto library and then opened iPhoto to see how it would react. I selected whatever the default was (forgot already!) and now I see my iPhoto library as it was before I deleted it. However, I can't find the library in my Pictures folder. Could it be that iPhoto is reading it from the trash can??
Finally - is there a way of adding pictures to my posts in this forum? Perhaps I could illustrate the views i'm getting in iPhoto's Aperture library browser.
Yours,
Jim -
Newbie asks: Aperture and PhotoShop - why have both??
Though this is more of a general question regarding photo editing, I'll post it here as this seems to be where most of the shutterbugs hang.
I just bought my wife a Nikon D200 for Mother's Day. Though she's definitely not an expert photographer (she barely knows how to use her current Nikon N60 film camera), she seems to have a real knack for taking beatiful shots of the kids, vacation vistas, etc.. I bought the D200 not because I felt she needed all of it's features, but more because I wanted something that was built like a tank, and would hold up to years of use in a variety of outdoor/indoor environments. Though very expensive, I thought the D200 was worth it if it lasts longer than the more affordable offerings. ..I mention all this only to avoid being criticized for "over-buying".
Anyway, what is the ONE essential picture editing software package that we should buy to take advantage of this wonderful camera?? I say one, because I don't think my wife will be too keen on moving images through three or four different applications to make fairly minor adjustments. ...She may take 30 pics/month, so were not talking huge project sizes. ..Perhaps a starting point would be if someone could briefly explain the differences between Aperture and Photoshop and why someone would have both. ..And if forced to pick just one of them, which would you chose? The iPhoto that came with our new iMac is outrageously cool! ..But it offers very limited adjustment tools.
IMAC (early 2006) Mac OS X (10.4.4) 1.5 G Ram
IMAC (early 2006) Mac OS X (10.4.4) 1.5 G RamI'll relate how I use both Aperture and Photoshop and why I do what I do so you can come to your own conclusions. I have been using Aperture since it first came out and Photoshop for 10 years.
Though Aperture was originally thought to be a Photoshop competitor (back when it was first released), it is not. Rather, it is a very good front-end to Photoshop. I use Aperture to read in my digital photos from my Nikon camera so I can easily go through them and pick out the ones I want. I should note that generally when I go out and do a "shoot", it is not uncommon for me to run through 200 or more pictures. So I have a significant sorting and selecting process when I get home to my computer. Photoshop is NOT good at this, that is why Adobe added Bridge a couple of years ago. Aperture is more of a competitor to Bridge (though Bridge comes free with Photoshop). I should note that though I like Bridge, Aperture has it beat hands down when it comes to letting me review my photos.
As I have learned to use Aperture, it has taken over many of the front-end adjustments I used to make in Bridge and Photoshop. Things like adjusting the saturation, brightness, contrast, levels, cropping, leveling and sharpening were what I formerly did with my Adobe products, but now instead very easily do with Aperture. I prefer doing these adjustment in Aperture since they are non-destructive to my original file, and the adjustments are kept in a XML sidecar file so the adjusted image file is very small and saves me lots of disk space.
If I like what I see in Aperture, then I can easily publish (books or web) or print from there. Aperture has some great web generation features in it. But, these features are not flexible with their format styles and are geared for use by professional photographers who want to show their work to their clients. But still, it is fun to easily create a web site. And if you have a .MAC account, there is a very nice fit between the two productions. (Note: you can also get this same functionality with more page creation flexibility with Apple's iWeb and to a certain degree with iPhoto).
Aperture has also helped me organize my photo library so that I can easily find that one photo, or set of photos, I want, when I want them.
So, if I'm using Aperture more-and-more, what am I using Photoshop for? As good as Aperture is, and it is getting better, it is no competitor for what Photoshop does best. I wouldn't think of using anything but Photoshop when I need to do "serious" work on my photos. Image repair and restoration, patching, touchups, very fine adjustments, special effects, application of filters, noise reduction, to name a few things, are (to me) Photoshop only. Also, for now, Photoshop has a much better zoom and image inspection feature than does Aperture. Though the loop in Aperture is useful, I find it to be a bit more klunky than the zoom feature in Photoshop.
