Aperture 3 and underexposed RAW conversion

I run Aperture 3.03 with CameraRAW 3.3 and OS 10.6.4. I use a Nikon D300 and download as referenced images into Aperture via a SanDisk card reader.
Somewhere around the time I upgraded to CameraRAW 3.3 and OS 10.6.4 (not exactly at the same time but within a short period of time) I have noticed in Aperture 3 that my newly imported images appear significantly underexposed. In fact, I can watch as a batch of properly exposed imported images darken one after the other as they are processed. This has never been a problem before. At present I have resorted to manually adjusting the images in Aperture, usually requiring anywhere from 1 to 2 full stops of exposure adjustment to make a correction. Even with lift and stamp this is a very tedious process with 200 to 300 images at a time.
I expose my images with care and always view the on-camera histogram to check against over/under exposure.
Am I missing something obvious that i should be doing differently? Could it be my camera?
Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
Bob

First thing to look at is the histogram, you say that it is correct in camera. It should look much the same in Aperture. You also say the images darken, this is normal behavior as they get processed. If they look ok on the histogram the are ok. Raw can record a little more of the light and dark areas of a scene, than is represented on the histogram and these areas can be pulled in with adjustments.
Any adjustments that you want to make as the images are imported is easy. Presets allow any adjustments to be applied during import. Make the adjustments to a typical image, go to Presets at the bottom of the drop down list is Save. Click and these adjustments can be selected on the Import Panel Presets and applied to every image as it is imported.
If using the Lift and Stamp, select the images to be adjusted, with the Shift and Apple (command) key, ensure the Primary only is not on, in the bottom right corner of the Viewer. Allthe images get processed one after another automatically.
The exposure is what it was at the time the image was captured. Aperture cannot change that.
If a preset has been darkening the images the last paragraph will solve that.
Allan

Similar Messages

RAW conversion in 2 then update to 3 and its RAW conversion

I noticed that when I upgraded from 2 to 3 then 3.1, Aperture notified me that the RAW conversion it did in 2 is not the same as 3 and, would I like the 3 conversion done? When I said yes to one test image, it came out considerably darker.
What have people been doing with that change and, is it happening generally to all RAW conversions to 3 with most camera brands and models?
My preference is to leave them as version 2 as I always like the way Aperture handled RAW. There was a test comparison of RAW converters a year or so ago (I think it was a French site) and Aperture 2 held its own and was my preference.
So now I am wondering, how will new previews be when I import them into version 3? (Have not shot anything lately.) Since I prefer the Aperture 2 RAW to JPEG converter, can I set Aperture 3 to convert more like that?

I don't really want to reimport.
By processor do you mean RAW processor?
It's not that the new RAW in v.3 is bad, it is just darker.
I read up more in Aperture Help. Apple seems to indicate that one might like to keep the earlier RAW processed images and you can. Although, from the sounds of it, they make the v.3 RAW converter sound much better than v.2.
So, still, I just don't know how to "process" this issue myself.
How have others upgrading from 2 to 3 dealt with it and, did you notice the darker image after the conversion? Did anyone keep the v.2 processed images?

Black and white raw conversions

The raw converter in LR is good-I tend to reduce the saturation and use the luminance sliders. However,more variations in colour need to be catered for so that subtle differences in the grayscale shades of all the various hues (such as greens and blues) are brought out in monochrome.Currently, a conversion of, say,a woodland scene is very blocky in grayscale compared with the film equivalent.

There are a number of plugins which simulate film which are quite good. However, the fundamental issue is that the raw converter does not translate subtle tones very well ( this might also be true of a camera sensor). I use the term "blocky" because there is often a lack of tonal separation in the gray tones in such images.For example moving the green slider on a delicately shot woodland scene darkens or lightens across the board.It would be better if sliders allowed for altering ranges of hues of colours that would show up more clearly the tonal separation.
It would also be good if the image in the develop module could be overlaid with a grayscale zone map and then perhaps it might be possible to directly shift areas of zones to different zones directly with the adjustment brush.

