Aperture and ACR workflow

For those who find Aperture's Camera RAW conversion too primitive, the program can be used in a simple workflow that maximizes your productivity while insuring maximum quality conversion.
1- IMPORT your RAW images into Aperture and add keywords and other tags.
Aperture brings in the RAW image UNALTERED.
2- COMPARE AND SORT your images using the EXCELLENT TOOLS in Aperture.
You can also freely experiment with versions to test ideas for everything from exposure to B&W conversions.
3- SELECT YOUR BEST IMAGES inside Aperture.
Most of us working in the professional world are really only interested in using the top 1% or less of a typical shoot. It is only those that need to be converted as output for Giclee printing or as digital masters for retouching and CMYK printing.
4- EXPORT THOSE BEST IMAGES using the export "DIGITAL MASTERS..." command.
Many of us find Aperture's RAW conversion to be excellent but for those who don't, you can choose at this point all your selected images, which by now should be a very short list, and export them as UNALTERED RAW files to a folder outside of Aperture.
5- CONVERT those exported camera RAW images using whatever conversion program you want, for many it will be ACR, and do any extra retouching in Photoshop.
And for those worried about Aperture's filing system, you can store these exported "Best Images" exactly like you used to do, in old fashioned folders on your hard disk, in whatever categories make sense to you.
For those of us producing professional work on always shorter deadlines, Aperture is an outstanding tool that makes our job much easier.
Mac OS X (10.4.3)

Tom, first allow me to congratulate you on starting a practical thread. Now that many of us own Aperture, and I'm not saying the issues threads aren't useful, figuring out where it fits in our workflow is a fine idea.
Here is my (pre-Aperture) workflow, and some ideas for an interim (working with what we have) post-Aperture flow. I'd really appreciate any advice or suggestions.
Pre: Conversion mostly in ACR/Bridge (occasionally in C1Pro-generally fleshtones). Color Space generaly set in camera as Adobe RGB, same for PS. Preliminary sharpening with PhotoKit, noise reduction if necessary with neat image or noise ninja, adjustments, aspect ratio crops, etc. Save as TIFF/16bit layered if necessary/add "Base" to filename when saving. Reopen in PS for output specific sharpening, save flattened copy. Open in ImagePrint-Print. Library has been on external HDs, backed up to duplicate HDs which are taken off premises. Current library size:700Gigs and growing fast.
Post: Import into Aperture from Card, also backup RAWs to DVD. As suggested here, do sorts and picks in Aperture. Maybe do some crude adjusting for low res images for client proofs (web or contact sheets-sorry, haven't tried using Aperture with Epson drivers or tried the web posting). Export RAW picks for conversion and editing elsewhere (I have tested and the camera EXIFs are still there in PS (I'm not sure they will be on re-import?). So, now I've got a RAW with an attached .xmp, one or more Tiffs. I can reimport the TIFFs, but can I re-associate them with the Master? Is there any way that I can import the .xmp and associate it with the master? So, I can pick, web, go to printer and archive (although I'll hit a disk space issue-ideas there?)
I tried to do this without asking for changes in Aperture, but not using Aperture where I felt it was immature. There are already enough discussions about conversion, editing and storage. The interface is promising and I would welcome any shortcuts you can come up with. Meanwhile, I'm going to try with new shoots, and a few existing shoots for experimanetation, but leave my old library intact. Then I'm going to put Aperture's library on an 800Gig external eSATA RAID0 -two disk; and back up to another. Wish me luck.

Similar Messages

Aperture and iPhoto workflow?

The problem:
I'm not happy with quality of previews used by aperture to display slideshows. Even at maximum resolution and quality setting they are too soft to my taste.
The same photos exported as jpgs out of aperture are sharp. I guess there must be a different algorithm to generate jpg previews and jpg exports.
I spend money and effort to produce sharp images but what I show with aperture's slideshows is soft.
Do you have any ideas how to address this?
The solution I consider is to use iPhoto alongside Aperture. i.e. I would do everything in Aperture but export final picks to iPhoto.
Then I'd use iPhoto to show images. The problem with that is that any new edits or changes in rating would require to manually reperform export/import process.
Is there a way to automate it with automator/scripts/sync application?
Any other suggestions?
Andrzej

If you're going to through the trouble of exporting images out of Aperture and creating the slideshow externally I'd use iMove or Final Cut rather then iPhoto. You'll have greater control over the final product.