Both programs are pricey, though Apple has made Aperture a lot more attractive with the recent price reduction from $499 to $299.
And, I agree. Elements is also an excellent choice, though I'm not sure if it supports RAW files the same way Photoshop does. I'm sure the Adobe site will have that information.
Good luck, and congratulations on the new D200. Your wife will really like it.
Jeff Weinberg -
Leopard running Aperture and Photoshop really slow
I just got Leopard and my Aperture and Photoshop are running slow and crashing, also when I run Pro Tools it won't boot up all the time. This is really frustrating. I keep loosing files images. This is running like Bill Gates made it.
Have you checked what it going on, when Aperture becomes sluggish?
I'd recommend to launch some diagnostic tools, if you have not already done so:
Aperture's own "Activity Viewer": From the main menu bar: Window > Show Activity
This will tell you, how Aperture is spending its time : rendering, previews, scanning for faces or places, raw processing. Inparticulur, check, if Aperture is hanging while processing one particular image or video over and over again.
The Console window: Launch it from the Utilities folder in the Applications folder. Look, if you see error messages or warnings in this window, when Aperture starts to hang.
The Activity Monitor: Launch it from the Utilities folder in the Applications folder. This window will tell you, which processes are using the cpu, the RAM, and doing page outs to the disk. You can see, if other processing are competing with Aperture and slowing it down, orif Aperture is starved for memory.
How large are images? Do you have very large raw files or scans, or are your photos moderately sized?
Is your library on the internal drive or an external drive?
Do you see this slowness only with your main Aperture library, or also, if you create a new, small library with a few test images?
Regards
Léonie -
Does aperture and photoshop migrate?
When I migrate everything from my old 24" mac to my new 27" mac, will it migrate aperture and photoshop?
They should, but if the new Mac is running Lion, any PPC apps you may have running under Rosetta now will not work on Lion.
Check in System Profiler to see if you have any apps marked as PPC. There may be more than you realise.
Edit:
And do be sure to use Setup Assistant on first boot - not Migration Assistant later as that's fraught with permissions problems.
Message was edited by: noondaywitch -
Is the MacBook Air recommended for working with RAW photographs in Aperture and Photoshop, or do I need a more powerful MacBook ? The relative lack of weight of the AIr is what attracts me to it.
For doing Photography with RAW files in either Aperture or Photoshop, the new MacBook Air is fine, but for Photoshop CS6 some of the filters and plugins really need a better graphics card and plenty of RAM.
You'll also want an external disk if you are going to be doing lots of shooting.
Summary:
Yes, you can use an air but you'll want external storage and at least 8GB of ram.
Or go MacBook Pro with 16GB ram with the 650M card. -
I need your help with a decision to use iPhoto. I have been a PC user since the mid 1980’s and more recently have used ACDSee to manage my photo images and Photoshop to edit them. I have used ProShow Gold to create slideshows. I am comfortable with my own folder and file naming conventions. I currently have over 23,000 images of which around 60% are scans going back 75 years. Since I keep a copy of the originals, the storage requirements for over 46,000 images is huge. 180GB plus.
I now have a Macbook Pro and will add an iMac when the new models arrive. For my photos, I want to stay with Photoshop which also gives me the Bridge. The only obvious reason to use iPhoto is to take advantage of Faces and the link to iMovie to make slideshows. What am I missing and is using iPhoto worth the effort?
If I choose to use iPhoto, I am not certain whether I need to load the originals and the edited versions. I suspect that just the latter is sufficient. If I set PhotoShop as my external editor, I presume that iPhoto will keep track of all changes moving forward. However, over 23,000 images in iPhoto makes me twitchy and they are appear hidden within iPhoto. In the past, I have experienced syncing problems with, and database errors in, large databases. If I break up the images into a number of projects, I loose the value of Faces reaching back over time.
Some guidance and insight would be appreciated. I have a number of Faces questions which I will save for later.Bridge and Photoshop is a common file-based management system. (Not sure why you'd have used ACDSEE as well as Bridge.) In any event, it's on the way out. You won't be using it in 5 years time.
