Aperture - Image Optimization

Hi,
Is there anyway that I can set Aperture to optimize an image for the web when I export it so I don't have to use photoshop for it?
What I have been doing is exporting them and then I optimize them for the web with photoshop.
Thank you for your help!

Do you need adjustment that are only in PS?
I find that I hardly ever use PS any longer. I do all of my processing in A3 and then publish directly to the web from A3.
Allan

Similar Messages

ITunes Image Optimization

Is there a purpose for image optimization? Why won't Apple let it's users decide to optimize photos or not?

Optimization probably means that the iPhone is creating a thumbnail and reducing the original image size if needed. With up to 12 Mpixel cameras on the market, there is no need for the iPhone to store an image at full resolution. This would needlessly fill the iPhone's 8GB storage quickly. Instead, the iPhone reduces image size to somewhat larger than the 640x480 screen (and 640x480 TV out) so you can still zoom if needed. Thumbnails are created for quick album viewing.
Apple's simplicity of having this iPhone process happen automatically is the right solution in my opinion. There is no benefit of user's deciding to store photos with greater file sizes than needed or not to create thumbnails. (For reference, I like to tinker as I use both Aperture and Photoshop.)

Weird behavior in opening Aperture images in Photoshop

I have found a lot of really weird behavior when opening Aperture images in an external editor (in my case, Photoshop, so I'll use PS to refer to it):
1) If the master image is opened in PS, a new version is created when the file is opened, not saved. So quitting PS without saving leaves you with a new version of the file, regardless of whether you actually saved any changes or not.
2) If a version (not the master) is opened in PS, a new version is not created, either on open, or on save. So in other words, changes to that version in PS when saved overwrite that version, and the previous condition of that version is lost (with respect to versioning).
3) If multiple versions of the same image are opened simultaneously in PS, there doesn't seem to be a way to tell the difference between them in PS, except for visually (possibly meta-data, but I haven't checked that, nor would I want to be forced to). The file names of all versions are exactly the same.
I'm looking for feedback from anyone out there who can explain why this isn't completely quacky version control. I've been using version control almost my entire career (as a software programmer) and here's how I have seen almost invariably version control work:
1) New versions of files are always created upon commit, i.e. saving of the file, not on opening a file. (Do not confuse this with working copies, think about what is present in the repository).
2) Opening / editing any file version is never destructive. Any change to that file version that is saved (committed) results in a new version, not an overwrite to the same version.
Aperture's interface basically has combined what traditional version management has represented separately, that being the client and repository views of a project. They are showing all versions of a file simultaneously. This is fine, but I'm really not liking the fact that some changes create new versions, other changes overwrite versions, and one case, merely opening the file creates a new version, whether there are any changes saved or not. In addition, when working with multiple versions in the editor, the file name and/or interface doesn't give any indication of what version you are working with. Easy to say that's the fault of the external editor, but I disagree -- all external editors are going to work with filenames, so Aperture should produce a unique namespace for any file version so that any external tool will be able to distinguish (visually) one file from another.
Is this completely wacky version management, or is it just me?
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

Hi Bradley,
Due to the way I personally use Photoshop, I want Aperture to behave as it does.
That's because, with Photoshop, I use layers extensively. Any edits I do (levels, curves, saturation, sharpening) I do on layers. I can delete the layers at any time (or select to show or hide them). Because of this, I actually WANT Aperture to behave the way it does. Once I've done a bunch of edits in Photoshop, if I select again to edit that file in the external editor, I want to work on that specific file (to add another layer, or change one). I don't want another duplicate. I tinkered with this over the weekend, and it worked very nicely for me.
Perhaps you work differently from within Photoshop? Do you ever use layers? If I were to have a bunch of Photoshop "versions," each with 5 layers, I'd have like 5 GB of "versions" for my original 8 MB RAW file, due to the size of PSD files. Yuck

Aperture images with iLife

I know you can access Aperture images in iLife, but it doesn't let you access the versions that are so carefully edited. Does anyone know if this is possible without exporting versions as JPEGs and then reimporting? Along the same lines, sometimes I just want the images I rate 5 stars to show up in iLife, but it always displays all the images in the project. Am I missing something?

but it doesn't let you access the versions that are so carefully edited.
Yes it does. You just need to make sure you've created previews of the edited versions. I've turned off automatic preview generation and just use a hotkey for the Generate Previews option.
sometimes I just want the images I rate 5 stars to show up in iLife, but it always displays all the images in the project. Am I missing something?
you can't filter out images from the Media Browser (iLife) but you can create a smart album in Aperture that only shows five star images, then use that to browse only those images in iLife apps.
hope this helps!

