Aperture lens misidentification

Aperture 3's metadata misidentifies one of my Sima lenses (as another Sigma lens) and one of my Pentax lenses (as another Pentax lens).
Yet another Pentax lens and a Tamron lens are correctly recognized in the metadata.
Anyone know why this is, or if there's a fix?

Joseph Coates wrote:
My objective is to see which lenses are redundant and which are less used then sell the extras.
Seems you should filter by lens and not by focal length.
I keep a permanent set of Smart Albums, one for each lens I have. (Create one, then dupe it and change the Lens field and the Album name. Get the lens name from the metadata of a shot taken with the lens.) Periodically I check the totals to see my usage pattern.
I recommend also setting up a series of Smart Albums for focal length. (As above, create one, then dupe and change the filter field and Album name. Group them in one Folder.) If you use cameras with different size sensors, you might want to set up both an actual focal length set, and a "35mm equivalent focal length" set. Use whatever ranges you find meaningful.
Note that you can select any number of Folders to open all of them in the Browser and get a total number of images. Note that this number will change as you expand or collapse Stacks, and so the totals given depend somewhat on how you use Stacks. Note, too, that Smart Albums use very little overhead (the only thing stored are the criteria). Don't hesitate to make as many as you find useful.
Message was edited by: Kirby Krieger, added illustrations.

Similar Messages

Newbie question on fix aperture lens

I have not had the chance to try a fix aperture lens yet. I just wanted to know if you can still change the aperture from like say f/2.8 to f/8 or higher.? Or is the only aperture you can f/2.8. HOw does this work?
Solved!
Go to Solution.

If you are interested in lenses of this type and are not scared away by the several zeros in the price tag, the three lenses in my sig (EF 24-70mm f2.8 L, EF 70-200mm f2.8 L, Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 EX APO) are the best that are available. There are none better.
Personally, I prefer fixed aperture lenses and tend to shy away from varible aperture lenses.
EOS 1Ds Mk III, EOS 1D Mk IV EF 50mm f1.2 L, EF 24-70mm f2.8 L,
EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS II, Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 EX APO
Photoshop CS6, ACR 8.7, Lightroom 5.7

How to poll Aperture lens data for usage graph - Filters?

Does anyone know how to set up a Filter in Aperture 3.1.1 so that one can see a list (or make a list) of the most to least common focal length one shoots at with interchangeable lenses?
I assume it will probably have to be a search for all 20mm, then all 28mm, then all 35mm, then all 50mm, etc. and then look at the totals for each, penciled down, and see what focal lengths are the most and least used.
I have set up separate camera smart folders so I would need to only conduct this search/filter on the two DSLR bodies I have. Otherwise, a Nikon scanner, Minolta scanner, and a G10 and some other point and shoots will come in to the mix and make it inaccurate.
My objective is to see which lenses are redundant and which are less used then sell the extras.

Joseph Coates wrote:
My objective is to see which lenses are redundant and which are less used then sell the extras.
Seems you should filter by lens and not by focal length.
I keep a permanent set of Smart Albums, one for each lens I have. (Create one, then dupe it and change the Lens field and the Album name. Get the lens name from the metadata of a shot taken with the lens.) Periodically I check the totals to see my usage pattern.
I recommend also setting up a series of Smart Albums for focal length. (As above, create one, then dupe and change the filter field and Album name. Group them in one Folder.) If you use cameras with different size sensors, you might want to set up both an actual focal length set, and a "35mm equivalent focal length" set. Use whatever ranges you find meaningful.
Note that you can select any number of Folders to open all of them in the Browser and get a total number of images. Note that this number will change as you expand or collapse Stacks, and so the totals given depend somewhat on how you use Stacks. Note, too, that Smart Albums use very little overhead (the only thing stored are the criteria). Don't hesitate to make as many as you find useful.
Message was edited by: Kirby Krieger, added illustrations.

