Aperture incorrectly lists Canon EF400mm f/2.8L IS USM lens

I recently noticed that Aperture is incorrectly listing my Canon EF400mm f/2.8L IS USM lens. It displays it as "Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L + 2x" so it's incorrectly showing a 2x converter which I never ever use.
I tried opening the same file directly from my CF card in Photoshop CS5 and there I was able to see that the RAW image actually has the correct listing for the lens (with the 2x converter).
I then did some examining in my Aperture library and was able to determine that this problem began occuring somewhere between August 14th 2011 (lens labelled correctly) and September 23rd 2011 (lens labelled incorrectly). I suspect there was a software update to Aperture around that time. Further examination shows that on August 14th 2011 and previously Aperture would list the lenses without the manufacturer. While from September 23rd 2011 and on Aperture began listing the lenses with the manufacturer listed.
From what I gather it's the only lens that Aperture is listing incorrectly. It's not a big deal, but it really should be a complicated fix for the Aperture team either.

From what I gather it's the only lens that Aperture is listing incorrectly. It's not a big deal, but it really should be a complicated fix for the Aperture team either.
There are quite a few lenses listed incorrectly - mine do not show at all - "unknown lens".
But send feedback to Apple, otherwise they will not know about the problem: Aperture main menu bar:
Aperture > Provide Aperture Feedback
Regards
Léonie

Similar Messages

Aperture Albums Listed Without Folder or Album Structure

Aperture albums listed in the sync settings for a connected iPod do not reflect the folder structure in Aperture, which results (a) difficulty identifying albums for import and (b) serious bugs.
The latter include:
(1) Failure to detect album name changes.
(2) Masking of albums with duplicate names.
As a result, it is easy to end up with albums that iTunes never sees, even after attempts to make them visible by giving them a unique name.
Has anyone experienced a similar problem or found a workaround.

I wonder that nobody else has similar issues.
That is how I get it fixed.
Switch of sync, delete the photo library file, empty trash, copy my photos library backup from my external drive to my picture directory, switch on sync again.
It took several hours and about 20GB traffic to get it back in sync with the entire folder structure.

ImagePrint profiles don't appear in Aperture profile lists, but do in PS

Does anyone understand the following?
ImagePrint profiles cannot be opened by ColorSync Utility and do not appear in Aperture profile lists (even if a copy is placed directly in /Library/ColorSync/Profiles. (I suspect these are equivalent issues since both programs use some OS color sync tools.) However, Photoshop CS2 does see them.
I think ImagePrint color profiles carry some non standard information (tags?) so that the IP app can tell if the profile is meant for mat or glossy paper. PS handles this OK, but maybe the Mac OS profile reading tool is choking on the extra info?
Dual 2.7Ghz G5 ATI Radeon X800 XT 2.5 GB ram Mac OS X (10.4.8)

I have the same problem, except none have appeared for weeks now, and my most recent purchases have not come down at all. I am about to call Apple support and see what they can tell me, but I'm guessing they will blame it on DNS ro something else not being correctly set up.

Droid Bionic incorrectly listed as HTC device on "Supported Devices" web page

At http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mobile/platforms/ the Droid Bionic is incorrectly listed as an HTC device.
The Droid Bionic is a MOTOROLA device. :)
I attempted to submit feedback about this to Mozilla/Firefox but my feedback was rejected because the message contained a URL.
Will someone (who can) please notify the Mobile Firefox webmaster about this?
Thanks!

Thanks for letting us know. I've passed this information on the the correct people who will be able to fix this.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=728761

Lightroom 5.6 / CR 8.6 not recognizing my Canon 16-35mm f4 IS USM lens

I have Lightroom 5.6, Camera Raw 8.6.
I'm using a Canon 5D Mark 3.   I had a Canon EF 16-35 f2.8 USM for years. Under Lens Corrections / Profile I would use the Auto Setup and LR would detect the lens automatically.
I switched to the EF 16-35 f4 IS USM recently, even with LR 5.6 and Camera Raw 8.6 the Auto Setup doesn't recognize the new lens.    I manually select Canon, then within the model drop down list - the EF 16-35 f4 IS USM does indeed show up.
I checked the EXIF data - it's listed as "EF16-35 f/4L IS USM" (notice the lack of space between the EF and 16.   However the profile is listed as "Canon 16-35 mm f/4 IS USM" (notice the space between 16-35 and mm).   Looking at the drop down list, this appears to be the ONLY lens listed with a space between the focal length and mm.
Not sure what the source of the mismatch is here.   I'm trying to figure out how to find the Lens ID in the EXIF info.
Ideas, suggestions?