Aperture image to external editor is SLOW

Wondering if anyone else is having an issue with opening their images up using their "external editor" option in Aperture.
Mine is set to Photoshop, which I'm sure many of you have. But it takes upwards of a minute for the Aperture image to duplicate itself and then open up in PS. It triples the time of my workflow -- which is a pain when I need to edit dozens of images in PS.
Anyone have any suggestions? My computer is brand-new and quite fast. But perhaps there's a logical answer that I have yet to discover.
Thanks.

How much RAM do you have? You'll want 2 GB to do what you want.
There are a few things going on here:
1) Photoshop is a large application... it takes a while to load on any hardware
2) Photoshop is not yet a universal application. It runs in Rosetta, which is an emulation layer. This makes it slower (probably 2-3x slower than on a PowerPC; so your MacBook running Photoshop at current is probably about as fast as an 800 MHz PowerBook).
3) Rosetta uses lots of RAM as well. So Photoshop in Rosetta while you're using Aperture will really tax the machine.
I'd recommend you run nothing else on the machine at all but Aperture and Photoshop. Quit mail, quit safari, quit anything but those two applications. Your life will get better when Photoshop CS3 comes out (March/April) and is universal. Until then, yeah, it's going to be a little on the slow side.

Image Optimization for POD

Attempting to optimize a few images for a POD book, but consistency in image quality is the perrenial problem with POD. Received the first proof copy containing 24 black and white 7cm x 7cm images, all from the original publisher (we're doing a licensed translation) and seemingly of consistent qualitiy. 4 images turned out brilliant, and the rest, beyond mediocre, just inferior.
The photo files are EPS. All are showing as grayscale except for 2 which are color space RGB (Adobe RGB profile). Of those two, one is terrible like the majority (flat, washed out, looks almost solarized) and the other is brilliant. The other 3 images printing well, are in grayscale, so RGB doesn't seem to be conclusively part of the answer or problem.
All the rest are grayscale, and in ID the profiles show as NA.
Other than abandoning POD (impossible now, and past projects with similar images have turned out well), what can be done, what are the fundamentals of image optimization for this printing process?
Thank you for the input.
Luca

I assume that by POD you are referring to Print On Demand?
Quite frankly, the “problems” would seem to be more an issue of GIGO – Garbage In, Garbage Out – than anything to do directly with the file format of the images, especially if those images are monochrome.
I would strongly agree with Bob Levine in terms of EPS (Encapsulated PostScript) being an archaic file format. That having been said, a properly prepared photographic image with proper exposure, contrast, and resolution saved as EPS from Photoshop and placed in InDesign should render no differently than a TIFF, JPEG, or PDF (depending upon the compression used in the EPS) image without any ICC profiles placed into an InDesign document. I seriously doubt that simply converting your EPS files to TIFF would help in any way whatsoever, although in the process of simply opening the images in Photoshop, you might see what the real quality (or lack thereof) of the images is.
Many problems associated modern day monochrome images today is the fact that most such images were shot digitally as color images as opposed to being shot on black and white film. Unfortunately, there is no single conversion of color to monochrome that is optimal for all images. Much depends upon the exposure, light contrast, and especially the color contrasts within the original color image. In the days of analog film photography, professional photographers often used color filters with black and white film to deal with the issues of color contrast (for example, yellow and orange filters for outdoor scenic shots to provide for a darker sky with deeper contrast with the clouds, the “big sky” effect). Converting color digital images to monochrome by using the simplest Photoshop tools without regards to image content will definitely yield many suboptimal, washed-out looking images.
Also, after applying one or another of the Photoshop conversions to monochrome, the image usually is still RGB. One needs to then convert the image that looks grayscale to actual grayscale. Otherwise, you end up with an RGB image for which for every pixel R=G=B, a situation which could lead to some “interesting” and likely undesirable printed output, especially if printed on a color device.
Another issue to consider is one of color management. Whether one wants it or understands it, color management is really always on in Adobe applications. If you don't use profiles and the wrong assumption is made with regards to the color space of content, you can get suboptimal results, in grayscale such results being muddiness, poor contrast, etc. And to get back to the file format issue, EPS doesn't support ICC color management directly.
- Dov

Aperture image-control compared with Photoshop?

I'm looking to get Aperture 2. I've been using iPhoto as a library, and Photoshop to control\doctor images. How does the Aperture image-control compare with Photoshop's? I'm not thinking so much here about fancy plug-ins, just basic, but subtle, color, contrast, cropping controls ... especially dealing with the highlights and shadows.
Any info from a user would be most appreciated,
Thanks,
Ben

Same problem here...
It started recently so I think some update create the problem.