Incorrect Aperture listed in both Overview and Specs of the Canon EOS 7D at BB

Hi all,
I'm going to be buying this camera, so I was looking things over pretty closely. I know that larger aperture lenses are generally more expensive and so was surprised that the cost difference for a body only 7D and a body with lens7D was only $200, especially since the lense in questioin supposedly has an aperture range of f/2.8-f/5.6. When I enlarged the photo of the 7D, I saw quite clearly marked on the lens that the aperture was f/3.5-f/5.6. I would suggest that Best Buy gets their text changed before they have a bunch of angry customers on their hands. I will still buy the camera with this lense, but I have to say I would have been very upset if I thought I was getting a 2.8 aperture lens and was delivered a 3.5 aperture one instead.

Hi Titania,
I have to say thanks for making us aware of this! You are correct that the specifications say the lens that comes with this camera body has a variable aperture of f/2.8-f/5.6, but the lens attached to the camera in the image shows that it has a variable aperture of f/3.5-f/5.6. Either the specifications listed are incorrect or the image doesn't show the lens that actually comes with this camera, and either way we need to update this listing to accurately represent what a customer would get with the purchase of this camera kit.
I have passed along this information to people here at Best Buy® Corporate that can get this update, and I fully expect this to be updated soon. Thanks again!
Thanks for posting,
Allan|Senior Social Media Specialist | Best Buy® Corporate
Private Message

Aperture 3 and Micro Four Thirds lenses

I'm thinking of buying an Olympus PEN camera. But I'm aware of the huge barrel distortions of the M4/3 lenses that should be corrected by software. I love using Aperture 3 to edit photos taken from my DSLR. But does Aperture 3 automatically corrects the barrel distortions for the Olympus PEN cameras mounting Olympus or Panasonic M43 lenses?
Thanks

There's no (automatic) correction of lens distortion for any lens in Aperture. There are a number of plugins that can do this. Google *Aperture lens barrel distortion* to see whats out there.

Sharing from Aperture to iCloud

Hi,
I recently enabled iCloud in Aperture preferences and selected an image then clicked the iCloud icon on the toolbar. The image zips into the iCloud folder on the left as it's supposed to.
However, when I go to the iCloud icon in system preferences it shows 0% of 20 GB backed up and Aperture doesn't appear in the list of apps sharing to iCloud.
what am I doing wrong here?
Jon

OK, now I'm confused.
So in Finder what's the difference between dragging the "Aperture" lens icon into the external HD or the "Aperture Library" icon (stack of photos with a pink flower)?
Well I dragged the pink flower icon over earlier and got prompted to upgrade something, got into a muddle and found this old version of Aperture, then thought I'd lost all my photos. There was a box with a "tip" to hold down the option key as I opened Aperture, which I did, and got the box below, which I've never seen before.
The one highlighted is up to date with 1885 originals. Highlighting the one above that (saying current default), shows only 588 originals and it's on the Mac HD>Applications (see below)
When I highlight this and click "choose", it's just a load of old stuff, basically as my Aperture library looked about 2 years ago when I had the previous version of Aperture including things I thought I'd deleted.
Obviously I know what the Mac HD is, but what is the little house icon with my name after it in the first screen shot holding the 1885 originals?
Do I have 2 libraries in different places?
I'm sure this is basic stuff I should know, so sorry if these are daft questions!
Jon

Best reasonably priced wide angle lens does anyone recommend?

I have a 70d and would like to get much more from close up wide angular shooting, without breaking the bank.
Are there alternatives to a canon 10-22mm or 12-24 ( not sure if my specs are correct, no doubt someone will put me straight!) , sigma...tokina..etc..?