If LR supports the lens natively then manually selecting the lens and doing a Save New Lens Profile Defaults shouldn't be necessary as Auto should work. Rikk, since your LR screenshot says Custom instead of Auto I expect that you're seeing the same thing as the OP and may have already set your lens profile defaults, manually or having to select a lens profile manually seems less odd that it does to the OP.
In any case, I think there are two problems, or perhaps two different manifestations of the same problem:
1) Looking at the EXIFTool LensInfo tag list the Lens ID is apparently 507 for this lens, but the Lens ID in the lens profile file from Adobe is 251 which corresponds to a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM lens:
http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/TagNames/Canon.html#LensType
It does not seem to be enough to change the 251 to 507 in a copy of the LCP file and put that file in the User's lens profile area. I did this and Auto still doesn't work, although the 507 copy of the profile is found if I choose Custom and pick Canon. Without the LensID = 507 lens profile existing, Custom / Canon chooses the 16-35 f/2.8 lens.
2) If we select the supposedly correct lens profile manually, then there is distinct pincushion distortion in the door edge, and this distortion is actually slightly worse in the corrected image than in the original uncorrected image. Here is the corrected image:
This makes me wonder if the correct lens distortion data is even in the lens profile file attributed to the 16-35 f/4 lens or its for some other lens. An obvious suspect is the other lens profile with the LensID = 251, the 70-200 f/2.8 II lens, but if I choose that profile it does apply different corrections so the profile is not the same for that, either.
In any case, the proper profile is not being selected automatically and the distortion corrections seem off if the profile is selected manually.

Canon 5DS and 24-70mm f4L IS Lens

I took some additional test shots with the 5DS and 24-70mm lens on a tripod with IS turned off. I took essentially the same shot at f8, 11, 16, and 22 in order to evaluate the sharpness of the overall image. Here is a down-sampled version of the scene: http://www.throughjoeslens.com/Temp/TheScene.jpg and here is a resulting 100% crop from each image: http://www.throughjoeslens.com/Temp/Crop100.jpg Make sure to view them at 100%. Web browsers tend to scale them down to fit the current window size. The raw files were processed with the exact same settings in Photoshop. Notice the progressive softening of the 100% crop images with the most noticeable hit to the sharpness happening from f16 to f22. I believe that I read that the Diffraction Limit Aperture of the 5DS is f6.7 due to the pixel size (similar to the 7DM2). Plus the lens itself may perform better at specific apertures. I did the test with several runs and two different scenes to make sure the results were repeatable. I used Live View to focus in the area of the scene where the 100% crop was taken from and the 2 second timer to trigger the shots. Basically, I minimized the possibility of camera shake with every trick I know. Since the shutter speeds got progressively slower, ignore some of the softness in the foliage since there was a slight breeze. The rocks don't lie though. They definitely weren't moving. To be honest, with 50MP, the f8, f11, and f16 images could be printed at 20x30" and you probably wouldn't notice a difference other than the depth-of-field difference and that's only in the extreme foreground. I think softness of the one taken at f22 would be visible if compared at a very close distance to one of the others. I plan on repeating a similar test with Canon's 17mm TSE lens to get a better handle on how much of this softening is diffraction and how much was the lens.