*Shocked* by the performance of Canon DPP, and DDP workflow with Aperture

I love Aperture. My brother mercilessly hounded me for two years, and when Aperture 2 came out, I gave it a shot. Aperture 3, despite my nightmare conversion story, has been a dream come true . . . until I discovered sharpening.
In my quest to get sharper photos, I've toyed with image stabilization, tripods, higher shutter speeds, steadying the camera, and depth of field, and even bought several professional lenses. My photos STILL did not look as sharp as those I saw in galleries and online. But wait . . . my JPEG files from my sporting events did . . .
I read that RAW files are not sharp, and sharpening is applied to JPEGs on the camera. But why is Aperture and my MBP not able to sharpen photos well using any one of the three sharpening sliders or the sharpening tool? I was then led to DPP, kicking and screaming. What I discovered was truly amazing.
Forget about the personal opinions with warmth and contrast between Aperture, ACR, and DPP. DPP is the unquestioned leader in producing sharp photos from RAW images. You drag the slider . . . it's sharp. It's even sharper than the photos I've spent 20 minutes sharpening in CS5 with sharpening masks, sharpening tool, etc. The DPP tool JUST WORKS. Even noise with high ISO is MUCH improved. High noise still can use an expensive tool to correct, but still MUCH better than Aperture.
Until Canon reveals their secrets to Apple and Adobe for RAW processing, I need to figure out a way to use DPP for RAW processing.
For those that use DPP for RAW processing, how to you work it into your workflow? I want Aperture to be a one-stop shop, but I don't want to store the original RAW, the DPP-edited RAW, and potentially a TIFF for additional editing and noise reduction?
Do you sort in Aperture first? Do you convert in DPP first? How do you maintain file integrity, and at the same time, minimize disk space usage?
If you no longer use DDP, please tell me why, and how you've worked around it?

All I can say is, either I've been in the weeds all this time, or your skills with sharpening are better than most.
A couple of questions:
1-What do you use under Sharpening for and Edges under "RAW fine tuning" you thankfully shared your settings for Edge Sharpen (^s)
2-What camera and RAW format are you using (this may help me fine-tune my preferences). I've got a 7D and primarily shoot MRAW. (Not the best for a couple reasons, but I don't need or want the large file sizes.)
To be sure, default sharpening in Aperture is pretty bad. And I have played with sharpening going on 40 hours now over several months. I could not get a good result.
Your documenting the exact settings and sharpening tool is what helped me get past whatever I was doing before. Maybe I was thrown by the higher default contrast in DPP. I'm now able to produce a better result in Aperture than DPP, or even my laboriously-sharpened photos on Photoshop. There are some tradeoffs in each, but I didn't want to use DDP as part of my workflow. Now that I've used it more, I'm convinced I don't!
And the definition setting is very useful. It's the only mainstream adjustment I've never really used.

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.)

Roundtrip and ACR

Hello,
I find the ACR adjustments in Bridge and LR to be much more intuitive than Aperture. But, I don't want to switch to LR since Aperture (to me) wins hands-down as an overall better application.
Until I really get a good handle on working with Aperture adjustments, I was thinking of a different workflow option for images that I need to externally edit in PS3. Basically, I was hoping to be able to roundtrip from Aperture to PS3, then open ACR to do the preliminary adjustments before the PS3 edits. It looks to me that this isn't possible - or maybe I'm just overlooking something.
Does anyone know if this is possible - or perhaps have another approach?
Thanks in advance,
Dave

I've designated Bridge as my external image editor and specified TIFF for the output format. When Bridge opens as the external editor, I open the TIFF version in ACR, edit, then open in CS3. After tweaking in CS3 with full use of my third-party plugins I save as TIFF, overwriting the original Aperture TIFF version. Back in Aperture, Viewer shows the changes made in ACR and CS3.
PSD files cannot be opened by ACR, so TIFF is the only format for roundtripping to ACR that doesn't have the possibility of compression artifacts.
Note that Aperture does the RAW conversion and ACR is used as an image processor for TIFF files, then CS3 is used for refinements to the ACR adjustments. ACR's RAW conversion is bypassed. Also note that the TIFF files are large, so there are no savings in storage space from all-Aperture processing. All versions are managed through Aperture, though.
One inconvenience: even though I select multiple images to open with Bridge as external editor, only one file appears in Bridge so I can't do batch processing. If anyone figures out a workaround, please let us know!