Up to this the lack of processing power on your computer left no choice but to organise this way. But file based organisation is as sensible as organising a Shoe Warehouse based on the colour of the boxes. It's also ultimately data-destructive.
Modern systems are Database driven. Files are managed, Images imported, virtual versions, lossless processing and unlimited editing are the way forward.
For a Photographer Photoshop is overkill. It's an enormously powerful app, a staple of the Graphic Designers' trade. A Photographer uses maybe 15% to 20% of its capability.
Apps like iPhoto, Lightroom, Aperture are the way forward - for photographers. There's the 20% of Photoshop that shooters actually use, coupled with management and lossless processing. Pop over to the Aperture or Lightroom forums (on the Adobe site) and one comment shows up over and over again... "Since I started using Aperture/ Lightroom I hardly ever use Photoshop any more..." and if there is a job that these apps can do, then the (much) cheaper Elements will do it.
The change is not easy though, especially if you have a long-standing and well thought out filing system of your own. The first thing I would strongly advise is that you experiment before making any decisions. So I would create a Library, import 300 or 400 shots and play. You might as well do this in iPhoto to begin with - though if you’re a serious hobbyist or a Pro then you'll find yourself looking further afield pretty soon. iPhoto is good for the family snapper, taking shots at birthdays and sharing them with friends and family.
Next: If you're going to successfully use these apps you need to make a leap: Your files are not your Photos.
The illustration I use is as follows: In my iTunes Library I have a file called 'Let_it_Be_The_Beatles.mp3'. So what is that, exactly? It's not the song. The Beatles never wrote an mp3. They wrote a tune and lyrics. They recorded it and a copy of that recording is stored in the mp3 file. So the file is just a container for the recording. That container is designed in a specific way attuned to the characteristics and requirements of the data. Hence, mp3.
Similarly, that Jpeg is not your photo, it's a container designed to hold that kind of data. iPhoto is all about the data and not about the container. So, regardless of where you choose to store the file, iPhoto will manage the photo, edit the photo, add metadata to the Photo but never touch the file. If you choose to export - unless you specifically choose to export the original - iPhoto will export the Photo into a new container - a new file containing the photo.
When you process an image in iPhoto the file is never touched, instead your decisions are recorded in the database. When you view the image then the Master is presented with these decisions applied to it. That's why it's lossless. You can also have multiple versions and waste no disk space because they are all just listings in the database.
These apps replace the Finder (File Browser) for managing your Photos. They become the Go-To app for anything to do with your photos. They replace Bridge too as they become a front-end for Photoshop.
So, want to use a photo for something - Export it. Choose the format, size and quality you want and there it is. If you're emailing, uploading to websites then these apps have a "good enough for most things" version called the Preview - this will be missing some metadata.
So it's a big change from a file-based to Photo-based management, from editing files to processing Photos and it's worth thinking it through before you decide. -
Hi everyone,
I recently purchased a new MacBook pro with Retina display, to better manage Aperture and Photoshop. I took the advice of the genius (and after spending all night messing with permissions, etc.), opted out of using Setup Assistant or Migration Assistant and decided to transfer my files manually (as the two systems weren't merging properly the first time -- it was a giant mess). Long story short, I tried to transfer everything from my previous MacBook (operating on 10.5.8 with Aperture 1), and Aperture 3 couldn't handle it. It was crashing, and crashing so badly that NO button could be activated in the program (I FINALLY got Aperture working by disabling previews, and by moving from a managed library to a referenced library).
I initially dragged and dropped all photos from my previous MacBook to my external, and imported. I obviously lost folders, edit history and any other information that I needed to know what edits had been done on the file. Additionally, any movie that had been imported into Aperture was corrupt (the file was not transferring over correctly). I searched and searched for different methods, and finally found that I could export each project from my original MacBook as a "Library" and consolidate masters, or not, etc. I took the time and did this for each project. When I went to import these into Aperture 3, it said I was not able to because the libraries were from a previous version of Aperture.