Sorry to be a while getting back to this. The day job has been pretty demanding lately. I finally took another shot at multiple apertures for comparison, this time with the 17mm f4L TSE lens. First the conditions were 5Ds on a tripod, manually focused the lens on the brick in the center of the scene using magnified live view, identified the exposure I wanted in Manual based on the live histogram, and then switched to Av and dialed in +2/3 compensation to get the same exposure. I took all apertures from f4 through f22, even the 1/3 stops but I'm using full stops for this comparison. Here is a link to a down-sampled version of the non-award winning scene. http://www.throughjoeslens.com/temp/TheScene2.jpg I've highlighted the areas where the 100% crops were taken from with the first crop being from where I focused the lens. If this was an award winning scene, I'd want good depth of field throughout so the other three crops represent areas of interest to inspect image sharpness in conjunction wtih depth of field. Crop 1, the focus point. http://www.throughjoeslens.com/temp/Crop1.jpg There are several observations that can be made from this crop. Number 1 is that the lens is as sharp in the center at f4 as it gets! There's not a whole lot of detail difference between f4 and f5.6 but the image contrast is a little better at f4 which makes it look a little sharper to me. Similar to the first post about the 24-70mm f4 IS shot taken at 61mm, f22 doesn't fair well at all. Image quality takes a noticeable hit from f16 to f22. The other apertures just show a slight degradation of image sharpness as you move from one to the other. One thing to note is the reduction of image contrast as you move up in apertures, especially f8 and above. That's a side effect of diffraction. Crop 2, far DOF. http://www.throughjoeslens.com/temp/Crop2.jpg First thing to notice is that vignetting is strong enough with the 17mm lens wide open that the f4 crop is noticeably darker than the other apertures. When looking at this crop remember that the front roof is almost in-line with the wall where the plane of focus is so I'm judging the DOF using the far roof line of the other house where it meets the trees. To me it looks like it definitely gets sharper from f4 to f5.6 and maybe slightly more so at f8. F8 to f11 is pretty close to the same while f16 is softening a little. Ironically f22 isn't providing any obvious increase in DOF and is in fact the fuzziest of all the crops. Crop 3, near DOF. http://www.throughjoeslens.com/temp/Crop3.jpg Again the f4 crop is a little bit darker due to vignetting and is obviously fuzzy due to lack of DOF. F8, f11, and f16 are almost a toss-up but I'll give it to f11. In this crop f22 looks better than f4 due to the lack of DOF in the f4 shot. Oddly it looks pretty close to the f5.6 crop as far as image softness goes. Crop 4, shadows and reflections. http://www.throughjoeslens.com/temp/Crop4.jpg Again the f4 crop suffers from lack of DOF and vignetting. F5.6 is OK but f8, f11, and f16 appear to have the sharpest reflections. F22 softens up and, in this case, is worst than f5.6. The one thing I don't like seeing in all of these crops is that, even at ISO 100, the shadows could use a little noise reduction (look at the white window frames). Oh well, I promised a follow up and that's it. If it was a print worthy image, I'd probably apply a mild unsharp mask sharpening and use the f11 shot as the best compromise of image sharpness and DOF.

How do I print images from Aperture to the Canon MG6150?

I have recently installed (i think correctly) a Canon MG6150 printer on my iMac but am having difficulty making it work correctly when photo printing (the wireless connection seems OK). When printing from Aperture I can cause a print to be made but the printer prints very quickly and the colour balance is incorrect (it's too pale and not saturated). I think maybe this is due to the wrong paper selection but i can find no way via the Aperture menu of selecting the paper type being used. According to my 1:1 trainer i should see a "Quality and Media" sub menu in Aperture when i print and from there i can select paper type etc. However this "Quality and Media" sub menu is not present on my machine when printing from Aperture. As an alternative i've tried printing from the Canon Easy Photo Print EX utility but each time i try this i have to go through a lengthy process of identifying my region and country before reaching the select images screen. Once there i am unable to find my Aperture files and hence cannot select any images, nor go onto the next stage which seems to be selecting the paper type. All this would be very arduous to use (lots of keystrokes) - am i missiing something?
Also when installing my Canon software from the supplied disc i was referred to the Canon website which said that there were driver updates coming along to sort out some bugs associated with Lion OS (which i'm using). As i understand it these new drivers are not available until sometime during October and hence i haven't been able to download any as yet.
Any help greatfully appreciated as i'm fast running out of hair. Thanks a lot.

The same way you would export to any file system:
Connect the flash drive and once it is mounted you can export to it in the regular manner.

Aperture incorrectly duplicating exif data - how can I stop this?

The situation...
a) I have 2 cameras (Canon 5D, and a Canon 5D MII)
b) I imported photos from 2 Compact Flash cards (1 from each camera) where the file names (e.g. _MG_9670.CR2) clashed. (i.e. both cards used the same file numbering range)
c) Aperture imported the images correctly, however the EXIF data on both images match identically apart from image resolution. Aperture believes these photos were taken at the exact same date/time and with the same camera which of course is incorrect.
d) If I export the original files from aperture and use the finder 'Get Info' option I can see that the RAW files contain correct EXIF data, so the issue must purely be an aperture bug.
Question - is this a known bug and is there any way to work around this?
Unfortunately I have spotted this on some wedding photos I shot for a client so I have had to switch to Lightroom for some confidence in not loosing important photos. Hopefully if someone can provide a workaround before I get stuck into my editing I can switch back to Aperture that I am more familiar with.
Thanks
Adrian

Interesting problem. The duplicate filenames could be causing Aperture to get confused but I've never seen this myself. Do you have Do not import duplicates set in the Import pane? If it is not set and you set it does Aperture see the files on the second card as dups?
As a test, when you import from one of the cards (either one) rename the originals. Does the EXIF problem still happen? If not then you will need to rename one of the cameras files either on import or in the camera. I believe Canon allows you to set a filename no?
Also make sure to file a bug report with Aperture, Aperture->Provide Aperture Feedback, look for the bug report entry.
If renaming the files does not fix the problem post back.
regards

Web Gallery created in Aperture not listed

I created three new web galleries using Aperture 2 and they are not showing up when I try to add them to my iweb page. When I log on to my .mac account they are only visible when I choose my gallery. They are not listed out with the ones I created in iPhoto. What am I doing wrong?