Aperture and Adobe Camera Raw

I would love to set up Aperture to allow me to edit images in Adobe Camera Raw. I can open images from Aperture in Adobe Camera Raw by setting Adobe Bridge as my external editor, but none of the adjustments are saved in Aperture. From Bridge, I can also save the file as a dng file that Aperture should be able to read and save it in the numbered folder where Aperture placed the original raw image, but the saved dng file doesn't show up in Aperture. Apparently Aperture can't see any images in its own folders if it didn't place them there.
I also tried making my adjustments in Adobe Raw, saving it as a dng file and then importing it into Aperture. This is not ideal, as it would be convenient to do the Adobe Raw adjustments from within Aperture, but it does allow me to import the edits into Aperture. Aperture does something odd in this case. When I open the imported dng image in Aperture, at first it displays it with the edits I made in Adobe Raw but after a few seconds reverts to the originla raw image. I can't figure out how to recover the adjustments.
Can anyone fill me in on the nuances of Aperture in this workflow? Is there some way I can at least make the raw edits in Adobe Raw and make them available in Aperture.
Some of this may be my ignorance. For some reason, I have never been able to fully grok the whole version/master process in Aperture, never quite sure how to move between versions and masters. I suspect that some of my issues with the imported dng files is a version/master thing that I am not understanding.
I'm beginning to wish that I had set Aperture up to use external folders rather than place my files in the Aperture database. I think if I had done this it might have eased my current issues.
Is there any way to export an Aperture database so it exports the images into folders that correspond to projects and folders in Aperture? I suspect not, but . . . one can wish.
Any help with any of this would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
--Kenoli

Kenoli Oleari1 wrote
If this is what is happening, it means Aperture can interpret the ADR data, but chooses not to. If I could get it to use that data, it could solve most of my issues.
In the Adobe Camera Raw preferences, there is a section called: 'DNG File Handling'. You can (and may already have) select the option 'Update embedded JPG previews' and use the drop down to select either Medium or Full Size. The result should be (in Bridge at least) that adjustments you make in ACR and then either click 'Done' to save to the .XMP file inside the DNG file or click 'Open' to launch and render the image in PS for further work.
The result should be an updated embedded JPEG inside the DNG file that can be used by any program that can read DNG and is set to use an embedded JPEG.
In testing on my machine a couple of years ago on Snow Leopard, the OS X included program Preview did not show the updated previews though. It only displayed the original RAW data. I assumed it either was not set to show any embedded JPEG preview, or was simply not designed to be compatible in that way. Preview uses the same digital camera RAW compatibility function of OS X that Aperture uses. So it did not surprise me to see that it was not working in Aperture at that time. This was either a later version of AP 2 or early version of AP3, but I can't remember for sure.
It was my understanding that the purpose and function of dng files is so that raw edits made by any software could be accessed cross platform through the open source dng file. If Aperture simply chooses to ignore that data, it defeats the purpose of dng.
My understanding of DNG is that it is an archive type file made of (1) a RAW conversion which holds the decoded RAW data, (2) any .XMP file that has been created by the decoding software as well as; (3) ITPC and EXIF metadata and some other info such as ICC profiles and the JPEG preview. You can also opt to include the original RAW file.
I don't know the extent to which Aperture is designed to support the DNG file though. Does it handle it like a PSD file where it retains the full file content, but only supports displaying it in a limited fashion (e.g., no transparency)? Or should it actually read the .XMP data file and render it based on that info? I don't think this is the case as the .XMP data that pertains to adjustments made by another RAW decoder doesn't seem to be compatilble with the way Aperture is handling adjustments.
You could certainly test the embedded JPEG in a DNG file by making and saving some changes to the copy of a file in Finder and then comparing the original DNG to the adjusted one using the Preview program. If the changes are not shown, then the issue (or lack of one depending on Apple's point of view) is with the OS X digital camera RAW compatibility function (which they update for new digital cameras periodically).
If Preview does show the changes, you could then import both the original and adjusted DNG into an Aperture library (even a new test library) and see if it displays the differences. If it does, then this would point to an issue with sending a file from inside Aperture to an external program and then saving back (assuming this still fails to work as you expect).
Sorry I don't have more. I decided not to go with DNG and just archive with RAW and JPEG depending on what I end up wanting to do with the images.