The Canon EF-S 10-22mm is hard to beat. It's an excellent lens, well corrected, fast focusing, nice color renditions, super sharp, very good flare control (better than any other ultrawide I've seen). The only thing I'd tick as a negative is the lens hood is quite large... still, after testing I wouldn't be without it.
Tokina AT-X 12-24mm is the lens I rank second. It's also good in all respects, might even be better built (reminds me very much of a 17-35/2.8 L I had). It is not quite as sharp as the Canon and not quite as good handling flare. But still is excellent and better than most. It's also on sale right now (there's a new model out).
The Tokina 11-16mm is a popular lens for those who feel they need an ultrawide with f2.8 aperture. It's the only one that offers that. It is very sharp, close to or maybe even sharper than the Canon. However, it's quite prone to flare. Some people have no problem with that... Others have told me they ended up getting a different lens instead, because of the flare issues. I guess it depends upon what you shoot and how you shoot it, but flare can be an issue with lenses that cover a very wide angle of view. It's also a significant trade-off to get to f2.8, that this lens only has a very narrow range of focal lengths. All other ultrawides are at least 2X zooms. 11-16mm is only 1.45X.
Tokina has a new 12-28/4 out now, too... I have not used or compared it.
These three Tokinas and two Sigmas offer non-variable aperture design. All other ultrawides have variable apertures. This may or may not matter to you. I think the main place where variable aperture may be an issue is if using manual flash or studio strobes a lot. Variable aperture isn't a big deal for most.
Sigma offers a number of ultrawides. Their most affordable is a 10-20mm with a variable aperture. It's a decent lens that a lot of people find fine. I tried out an earlier version and decided I liked the Tokina better, so bought that instead (I now also have the Canon 10-22mm). Main thing I noticed was slightly less sharpness and more flare. But, do note that this lens has been revised once or twice since then and newer versions might improve upont this.
Sigma also offers a 10-20mm f3.5 with a non-variable aperture. It is quite large, heavy and more expensive. I have never used it.
SIgma also offers the widest of the wide... an 8-16mm. I haven't used it. It has strong, inherent wide angle distortion effects (almost as much as a fisheye lens). But that's to be expected with such an extreme lens.
There is a Sigma 12-24/4, too... but it's actually a full-frame capable lens (widest of the wide for FF, in fact), which makes it larger, more expensive and less well corrected. Not necessary for a 70D with it's APS-C crop sensor.
Finally, there is a Tamron 10-24mm. It's been many years since I tried one, but I seem to recall it was a bit soft in the 18-24mm range and didn't seem as well made as some of the others. It has been one of the more affordable and offered the widest range of focal lengths in a single zoom.
There aren't many prime lenses that are truly wide on a crop sensor camera. The only fairly affordable one that comes to mind is the Rokinon/Samyang 14mm f2.8. It's a manual focus, manual aperture lens that's full frame capable, but just barely gets into the ultrawide category for crop sensor cameras too. Sells under a bunch of different brand names, besides Rokinon or Samyang you'll also see it as a Vivitar (they call it a 13mm), Bower, ProOptic... maybe some more.
Most other ultrawide primes tend to be quite pricey (Canon's own 14/2.8L, Zeiss 15mm, for example).
You'll have to define what "best" means for you. All ultrawides have different pluses and minuses. You'll also have to decide what you consider "affordable". Have fun shopping!
Alan Myers
San Jose, Calif., USA
"Walk softly and carry a big lens."
GEAR: 5DII, 7D(x2), 50D(x3), some other cameras, various lenses & accessories
FLICKR & PRINTROOM

Canon the 18-55 kit lens cope with fast moving subjects?

Hi everyone, I'm new here.
I was doing a shoot the other day involving very quick subjects that changed direction a lot (dogs). Got some good shots but the vast majority were badly out of focus which was a real shame. I want to know if this is the lens, the body or my technique that is failing me.
I'm relatively new to photography so it might just be that my settings are wrong or my technique is bad. I'm using the lens wide open, not in live view, with AF servo on on a 600D body. Generally when I focus I just pan the camera round to follow the subject, occasionally squeezing down when I want to shoot.
I am considering upgrading to the 17-55 f2.8 because it's sharp wide open and has a constant and fast aperture and USM and full time manual focus with a proper focusing ring.
Thanks.
Solved!
Go to Solution.