I've asked this question ever since the option was offered.
Know of no one that has had it work and have never seen an answer.
Sent feedback to Apple. No reply.
Called tech support. They had no idea.
You see the file on the Idisk, but they are not recognized by Iweb.
Would love to know the answer.
ANYONE???
good luck

Mobile Me Galleries in Aperture Project List

If I create a mobile me gallery in aperture it appears on the project list, near the top under mobile me galleries. That's fine, until I close aperture and then the next time I open it I don't have any mobile me galleries listed. It hasn't always been like this, I first noticed it about a month ago but it might have happened before then. The galleries are still on my .me space, I know that I haven't deleted them. However if I go into Aperture, preferences and go on the mobile me tab I can see all the galleries listed, I then have to click the 'check now', the galleries then reappear in my project list, although sometimes I have error messages during the process. So whilst I can get around the problem, it's not ideal and I'd really like to have all my published galleries in my project list so I can edit them. I'm using Aperture 2.1.2 and OS 10.4.11.
Has anyone else had a similar problem - any suggestions and help would be much appreciated.
Many thanks
Berni

A gallery can be integrated into your website by linking to it.
If you want to have the gallery in the main navigation you will have to hide the standard one and build your own. The gallery link in this menu will be an external link and should be set to open in a new window so that viewers don't have to use their back button.
See....
http://iwebfaq.org/site/iWebNavigationmenu.html
... for building our own.
You can also link to a Mobile Me gallery by clicking on the widget icon, selecting MobileMe Gallery and selecting the particular one from the list.

After 1.2.1 Firmware update cannot tether with Aperture 3 and Canon 5D Mk3

I am now unable to tether my laptop with my Canon 5D Mk3 in Aperture 3.4.4 after I updated the firware on the camera. Aperture detects the camera but the capture button is greyed out. And when I press any buttons on the camera, it says it is busy. Note: I am able to tether camera and laptop using Lightroom 4.
Using:
MacBook Pro, Mac OS 10.8.3
Aperture 3.4.4
Canon 5D Mark III, Firmware 1.2.1

photogoga wrote:
Alright, just updated to OSX 10.8.4 and to aperture 3.4.5.
Tethering with 5d Mark III is working fine again.
Miracle of miracles!!! Works for me too.
Being able to use Image Capture for controlling my 5DIII also works
photogoga...Thanks for letting us know about these changes.
Jerry

Aperture and sRAW (Canon 50D)

Does anyone know of a reason why Aperture seems to not fully support the sRAW format? My personal experience has shown me that bringing an sRAW (7.1 mp) file from my Canon 50D into Aperture will result in a much noisier image. Several of the RAW Fine Tuning adjustments are also grayed out (sharpening, denoise, etc). When I bring in a full RAW (15mp) file, Aperture automatically brings the noise level down a reasonable amount once the preview is rendered.
Here is a comparison; both images were shot at the same settings, one at sRAW and one at RAW, and I did not perform any adjustments in Aperture, just imported and exported a full JPEG.
sRAW
RAW

Sorry, I wasn't thinking straight, I was thinking the forum would shrink them but I don't know why I thought that would help.
@Keith
I haven't tried DPP yet, but importing the same sRAW files into The Lightroom 4 beta produces much better results. I can see a slight difference between the RAW and sRAW processing in Lightoom, but they are 99% similar, whereas I would say in Aperture the difference is dramatic.
I have learned to stay in RAW, but I would appreciate the ability to shoot sRAW. I was hoping for perhaps a camera profile or other solution, but I suppose I'll have to stick with RAW or look into Lightroom
Thanks for the help

Aperture incorrectly reading white balance data from RAW file?