Capture vs. Content Sharpening in Lightroom and ACR

Hi,
I have a question regarding sharpening in Lightroom and ACR. In the information I have read, many authors point out that Lightroom and ACR's detail panel is optimized to provide control over capture sharpening. In a post that I read recently by Jeff Schewe, he clarified that and said that we are really sharpening for both capture and content with the detail panel in Lightroom.
That is confusing to me because after reading Bruce Fraser's book on sharpening, capture and content sharpening were treated as two different processes. If I understood correctly capture sharpening for digital captures was based on the characteristics of the camera and the file size of the image, with larger megapixel files receiving a smaller radius. In addition, I read that the radius in content sharpening is dictated by the dominant characteristics of the subject matter being sharpened, with high frequency subject matter receiving a smaller radius and low frequency receiving a higher radius.
The reason I am confused is that it appears that capture and content sharpening for the same digital capture can at times be quite different. For example, I believe that the book suggests a radius for an 11 megapixel capture of .4. If the image content calls for a sharpening radius of 1.3, what do I do? In Lightroom/ACR I can only choose 1 radius.
In all the reading I have done regarding the proper use of Lightroom and ACR, it suggest that you should use a radius that is suited to the image content. So it appears that we are that we are being encouraged to perform content sharpening only with Lightroom and ACR. What happened to the "capture" sharpening portion of the process?
Since Lightroom and ACR are capable of recognizing the camera make and model as well as the file size, are they applying capture sharpening behind the scenes that is tailored to that specific camera and file. If not, then how are we achieving both capture and content sharpening in the same operation?
Sharpening for both capture and content in one pass would seem to conflict with some of the basic concepts elaborated on in Bruce Fraser's book. I am assuming that since Lightroom is using Photokit Sharpener routines, that they have accounted for the capture portion of the sharpening, but I don't see that stated explicitly anywhere in anything that I have read. If they have, I say kudos to everyone involved as that would be great. I'm just looking for a clearer understanding of what's happening.
If anyone can shed some light on this topic I would be very appreciative.
Thanks,
John Arnold

>Since Lightroom and ACR are capable of recognizing the camera make and model as well as the file size, are they applying capture sharpening behind the scenes that is tailored to that specific camera and file. If not, then how are we achieving both capture and content sharpening in the same operation?
The answer is that the detail section crosses over into creative territory and is not strictly "capture sharpening," although that is what is mostly meant to do.
Following the ultimate logic of the "sharpening workflow" might make you conclude that Capture sharpening and output sharpening are purely scientific steps where you should not make ANY creative decision at all and that creative decisions are only to be made in the creative sharpening step. In the real world, there are creative decisions and decisions determined by the content matter that enter into the capture step too just like in the output step. You might like extra-crunchy prints for example, but somebody else might prefer softer prints making you approach the output sharpening with a creative intent. The sharpening workflow was probably (Jeff will know more about the history) more of an attempt to arrive at a more rational way of approaching the process and to provide a guideline. It is probably not meant to rigidly separate the workflow up in defined steps where in the 1st step you're not allowed to think or look at the image, in the second step you can go completely wild, and in the last step you have to close your eyes again. The goal was probably to make the photographer realize that the different steps have a different purpose. Not to make you turn off your creative genius or to treat the process like a black box.
My approach to this, inspired in some part by Jeff's many posts on this, is to make the image look good at 1:1 using the detail tool in Lightroom/ACR. This is inherently driven by content of course as you use visual feedback. If your image is large swaths of plain color separated by sharp transitions with little structure, you probably do not want a high setting on the detail slider as you might induce halos and you probably want to use some masking. Conversely, if you shoot brick architecture, a high detail value might look good. If you shot at high ISO, you might need a different approach again to not blow up noise. Also, portraits might need a different approach. After the 1:1 optimization, I sometimes selectively sharpen (or blur!) parts of the image (rare but can be effective - example would be people's eyes). Then for the output step I use appropriate output sharpening for the medium according to my taste. You see that this is not rigidly following the workflow, but still is in the spirit.