Your problems are probably due to a combination of factors. IMO, auto focus performance is determined by three things....
1. Camera AF capabilities. Your 600D has a 9-point AF system. Only one of those points - the center one - is the "better" cross type that's more responsive and tracks movement better. When shooting moving subjects with your camera, it would help to limit yourself to using only the center point. (Note: other Canon cameras have more advanced AF systems. The T4i, T5i, 60D, 50D and 40D all have 9-point AF that looks similar, but all nine points are the "better" cross type sesnors. The 7D and 70D have 19-point AF, with all nineteen cross type. 1DX and 5DIII have 61-point AF, with up to 41 cross type, depending upon the lens used.)
Some cameras are also optimized for focus performance. For example, the 1D series models and 7D have a separate chip driving AF.... while most (maybe all?) other models share AF duties through the same processor that's handling images.
2. Lens auto focus capabilities: Yes, a "USM" (Ultrasonic Motor) drive lens such as the EF-S 17-55/2.8 would be an improvement over your kit lens. It's faster, hunts less and is quieter than a "micro motor" drive such as is used in the less expensive kit lens. (Note: there is a slightly more expensive version of the 18-55mm with "STM" or "Stepper Motor" focus drive, which is better than the micro motor version, but still not as fast as USM. STM lenses are quiet operating and particularly well matched for video.)
A larger aperture lens, such as the 17-55/2.8 (as opposed to your 18-55/3.5-5.6), also delivers more light to the camera's AF sensors, to allow for faster focus and better tracking.
No, forget about the EF 50/1.8.... Sure it's got a larger aperture, but it uses a micro motor and is widely known to be slower focusing, less accurate and liable to hunt more than a USM lens. If you wanted a fast and sure focusing short to moderate telephoto, look at the EF 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 100/2 or 135/2L lenses. These all use USM drive and are much faster and more accurate than the EF 50/1.8. They also have one to two stop larger max aperture than even the 17-55/2.8 (or any other zoom lens), so provide more light for the camera to work with. Using a lens f2.8 or "faster" will give optimal performance on your camera, with that center AF point.
Some lenses simply are not designed to be fast focusing, even though they have larger apertures and USM focus. Macro lenses, for example, have to move their focus group a long, long way to go from infinity to 1:1 magnification so tend to be slower. Also, very large aperture lenses such as the 85/1.2L typically are slower.... by design. Both macro and very large aperture lenses emphasize precision, to deal with shallow depth of field effects, rather than speed.
Other lenses are designed for very fast focus. All the 70-200s, the 100-400, and all the prime lenses 300mm and longer are quite fast focusing. Extreme telephotos such as 500 and 600mm can be hard to get and keep on target, though.
Some third party lenses also make use of focus drive similar to Canon's USM, to help with focus performance. Sigma's HSM and Tamron's USD lenses are examples.
3. User skill is the third key factor effecting focus perfromance.... i.e., your technique.
You mention using "AF Servo"... Just to clarify, yourcamera has three focus modes: One Shot, AI Focus and AI Servo... there is no "AF Servo". The correct mode to use with moving subjects is AI Servo. Maybe that's what you are doing already. At any rate, One Shot is pretty much only usable with stationary subjects (there are "pre-focus" techniques where it can be used with moving subjects, but those are fairly uncommonly used). AI Focus isn't really a foucs mode at all... It's supposed to decide for you whether or not the subject is moving, then switch to use the correct mode. I haven't tested this on any recent model, but older ones where I tried it I found a slight delay that causes a lot of missed focus shots. It also simply chose the wrong mode sometimes. It might be worth noticing that the more pro-oriented Canon models don't even have AI Focus... they only offer One Shot or AI Servo.
So, just be sure you are using AI Servo for the best performance when shooting moving subjects.
You also are using way too slow a shutter speed. I would bump up the ISO and try to use 1/500 or faster shutter speeds. 1/320 or 1/400 is very marginal, trying to stop subject movement with something as quick as dogs in action. In fact, the closer you are to the subject, the faster shutter speed you will need to truly freeze movement.
Canon also has noted that the 18MP models are somewhat prone to camera shake blur - probably due to the high density of pixel sites on the sensor - and recommends keeping shutter speeds up to be sure to get a sharp shot, even with IS lenses. There was a white paper about this, on Canon's website. I don't know if it's still available online.
You should be able to get quite nice, clean images at ISO 1600... a full two stop higher and allowing you to use much faster shutter speed. Even so, if shooting indoors there might be areas that aren't as well lit and are hard to get a sharp shot.
You may want to shoot RAW files, so that you can more fully control noise reduction and exposure factors in post-processing when using high ISOs.
A popular technique among sports/action photographers is Back Button Focusing. See this article online, about it: http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2011/backbutton_af_article.shtml
BBF separates the focusing function from the shutter release button. You instead use your thumb on one of the camera's rear buttons to start and stop focusing. Many users feel this allows more sure acquistion and tracking with moving subjects. You may want to set up your camera to do BBF and give it a try. While it's particularly possible for action/sports/AI Servo shooting, it's actually usable with One Shot, too... I have used it pretty exclusively for some years now.
Using BBF, I start AF well before I want to take the shot, then concentrate on keeping the AF point on the subject right where I want the lens to focus while continuing to track and maintain focus... then take shots along the way. I use the center AF point alone, much of the time. This does lead to overly centered images, so I try to frame a little loosely some of the time, allowing for some cropping to make images less centered. I do sometimes use other than the center AF point... but wouldn't recommend that with action shooting on a camera that doesn't have cross type sensors at the peripheral points, such as your 600D.
I use a pair of 7Ds and a number of fast focusing USM lenses to shoot a lot of sports. With some years of practice under my belt, on avearage I nail focus on 95 to 98 out of 100 shots using this gear with the above techniques. I shot 4000 images at a recent event and marked just over 30 of those as "rejected" for missed focus problems (and I bet at least half of those are my fault... not the gear's). There may be a few more that are marginally acceptible (i.e., can make a nice 8x10 print, but won't look good any larger than that). Still, even if there are 80 or 120 missed focus, that's only 2 or 3%... a lot better than only 10% in focus.
I would say that lens performance qualities and user techniques generally count more than the camera though, or at least can largely make up for any camera short-comings. I got nearly as good results with 50D, and with 30D before that (which have similar AF system to your 600D), and even with 10D earlier than that (a "lesser" AF system than yours).Though I've gotten a few, I haven't had as good luck shooting moving subjects using 5D Mark II (I mostly just use it for stationary subjects).. the 5D Mark III has a much improved AF system and tracks movement far better.
Hope this helps!
Alan Myers
San Jose, Calif., USA
"Walk softly and carry a big lens."
GEAR: 5DII, 7D(x2), 50D(x3), some other cameras, various lenses & accessories
FLICKR & PRINTROOM