I'm having some problems with both Aperture 1.1.2 and 1.5 importing RAW files from a Nikon D70 and a Canon G6. In both cases, Aperture is not reading the "as shot" white balance correctly.
With the G6, Aperture is always setting a fixed color temperature of 6016K, and a fixed tint of -15, regardless of the image in question. If I read the same image using Adobe Camera Raw, or Lightroom, then it I get the white balance value as set in the camera.
With the D70, it's picking up a different white balance value from the one set in the camera, always one far warmer than it should be, and with a green tint. Again, the Adobe tools get the right value out of the RAW file. With both cameras I have experimented with setting the white balance manually on the camera, and also with the "auto white balance" setting, but it makes no difference to Aperture.
Obviously I can change all of the values manually, but it's very time consuming, and in most cases the in-camera value is pretty close to what I need, so I'd much prefer Aperture to use it.
In any case, I'm worried about the discrepancy between Aperture and Camera Raw on something so basic.
Anybody got any ideas? I'm hoping I'm just doing something silly, as I have only been using Aperture for a couple of weeks, and maybe something is mis-configured.
Thanks
HG

In any case, I'm worried about the discrepancy
between Aperture and Camera Raw on something so
basic.
Sorry I can't help you directly with Aperture as I haven't bought it - yet. However, re-the above quote, I'd just mention that the interpretation of colour temperature values is not quite as simple as it might seem. Even more so when you bear in mind that RAW converters from 3rd parties like Adobe or Apple are not based on the RAW conversion engine produced by the camera manufacturer - in effect they have to guess/estimate what the temp/tint values in the RAW file actually mean...
Some time back I made a series of tests using 3 Canon cameras, with ACR, Capture One & the Canon RAW converter. Each produced noticeably different results, and C1 & ACR showed quite different temp/tint values. (The Canon software only showed 'As Shot' - no values). The differences were consistent between shots from each camera (using WB values input or AWB) - but they weren't consistent from one camera to another. Which program produced the best result depended very much on the Camera/Subject/Personal taste...
Hope someone can help with Aperture specific info, I'm sure there must be a way of making camera specific adjustments to the RAW conversions...

Aperture support of CANON EOS 350D?

Could you please tell if Aperture supports CANON EOS 350D.
Please note that even if one would expect the CANON EOS 350D to be identical with the Digital Rebel XT they *are not* identical with regard to the latest I-Photo. I can't load photos in RAW format from CANON EOS 350D to the latest version of i-Photo even if you can do it with the US Canon
Digital Rebel XT! So, please tell me if I can take photos in RAW-format from my CANON EOS 350D to Aperture which I intend to buy if it is compatible. When is i-photo going to support raw format in CANON EOS 350D?
Thanks!
iMac Mac OS X (10.4.3)

Hi,
I just came back from a Aperture seminar and I asked one of the Aperture presenters whether there was support for the 350D or not. He couldn't give me a clear answer to that and he was not aware that there was an american version of the camera called Digital Rebel XT and a european version called 350D where the Digital Rebel XT is supported by Aperture.
He did however say that Apple would continue to implement more raw file formats in Aperture as Canon opened the raw files for Apple. His advice was to contact Canon with regards to the 350D raw files.

Lower quality when opening canon raw w/ aperture instead of canon software

hi,
i just shoot a two days performance with a canon 5d, raw files and imported successfully all images into aperture. at first everything looks good but if i use the canon digital photo professional software that came with the camera i get better saturation, contrast, and detailed images. the difference is very visible if i use photoshop (which i always do).
why is aperture not having a similar quality images when opening canon raw files?
is there anything i can do to make my workflow easy. i feel now that i have to use aperture only to select the best images. when i got my selection, i reopen the selected raw files (from the memory cards) using canon software, and then transfer all converted raw's to photoshop.
any ideas to make my workflow lighter without compromising quality?
Thanks

ejamas,
A few things to keep in mind -
*DPP vs. Aperture: Image previews when images are not at 100% -> DPP will appear much sharper/crisper then they actually are. You need to view at 100% to see the image accurately. Aperture will appear softer than they actually are (especially in comparison to DPP). Again, you need to view at 100% to get an accurate sense of how the image will look.
*As others have said. If you've customized the settings in your 5D then DPP will honor those. Aperture will not. That's the case with any third-party raw convertor.
*Images in a third-party convertor (Aperture, ACR, C1, Lightroom, etc.) will never match the OEM convertor (DPP, Nikon Capture, etc.) exactly. They use different color engines.
*Your findings to not mesh with my experience per se. I shoot with 1Ds M 2's and have found Aperture, in general, to be the way to go. The color is excellent, the tonal range far exceeds that of DPP and the controls in Aperture have far more finesse than anything in DPP. It's not as crash prone as DPP and if Aperture does crash you don't loose your work from that session (in DPP you loose anything done since your last save). Like any raw convertor you need to learn it inside and out before you draw any conclusions about it.
*I assume you are working on a color calibrated monitor and have all your color management ducks in a row?.....
Jon Roemer
http://www.jonroemer.com

Aperture incorrectly lists Canon EF400mm f/2.8L IS USM lens

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for