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

Aperture imports Lumix GF2 RAW files with strong green colour cast

I'm using Aperture 3.3.1 with Digital Camera RAW 3.14.0 built 6460000.1 and iPhoto 9.3.1
When importing RAW files from my Panasonic Lumix GF2 into Aperture, the initial thumbnails are fine (it displays those embedded in the RAW file), but when Aperture has finished its processing, thumbails and full size images are dark and green - it seems only the green channel has been taken into account.
When importing the same photos in iPhotos, they look normal, with all their colours.
If I open the iPhoto library with Aperture, the photos are fine as well.
This is the first time I import photos since updating Aperture, iPhoto and Camera RAW a few days ago - I had the previous versions from before the updates issued around the last WWDC event.
I would have assumed iPhoto and Aperture use the same Camera RAW engine so I don't understand how Aperture is "broken" but not iPhoto.
Any ideas for the resolution of this issue are welcome.
Thanks.

I applied the solution found on this this page:
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3948457?start=0&tstart=0
Read the instructions carefully as there is a space to remove (introduce by the line break in the forum), then you need to reboot your Mac.
I solved my problem for new image imports. Regenerating the thumbails of already imported images didn't change anything. I gues this was because my issue was not just with the thumbails, but the whole image, without the Quick Preview feature activated.

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.

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 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]

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)

Exported Raw Conversion Image Resolution and Assigning a Color Profile, etc

In Aperture 1.1, although I set the exported Raw conversion image resolution to 300 dpi in the preferences, it continues to come out at 72 dpi which is something of an inconvenience. Also, is it possible to assign a color profile to the "exported version" so that it is congruent to my PS CS2 color workspace (if that is what its called). Is this program capable of carrying out a conversion as a background operation? Finally, can the layout windows be configured so that they remember how they have been used in the past? Thanks.

Iatrogenic huh! Cool!
Anyway, I'm not real clear on what it is you are trying to accomplish. Despite your obvious vocabulary skills, there seems to be some disconnect relative to what you are trying to accomplish. You are right that "exporting a version" in Aperture is roughly equivalent to what happens in ACR when you "Open" a RAW image into Photoshop. In both cases you have, hopefully, already done the adjusting of parameters you want prior to "exporting", or "opening". When you "open" or "export" you wind up with an "image" composed of pixels, whereas in the RAW adjustment phase you are just working with a temporary thumbnail and a set of mathematical instructions. Big difference, I suppose is that when you "open" and image from ACR into CS2, the resulting image is truly just pixels and has not had a "file type" applied to the file yet, until you "save" it, while in Aperture, if you "export" a file to CS2, or to the desktop, you end up with the file type already applied. Presuming you "export" a 16 bit TIFF or PSD, there is no operational difference.
I could be wrong, but with the new Bayer Demosaicing algorithms in Aperture 1.1, and the Camera RAW adjustments, you should be able to come up with an adjusted image that is VERY close if not identical to one done in ACR, with the possible exception of lens abberation adjustment. I was very critical of the RAW adjustments in 1.0.1, but I am very happy with the capabilites in 1.1. That said, I think there is still some room for improvement in user friendliness of some of the adjustments such as Levels.

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

How long does it usually take to get added raw support (nex5n)? i pretty much just use aperture 3 and love it but why does lightroom from adobe seem to get raw support faster than Apple's Aperture 3. Also FCPX lacks v Adobe on 60p.

How long does it usually take to get raw support for Aperture 3? Is it slowed by Apple or camera company. I only ask because Lightroom has support for nex5n raw but Aperture 3 does not. Also direct import into Adobe premiere and ability to edit in 60p. However, support for 60 p not as easily worked with in FCPX. I am just surprised Apple does not keep pace with these type of updates that Adobe does. Don't get me wrong I love and use Apple software when I can but I wish Apple was ahead of adobe in getting this support. I guess more of a vent than a question.

Yes, more of a vent.
FWIW I agree.
Camera companies keep RAW specs confidential so firms like Apple and Adobe have to (sort of) reverse-engineer to develop RAW converters for each new camera. The good news is to my eyes/brain Apple usually does a slightly better job at it than Adobe does. The best RAW conversions (logically) come from the camera manufacturers.
Apple gives up market share with slow support for new cameras. IMO really DUMB. It has at least been improving...
-Allen

Aperture 3 and underexposed RAW conversion

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for