File and folder import

I just installed Aperture and began to import files and folders from previous photo shoots (stored on a hard drive). I have many original jpgs that I modified in Photoshop and then saved as a separate version with a .psd extension. That means I have hundreds of files like 1234.jpg with a corresponding 1234.psd file. Upon folder import Aperture only imports the .jpg file and I cannot even see the .psd file in the browser when I try to import individual files?!? This only happens if I have used a common filename with different extension. Is this a bug or am I missing something....
I would really like to avoid to rename all my file names in order to import them properly into Aperture.
MacBook Pro Mac OS X (10.4.7)

Every image in Aperture has a Master. The Master is a file. If you want to control how those files names are organized (remember -- you leave the actual location on the drives up to the OS), use Referenced Masters. If you don't want to worry about this, use Managed Masters.
There is no way to change the Managed Masters file organization.
Aperture is an image management program. The image is the atomic unit of the database. Aperture gives you powerful tools for organizing, storing, retrieving, adjusting, and exporting (by which you create image-formatted files for use by other programs) images. It purposely relieves you of the burden of doing file management (just as long ago OS's relieved you of doing drive platter and sector management -- a task two guys named Bill and Paul made some money off of).
It's not, of course, Steve's way or the highway. You can have each of your images have a Referenced Master. You can either organize these as you see fit in Finder, and then import the files (at which point Aperture creates what it calls an image), or you can use Aperture's tools to manage your Referenced Masters.
The simplest thing to do -- recommended for those new to Aperture -- is to import your files into the Aperture Library and let Aperture manage the Masters. There is a lot to learn to take advantage of Aperture. You can always and at any time convert any Managed Master to a Referenced Master, and vice versa.
All of, and any subset of, your images in Aperture can be sorted by import session, date taken, day of week taken, aperture, lens used, color space, rating, size, bit depth, orientation, file format of Master, and a score of other criteria -- all with one click.
If you use Aperture, your file organization matters only for backup and security.
Message was edited by: Kirby Krieger