Aperture Images on External Drive/Screensaver Can't Find

Hi all,
I've searched the discussions and haven't been able to find threads addressing my specific question. I can't get my MacBook Pro (running OS x10.6/Snow Leopard) to use my Aperture Library for my screensaver. My entire Aperture library (currently about 50,000 images) is on an external hard drive - am wondering if this is the issue. When I try to add the file to the screensaver picture options, I find my external HD, but the Aperture Library is greyed out.
I have already tried the proposed remedies around weeding out weird dates and removing the timestamp file/setting the iLife folder to "read only." I'm not interested in exporting projects or files, in part because I don't want two sets of things hanging around taking up space - I just want it to randomly choose Aperture images to display on the screen. Another suggested work around was importing the images into iPhoto - but, again, I do not want multiple sets of these images. Can it really be the case that I can't point the screensaver to images housed on an external drive??
I'm new to Macs in the last 6 months and mostly thrilled with the change - but this process particular was WAY easier on my PC.
Thanks for any advice.

Hi,
iTunes is trying to find your tracks on your hard drive, not those in the cloud.
I would suggest that you create a second blank iTunes library on your computer. Sign into iTunes & match, run match and when completed your music in the cloud will be shown and you will be able to stream the music to your computer.
Jim

Can Time Capsule host an Aperture image library efficiently?

In our household, we have several MacBook Pros with SSD drives, which don't have a lot of storage space. Since we take a lot of high-resolution pictures in .RAW format (app. ~25 MB per file), it would be nice if we could store all of our pictures remotely on the Time Capsule, and access the image library from our laptops, without needing to copy the files to our local harddrives.
So, is it possible to use Time Capsule as the only storage device for our Aperture image library, in a way that we can open and work with the library remotely (wirelessly) through Aperture on several Macs?
I am guessing that this is possibly by simply sharing the files, but there are a few things that I am concerned about, such as:
Will my images files/Aperture library get corrupted/damaged when a computer looses connection to the Time Capstule in the midst of editing?
What will happen if several users attempt to access/modify several images on the Time Capsule at the same time?
Will you get good performance from Aperture with a very large, remote image library?
I have also considered getting an Mac mini with OS X Lion Server to do the same job, but setting it up a bit differently. Possibly setting up a Git repository for the images, but I would much prefer a simpler solution, which is why I'm thinking about doing this with a Time Capsule (using it as a "NAS" of sorts).
Thanks in advance for any help, advice and suggestions.

Of course I found this right after posting my questions...
Also, it is strongly recommended that the Aperture library be stored on a locally mounted hard drive. Storing the Aperture library on a network share can also lead to poor performance, data corruption, or data loss.
So I guess using the Time Capsule is out of the question, but I would still be interested in hearing from you guys if you have any good suggestions on how to work with a large image library in Aperture remotely through the network, if at all possible.

How do I find the aperture image files so that I can attach them to an email

How do I find the aperture image files? I know that you can email images from aperture. But how would I attach an image using Mail?

if you mean to go into the Aperture library in order to get image files to print with Canon's software it's not really possible. The best you would be able to do would be to get the master image and if you're shooting RAW that will be the RAW file. In any case no adjustments you made to the image in Aperture would be available, versions don't exist as files until you export them.
If you want to print with the Canon software you would export the image from Aperture and then print that image file.
If I've misunderstood your question post back,
regards

Any help appreciated - - on barefoot ski image optimization

Any help appreciated.
Working with Photoshop 7.0 trying to color correct and optimize an image of my son barefooting to prepare for giant vinyl print to create a stand up cut-out on a foam board.
I will attach 2 downsized images for comparison.
As you can see one image has nice smile but no sunlight and other image has great sunlight but no smile.
I need to optimize for CMYK printing the smiling image. I know a bit about levels, but don't know what to change for midtones, highlights, etc. to try and correct this smiling image as best possible.
Unfortunately I did not set up the Canon EOS Xsi camera to save RAW images at 17 megs and the boat owner is not wanting to go out again for another photo session. Original image is 4.5 megs jpg which I crop image, adjust histogram by "sliding in the sides", convert to CMYK, sharpen unmask at 98%, increase brightness with middle slider in histogram, expand size up to 72 inches tall by 54 inches wide and also set to 150 pixels per inch (may try 300), save as LZW TIFF.
After that image is like 400 megs, then import into illustrator CS and tile out just the face of a 72 inch X 54 inch and it's amazing pretty clear for 100:1 file size increase (13 X 9 inch sheet).
I have access to CS4 on Mac only - - don't know if CS4 Mac file will have any big advantages over my 7.0 in Windows . . .

Hmmmm, wonder if anybody ever created a plug in for photoshop that allowed you to add more lighting to an image, as in light coming from behind the photographer - - like sunlight effects ?

How do I get high res aperture images on new iPad?