Aperture and colorchecker passport from X-rite

the colorchecker passport is a tool to make color corrections by camera profiles.
(http://www.xritephoto.com/phproductoverview.aspx?id=1257&tab=videos)
nice program to get my color workflow better accept i use aperture and.. that just doesn't work some how. even adobe's lightroom got a plugin for this beautiful thing but aperture doesn't give any options to use a camera profile. Unbelievable because this is so important if you're doing commercial photography.
I hope some one can help me with my issue because i dont want to leave aperture and work with lightroom...

Just one other comment about this kind of workflow in general.
While absolutely accurate color rendition and absolutely neutral WB can have their uses they are few and far between. Virtually every single commercial image ever viewed has nowhere near "accurate" color or WB. In fact the whole demo video itself is shot so freaking warm it's actually funny. Not only is the video shot warm but just about everything done, from the time of day it was shot to the use of gold reflectors is done to achieve warmth of color while the guy talks on and on and on about how the product helps you achieve accurate color - that's hilarious. Why would you ever go through the trouble to get the light and color so warm just to neutralize it out. His video shooter/processor/editor didn't think it was such a good idea to neutralize it - in fact the video guys actually cranked it up. Really funny stuff. Hmmm what happens when you shoot when the sun is really really warm and you use a gold reflector and a neutral WB target to adjust your WB? Answer = gold/warmth goes away - freaking brilliant. Hmmm maybe he should talk about how the video guys just set the WB to 5500 or even higher temp and captured all the wrong but warm color.
RB
Message was edited by: rwboyer
Message was edited by: rwboyer

Problem with JPGs Downlaoded with Nikon Transfer - Can't Apply Develop Settings in Bridge CS4 and ACR 5.3 Settings Don't Stick

I have found what I believe is a "problem" with JPGs downloaded using Nikon Transfer (ver 1.4.1) and processing same in Adobe Bridge CS4 (Develop Settings) and/or Adobe Camera Raw 5.3 (Photoshop CS4 and Elements 6 as hosts).
Anyone using these programs in their workflow?
The problem, quite simply, is that neither ACR settings (nor Bridge CS4 Develop Settings) "stick" when applied to JPGs that have been downloaded via Nikon Transfer ver 1.4.1.
The same images from the same cameras (D300 and D90), downloaded moments later using Nikon's predecessor software PictureProject work just fine in both Bridge and ACR. Develop Settings appled in Bridge immediately are seen, and JPGs opened in ACR, and settings applied, then "Done" immediately stick and are reflected in Bridge.
If someone else is processing their JPGs in this manner, please let me know, as I have reported the problem to both Nikon and Adobe, and although I have tested it on two different cameras and two differnt laptops, I would like to get an impartial result as well.
One other test, the problem does not seem to affect Nikon's RAW (NEF) format files downloaded from a D2x using Nikon Transfer. More/different test are forthcoming.
Thanks
jeff

ALoverofNikon wrote:
I have generally thought that using the camera manufacturer's software was the safest and most conveneint
Can't say one way or another on that statement about using manufacturers' software. Since Adobe has to interpret each camera models' RAW format having the latest ACR seems to be the best option. But if the manufacturers' software is more convenient, and you get the same results then use it. But it does appear you are not getting what you want, so suggest you try a duplicate test run with images straight from the card reader to Bridge and see if you still have same problems.
I do know it is widely recommended that using a quality card reader gives you more reliable data than getting the pictures straight from the camera. Does not seem intuitive, but that has been experience of many.

New Mac Pro - Aperture and a massive new project - help me be smart!