Is there any way to bypass this? Or another way to transfer my projects? I understand I won't be able to do this for my entire library... but I'm wondering if there's any way to transfer my changes made, projects and details from Aperture 1 to Aperture 3? (and for those who might pose upgrading my original MacBook as an option, I cannot. It's too old. I think the best I could uprade to is Aperture 2, IF i can update the OS. Though, I definitely don't think I should be forced to do that since I've aleady re-invested in a new computer, AND had to re-buy Aperture for the new one.
Any/all advice is VERY much appreciated, as I really want to move forward and FINALLY start appreciating this program and computer (i.e. my investment) and move forward business wise. Thank you!Hi Jack,
Thanks for responding (as it seems as though no one else has been able to provide any insight as of yet)! Not sure if you saw my recent post, but the version of Aperture on the 2008 MacBook has been upgraded to 3.1.2 (not sure how; I bought it in 2009, but only have OS X 10.5.8... which apparently can't house 3.1.2 of Aperture, but hey, like many other anomalies i'm encountering, I'm no longer surprised!). I am unable to upgrade it any further, as it warns me that my OS X does not fit the requirements. I exported the projects as libraries; however, like I posted before, apparently these are from too old of a version for the new Aperture (3.3.1) to handle and import.
It's getting to the point where I'd almost pay to upgrade the OS X on my previous MacBook (10.5.8) to something newer in order to THEN update Aperture to a newer version; however, my previous MacBook simply cannot handle this (the specs are awful -- hence my decision to save up and upgrade to the newest MBP with Retina).
I've spent hours upon hours transferring files, libraries as projects, previews, versions, even masters (though, apparently some of them aren't accessible?) with no luck. I've rebuilt the library and reprocessed everything. And this is all after having to return one MBP already since Aperture 3.3.1 is glitch-y as it is, and froze everything for having a "managed library". So, now that I know that I have to deal with a referenced library in Aperture... I just need to actually transfer my previous library to my new one (hopefully WITH adjustments since these are years worth of photos and work).
Again, any help is appreciated. I've lost enough sleep, time, and vision health over this at this point.
Also, I know Migration Assistant is an option, I was told that it wouldn't work properly anyway because of the different operating systems, and the potential for problems. -
Aperture, good cataloger for Photoshop,but is there more?
Hi,
I am trying to maximize the benefits of Aperture, but there is still confusion. Aperture obviously is great at storing, cataloging, comparing, retrieving and opening images. The books and web tools are convenient and work quite well also. My problem is that I still have to go to photoshop for extrapolating my images to a larger size, resolution, then while there, I use Noise Ninja and Photokit Sharpener since it is convenient and the results are good. If I could at least extrapolate my image in Aperture for sharpening, I don't think I would need to go to Photoshop and that would be the ideal way to maximize Aperture.
My question is, why use Aperture for these things at all? I don't mean to sound negative. What Aperture does do, it does it quite well. I would just like to have it be the one stop shopping place for my images from camera to printer.
I can open, catalogue, compare, store, retrieve by metadata, and more in Photoshop already. I want to be told that Aperture is better for some reason than Photoshop, but I am not seeing it. What am I missing? Should I just interpolate in Photoshop, bring it back to Aperture and then print out of Aperture and then store it? It seems like an extra step for little benefit, especially when I can do this on my laptop and my desktop computers which I can not do with Aperture. (Don't really need the laptop for editing, but it would be nice to have)
I assume most who have Aperture are still using Photoshop for some things, but when does Aperture become indespensible as compared to being just a very nice looking raw image editor/cataloger?Aperture's core strength is its integrated workflow, specifically in getting you from "lots of images" to "the images you really care about" quickly and efficiently. It doesn't have all the functionality of Photoshop (no true layers, no masking, many fewer 3rd party plug-ins), but it's great in getting you from 1000 shops to 25 "selects" in 30-60 minutes, when you've done some simple color correction and shadows/highlights to them.
If you need that, great. If you're a fine art photographer who is used to working with 4x5 or 8x10, maybe not so great, as you will need photoshop for every photo you work on.
Did you watch the videos on the Aperture site? If nothing those folks rave about meshes with how you work, perhaps it is a bad fit. Aperture isn't trying to be everything for everybody... which, based on the learning curve I went through with Photoshop, is a good thing. A very good thing -
What are the best settings to use in the export manager when exporting from Aperture 3.5 to Photoshop cc for editing?