I want high quality images synced from aperture. I bought the new ipad specificaly to do artwork and image maniuplations. I was loving the ipad 2 but working with such low res images won't work for reporduction. I thought with the new ipad when I synced to aperture that I would get higher res files. They look like the same small images to me.

Art,
I'm still working out the details myself, but I may have some helpful information.
If you are syncing through iTunes, then I believe the resolution is dictated by the preview preferences in Aperture. I can't remember what the default setting was, but I changed it to the maximum allowable for the iPad1 some time ago. The new iPad can handle more resolution, so you can change the setting in preferences to a higher level. Here is where it gets tricky, I don't think Aperture automatically updates the preview to the new settings. In fact, I it tells you it is up to date. I got past this by forcing the generate new preview feature (select the photo, hold down the option key, right click, and select generate preview). I suggest doing this with one photo to see how it works for you. Ff you do 1600 like I did, it takes some time. Although, I'm still hoping for better, I can see the difference immediately over my iPad1 settings. I am able to zoom in on the ipad, which much less obvious degradation of the image.
I did get some variation in the preview size, even though the full image sizes are close. My file size ranged from 800K to 2.8M for some sample images transferred to the ipad. This happened at the "no limit"setting in preferences.
As I said, I'm still playing with it. I bought the 64GB model so I could store and present very high resolution photos on the iPad.
Bob

Having trouble with Aperture images in a slideshow in iMovie

I've searched for answers to this but can't seem to find out what I'm doing wrong....
I'm trying to put together a slideshow in iMovie with my images from Aperture. They look horrible, color is way off and they're grainy. It was my understanding that iMovie uses the preview images from Aperture for making the movie so I have my settings in Aperture set to the best quality for previews. Is that right? Is there something else I should be doing?
Thanks for any help.

No, thats the right way I do it with my images. I use iMovie 09 and the preview size of my iLife previews are set to 1680 pixel. I do mostly some slideshows in iMovie for displaying on the web and for iPhone, so the output from iMovie will be most times at 480 pixel wide. The colors are fine and images look best as in Aperture.
What I found sometimes is, some outwashed colors - unsaturated - after I export my movie from iMovie. This comes when I use other settings for exporting the movie than the presets for iPhone or Apple TV. The same behavoir did I recognize when exporting a movie from Final Cut Express or Keynote. This behavoir may be outdated in Snow Leopard, because Quicktime X should use Colormanagement the first time.

Image Optimization

I'm currently working on an application which requires a
couple hundred png images to be displayed at once on the screen.
I'm looking for ways to optimize the image storage so that it has
the least effect on the user's system. The images must be
resizable.
I'm using the Image class right now, and was thinking of
switching over to the Bitmap class. Although I wouldn't gain the
benefit of pixel-copying, I'm hoping that Bitmap will have a
smaller footprint, and will give slightly better performance.
Is there a better way to do this? Should I be using graphics
to draw BitmapData of the image directly onto a minimal component?
If so, are there any guides for resizing the BitmapData for
drawing?
Thanks,
Nate

"skider" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
news:glagl9$nvd$[email protected]..
> I'm currently working on an application which requires a
couple hundred
> png
> images to be displayed at once on the screen. I'm
looking for ways to
> optimize
> the image storage so that it has the least effect on the
user's system.
> The
> images must be resizable.
>
> I'm using the Image class right now, and was thinking of
switching over to
> the
> Bitmap class. Although I wouldn't gain the benefit of
pixel-copying, I'm
> hoping
> that Bitmap will have a smaller footprint, and will give
slightly better
> performance.
>
> Is there a better way to do this? Should I be using
graphics to draw
> BitmapData of the image directly onto a minimal
component? If so, are
> there any
> guides for resizing the BitmapData for drawing?
I use a Matrix to do the resizing, but I'm doing something
different to what
you're doing.
You might find this useful:
http://tinyurl.com/superimage

Aperture image rotation

HI, I am new to macs and aperture and usually use photoshop.
Can anyone tell me how to rotate a picture by anything other than 90 degrees? I'm probably just not looking in the right place, in ps it was under image-rotate-custom. Also I cant find this in iphoto, but maybe you can only do the basics in that.
Many thanks, Tim

Its complicated. I do need to do this to around 50 pics.
I just got married, and my sister set up a photo both at the venue for people to take pictures of themselves with a remote camera. They had props and a frame to frame themselves. It sounds weird but we got some great pictures. The only thing is most people held the frame a funny angle, (quite a few at around 45 degrees) and I want to crop to just the frame and straighten it.
Its not a problem because I can do it quite easily in photoshop elements, just downloaded a trial for that too. I was just trying the decide between the two anyway, but liked the look of aperture.

Aperture - Image Optimization

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for