I am receiving a Mac Pro 2.66 Friday and adding in 4 GB RAM and 2 500GB HDS, Aperture and Final Cut Studio and a lot of music software. Moving up from a G4 450 DP.
I received a very nice fellowship and will officially begin the project on June 1, continuing until August, 2008. I will be filming in all 92 Indiana counties - mainly nature and historic sites for a few DVD programs for schools in my county. I expect to end up with 30,000 + images when it is all said and done.
Before I begin, do any of you experienced digital photographers have any advice for someone in my position? You know, "what I wish I had known when I started using Aperture" kind of advice.
I use a Nikon D70, 5 various lenses and will shoot RAW. I am an experienced photographer, so I am not looking for shooting tips, etc.
Thanks for any tips.
G4 450DP Mac OS X (10.4.6)

That sounds like a great project.
People have already emphasized the importance of backing up. I can't pile on with any more emphasis. Backup, backup, and backup some more. I have five copies of every RAW file I've ever made across four different disks and DVD's. The DVD's are located in a remote location. I had an issue with my hard drives about three months ago that caused all my hard drives to loose their data--complete loss. If not for my DVD's, I would've lost 30,000 RAW files let alone all the processed images.
I'm working an article on my backup strategy that should be published in the next week or so. If you want, send me an e-mail and I'll give you a link to my site when it's done.
This next article is about file naming. I've been using this same convention for 8 years. It works as well as anything. The other recommendations are also excellent especially the ones about adjusting your convention when sending to clients.
http://www.keiko-ni.com/keikosite/equiptech/digital/filenaming/filename1.html
This final article is about my initial workflow. I am not a "copy the CF card prior to import" kind of guy. Call me gutsy. Metadata and keywords will be your most important friend during a project this size. Being able to quickly get to images for various purposes will be extremely important. To be a high end, high capacity photographer also means being a data manager. It's a fact of life. Secondly, start early and don't get behind keywording. That will only slow you down later. The key to this in Aperture is using the keyboard shortcuts. Learn those. It'll help lost later.
http://www.keiko-ni.com/wordpress/?p=13
Cheers
1.67ghz PB, 2.66 MP Mac OS X (10.4.9)

Printer Setup for Aperture and Epson R1800

After installing the upgrade to 1.5, something went wrong with my printer setup for both my R1800 and my PictureMate Deluxe.
I've done the following:
Reset the printer system.
Reinstalled the Drivers
Attempted to Print from Aperture using about 30 + combinations of settings.
I'm still getting colors that are off and overall dark photos.
Best Setting appears to be
Printer Settings
Print Settings
Media Type: Premium Glossy Photo Paper
Color: Color
Mode: Advanced (Photo, High Speed, Finest Detail, Off)
Color Management
Off (No Color Adjustment)
ColorSync Profile: SPR1800 PrmGlsy Photo.icc
Black Point Compensation = Checked
Gamma 1.10
The resulting pictures appear to be about 1 f-stop or so underexposed and the colors are off (I'm color blind, so I can't say exactly how). I know that it is the setup of the printer settings. If I print the same pictures from Nikon Capture on my Windows computer, the print is perfect. I prefer to use Aperture for my photo work.
Epson doesn't have Aperture and doesn't understand all of the settings. The Apple Care support tech stated that he is not qualified to answer and said to call back when the Aperture team is working. I've got a ton of Christmas gifts to print out!
Assistance would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
-William

william:
you don't state in your original posting whether or not you've calibrated your monitors, especially to a 2.2 Gamma. in order to get the most accurate screen->print matching you have to hardware calibrate your monitors. this is by far the single most significant improvement i've made in my workflow. prior to calibration my monitors were set to a gamma of 1.8 which is much brighter than 2.2 and this causes you to NOT correct your images with the additional exposure required for proper printing. my prints were always too dark prior to calibration.
the spyder 2 from color vision is an excellent choice.
scott
PowerMac G5 2.5GHz Mac OS X (10.4.8) MacBook Pro 2.0GHz

Aperture and/or iPhoto ??