Should I use tiff or psd?
8bit or 16bit?
How many dpi?That will depend on the photometric resolution of your originals. For jpegs it would be a waste of space to convert them to a higher resolution than 8bit, but if your images actually have already more than 8bit, you will want to preserve this quality. Then he 16bit format will help to prevent color clipping.
Both tiff and psd will preserve the lossless workflow. With Photoshop as external editor I would use he psd format for better support of layers and transparency, e.g., when you want to create watermark files.
The dpi will only matter, when you export the file for printing. -
Aperture 3.2.3 and NIK plugins. I use several of these plugins. Recently, and intermittently, the edited image fails to update in the viewer until Aperture is quit and re-launched, even though it is updated in the browser strip. I have assumed the NIK software must be working because the problem occurs from time to time regardless of which one is used. Is there some explanation?
See this known issue:
http://support.apple.com/kb/TS4237
Not sure why Apple has not fixed this one yet. It is consistent with NIK plug-ins as well as Photoshop (CS5 and CS6).
Big fumble from my point of view. -
Color spaces in Lightroom and Photoshop
I read that Lightroom uses the large ProPhoto color Space and then again, that it's gamma curve ist close to sRGB. So what is my color space when working in Lightroom? ProPhoto, or sRGb, or something else?
And what kind of a color management workflow between Photoshop and Lightroom do you advocate? Using ProphotoRGB or sRGB as color work space in Photoshop? I used to work in AdobeRGB in Photoshop. Has this to be changed to gain maximum color consistency?
Thanks again for any help!
Johann M GintherHey Claude,
if it did not have an attached profile it is almost definitely in sRGB or, more rarely, Apple RGB. Lightroom always assumes sRGB for untagged files which is typically a safe bet. Photoshop generally uses the working space for untagged images. Since you had adobeRGB there, you should get a more saturated image in photoshop then in Lightroom. The same data is simply interpreted in a different color space leading to different colors. This has nothing to do with the monitor profile therefore and my initial hunch was wrong. So for untagged images in photoshop, you should usually assign sRGB to them instead of working space.
>As for calibration hardware we do use them here so I will use it but since the Mac was brand new out the box I assumed that it was ok...
Unfortunately, in general the canned calibration is not very good on Macs. I find very large differences between the shipped profile and a profile generated by a calibrator. Also, Apple ships profiles that set your display's gamma to 1.8 instead of the standard 2.2. This leads to many images in webbrowsers being too low contrast. Even Apple suggests recalibrating your screen at 2.2 if you do digital photography work (it's in their Aperture help files). In this case though the difference between Lightroom and Photoshop had nothing to do with the monitor profile but was related to photoshop interpreting untagged files in its working space instead of the more likely sRGB space.
Maybe you are looking for
-
I have a Mac Pro OS 10.7.5 and have a DVD+R disc with files on it, but it ejects the disk after about 10 seconds--what to do? How can I get the data off this disc? I can see it has been already burned, so files are on there?
-
How does the iphone Bluetooth fit in your ear?
My last bluetooth headset kepted falling out of my ear. Does the iphone fall out of yours? I noticed it looks like it goes off one size fits all model no additional ear attachments to make it fit your ear size or conture. Please advise since this wil
-
Printing black as blue in photos but fine when print on normal paper
ive got a canon pixma MG5350 printer which was working fine. not used it for a while and then moved it. now when i try to print photos off the black is coming out blue, and dark blue also comes out funny. tried changing black cartridges but no differ
-
Trouble downloading app updates
So, I have been away for a week only to come home and when I try to download the 23 app updates available on iTunes, (iTunes is working by the way) I get a message telling me they have already been purchased and to download I need to go to Check for
-
Cannot open .avi files imported from Nikon d90 in Adobe Premiere 6.0.
Cannot open .avi files imported from Nikon d90 in Adobe Premiere 6.0. When I try to open the file I get the following error message: "cannot open that file the file uses an unsupported file compression format" I really need urgent help with this so i