After a recent photo shoot I realized that I finally needed to update my photography workflow.
Currently I import pictures from my Rebel XT directly into iPhoto 09, I then make an album out of those pictures, go through my selection process of rejecting the majority of pictures, and then do any post processing in PhotoShop CS3 with the pictures that made the cut. This approach works but I find it cumbersome importing the images from PhotoShop once I have made adjustments. Ideally I would do it all in one application, which prompted me to purchase Aperture 2, as iPhoto's editing options are not robust enough for my needs.
Tomorrow I will be installing Aperture and now I am left with the question of whether I should use Aperture as the application to manage my quickly growing picture library (currently around 10k) or if I should stick with iPhoto to handle the entire library and just use Aperture to do work on specific albums that post processing is required on.
Many pictures I have taken and will take will never require post processing (ie pictures from a point and shoot) but I want one place where I can at least view all of the pictures in my collection (from point and shoots as well as SLR's).
Should I keep iPhoto as my library organizer or should I let Aperture handle everything? What would/do you do??
Thank you in advance for any insight on this!

Everyones responses have been very insightful, thank you.
I previously did not want to dirty up my original question by bringing up iPhoto exclusive functionality such as Faces, Places, Facebook/Flckr/etc integration; but I am glad it has come up.
When the aforementioned iPhoto specific features were first announced, my initial reaction was that this new functionality would be inherited in the next version of Aperture, after a little thought though I am not so confident that will be the case.
The responses to my initial question were unanimous that I should switch to Aperture to be my sole picture library management solution, prompting me to draw the conclusion that Aperture is the pro version of iPhoto rather that an application that works in tandem with it. Is it then appropriate for me to draw the conclusion that the aforementioned iPhoto exclusive functionality is considered more "home" than "pro" and therefore would not be migrated up to Aperture?
I guess I am making this difficult because I wish to maintain one library containing "home"(point and shoot) and "pro" (SLR / post processing) pictures, without loosing the functionality appropriate for each category. I understand that a "home" user may never care about the editing tools available in Aperture and that a "pro" user may never care about tagging peoples faces, but I believe there is a category of user that will sometimes want to do both.
When it comes down to it, I do not believe the iPhoto exclusive features will be enough to keep me from moving my entire library to Aperture, and hopefully some of those features will end up being inherited in an update someday.
I would love to hear everyones thoughts on this but understand if this thread has lost it's appeal. Thank you again for the previous responses.

Managing pictures in Aperture and Adobe Lightroom

I have just installed Aperture on my iMac for the first time. I also use Lightroom and Photoshop.
As such I want to keep the photo’s in the “Pictures” directory and not manage them within Apeture.
I have just tidied up some folders etc using finder and when I go into Lightroom I just press the “Synchronise” button and hey presto, the folders in Lightroom are aligned with the actual folders in the Pictures directory.
Can anyone tell me how I do the same in Aperture, as the changes I made to the folders/pictures are not reflected in Aperture’s directory?
(I have selected “Consolidate master file” in Aperture, not sure what it is doing, but it’s taking a long time!)
Many thanks
Confused 1st time Aperture user!

Note that's not what I said: Aperture does not HAVE to store the files inside its library (called "managed images"). They can be anywhere on disk you want ("referenced images"). It is entirely possible to put the files in a single location and access them from both Aperture and Lightroom.
Again, though, the key is discipline, as if you start moving them around or renaming them (via Finder, or via Aperture, or via Lightroom), you will have issues because both the applications expect that you use them to move or rename the files. If you move/rename them in Aperture, you are "breaking" what Lightroom expects you to do, and vice versa.
I think in large part it's not the best idea to try and use both Aperture and Lightroom. What they do has a huge degree of overlap, so it's really best to pick one as your primary tool. If you value Aperture's Faces functionality and interface, and perhaps its integration with other Apple products like iWork/iLife, or ease of synching pictures to iPad or integration with PhotoStream, it may be the better tool. If you'd like to edit photos and maintain smart objects, and you like Lightroom's editing tools or rendering better, it may be the better tool. There will be compromises either way, but from a sanity and workflow perspective it's probably better. Both tools can produce outstanding results.

Integrate Aperture and iPhoto

I thought I'd seek the advice of experienced Aperture users before downloading the trial version and reorganising all my photos. I am an amateur photographer, shooting in RAW with a Canon 400D (XTi). I use a 1.67GHz Powerbook (15" 1280x854 screen) with 1.5Gb RAM and a 128Mb ATI Mobility Radeon graphics card. I mainly view my photos on the laptop, though occasionally print them or project them. Now to the questions:
1. I know that my computer meets the minimum system requirements for Aperture, but in real life will it be painfully slow?
2. Does Aperture use more or less disk space than iPhoto? I assume less as iPhoto stores both an original and an edited version whereas Aperture uses a recipe system.
3. Whilst I like the idea of organising and post-processing my photos in one program I am toying with the idea of continuing to use iPhoto to display my photos and organise slideshows. Is it possible to keep the original RAW files in an Aperture 'folder' (ideally on an external hard drive) whilst keeping a minimal 1280x854 jpg for iPhoto viewing on the HDD? Is there any way of automating the generation of these smaller files if you edit the original photo at a later date in Aperture? Would all the EXIF data transfer across?
Sorry if these are stupid questions, but I thought somebody might have the answers to make life easier. Thanks
PowerBook G4 15" 1.67GHz Mac OS X (10.4.8)

Thanks David, as you seem to know what you are talking about I thought I'd pester more.
Oh I can stumble around in the dark with the best of us.
When using the previews in iPhoto, where are the actual files stored?
Aperture creates the Previews. When you select "Show Aperture Library" under iPhoto's file menu, you can select one/some/many images and/or projects. When you drag and drop into iPhoto's left side Library view pane, iPhoto imports these Previews from Aperture's library into its own structure. Hence it is important to determine the right quality/resolution level in Aperture for Previews to balance size vs. quality. When using the media browser in any iApp, the selected files get physically copied into that app.
From my recollection of Apple's feature list Aperture lets you keep some sort of preview even when a drive is not attached, is that right? Is this what iPhoto uses?
Yes.
Bigger question: what are you trying to achieve with iPhoto that you cannot achieve in Aperture. You may wish to for slideshows (Aperture's are weaker currently), and (ii) photocasting. But is it such as this or comfort with iPhoto and lack of knowledge about Aperture? Straddling both in a workflow is difficult.
.... to a folder on the laptop so I can run iPhoto without the big photos on the external drive.
You can run Aperture on your laptop and on your home computer. You just can't run concurrently with one license. Export your required project from the home computer to any hdd location (internal, external or to a networked hdd or laptop hdd). Quit Aperture. Go to your laptop, launch Aperture and Import the project into the Aperture Library on your laptop. (In my case, I only keep my working projects on my laptop). Once you have used on the laptop, any work needs to be brought back into the mothership. Export the project from the laptop and import back into the home computer.
This works really well with a managed library. When using references, and you need to perform adjustments (selects, rankings etc. you can do without the reference masters), you would need to take the reference masters with you also .... and my assumption is that they would be on an external hdd.
To repeat what 'gutguido' is asking, can you organise those pictures into rolls, folders or slideshows within iPhoto (not necessarily using the same organisation as within Aperture)?
See response to Gutguido.
G.

Bridge and ACR

Does any body else suspect that Adobe may release Bridge+ACR as a stand along package at some point in the future? If they did than they could satisfy almost all raw work flow needs:
1) File tree based raw converter (Bridge+ACR)
2) Data base based raw work flow (Light Room)
3) Raw work flow integrated into pixel editor (Photoshop CS3)
All at different price points ($150, $300, $5-600)... I think they (and their customers) would benefit from such a structure.

DJ,
Bridge CS3 which uses ACR 4 is certainly a different app. LR has to I/O through the DB--and thus many of its present shortcomings for many users--but bridge works off a browser based I/O. It does dovetail into PSCS2-3, and ACR 4 has virtually all the features of LR Develop and more.
However, what Paul III suggests, as enticing as it is, is not likely to occur. Bridge is an integral part of CS3 and is central to the Adobe Suite. If they did sell it as a standalone, they would essentially be undercutting their own products--including LR of course, because many would buy it instead of LR and use already mature DAMs--Iview, Idimager, etc,etc,etc for file management--as many do now.
Bridge is central to my workflow, and I am really just testing LR and using the Develop Module until Bridge 2, beta 2, goes public, and that is what I will continue doing as soon as Bridge CS3 is out of beta (it has a terrible memory leak at present in beta 2).
I will of course look at LR again when its file management issues get sorted out and its overall speed is increased to even close to Bridge + a DAM.

Aperture and ACR workflow

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for