Adobe Bridge Canon .mov Metadata Importing

I am using Adobe Bridge CS4 on Windows XP SP3 32bit.
I have recently seen the light and am now going through my years of photos and videos and adding metadata tags and key words. I realise that my image files which consist mostly of Canon RAW files largely look after them self in that all the meta data recorded by the camera is easily read. Things like aperture, lens type etc are easily seen and seen to be accurately captured.
With my video files however (at the moment I'm concentrating on 5D Mark II video files) I have come to realise that there is no metadata like there is in photos embedded within the file. Bridge just picks up the basic file info which is relatively inaccurate when it comes to creation date etc. After becoming disillusioned with the lack of metadata on my videos I then realised that when I use Zoom Browser (Canon image and video browsing software) that it has a stack of information that Bridge doesn't see. After some investigating I opened some .thm files with note pad and found the metadata stored in those.
From what I understand these are known as side car files. However as I want one program to rule them all, I want Bridge to have all the metadata. I had planned on manually entering all the data that I could read from Zoom Browser into Bridge but even this won't work because things like Aperture and Creation Date aren't editable fields in Bridge.
Is there a way I can get Bridge to extract the data from these .thm files?
Thanks in advance for your help.

Hi Curt,
Thanks for your reply. Yes, White Balance is checked in preferences/metadata. All of the Exposure metadata entries are also checked.
I forgot to mention that my version of Camera Raw is 4.5 (the latest).
You know, although White Balance is checked, I cannot find a White Balance text entry on any of the metadata lists (File properties, IPTC core, Camera Data (EXIF), etc.). The only place where I can see the White Balance setting in on the upper left corner of the Metadata tab, under the f-stop value.
Here is a personal question for you: When you browse your pictures in Adobe Bridge and you select one that was taken with a specific White Balance (not Auto), does your Adobe Bridge display an icon for that particular White Balance setting? I just want to eliminate the possibility that this happening only in my computer.
Thanks a lot for your time and attention.

Halo reduction

Has anyone figured out what the Halo Reduction brush is supposed to do? I have some images with terrible purple fringing where direct sunlight sparkles of water, which I thought were the perfect candidate to test this new feature of AP3.
The effect I get from this halo reduction is not a real improvement: the purple fringes are replaced by ugly black holes. It looks as if in the purple fringes the luminance is reduced to zero instead of the saturation. Also, the green fringes on the opposing side are not affected at all.
I can do much better by adding a color brick with desaturated sampled magenta and green hues. The problem there is that it takes some time to set up and that it seems impossible to make it into a preset that can be applied independently of other color adjustments. Any help with that would be greatly appreciated. (The hue of the fringes seems to be the same in every photo.)

Okay here is the longer version:
The CA tool in Aperture and MOST software is only good to deal with lateral CA some is better than others - Aperture is about mid-pack from my evaluation.
The Purple fringing alone w/o the other colors on the other side of it are usually axial CA - not many software programs deal with that effectively and can be somewhat aperture (lens term not software) dependent - smaller = more possibly. The only software I have tested that really deals with it effectively from a global perspective happens to be NX2 (actually automatically if you wish) there is probably other tools I just have not tested them myself.
Hope that helps.
RB
Ps. Get better lenses

Where are photos in my album?

Hi,
Photos are not viewable in Album folder but they were in there just five minutes ago. This happend many times to me. I am using Aperture 3. There were pictures in the album but for whatever reason, they were not showing when I clicked on the album, just blank page. They are still in the main project folder whic I could view. I selected and dragged them back to the Album but they were not showing. I really hate this software, iPhoto is much mor userfriendly.
Secondly, how do I view photo information like: aperture, lens, camera etc..? I remember they used to show at the bottom right corner.

What type of album, regular or smart?
If smart then make sure the criterion for selecting for the album is still valid.
In both cases make sure you do not have a filter set that would prevent the images from being displayed (say filtering for 5 star images in an album that has none will result in no images being displayed)
To display metadata under an image go to the View->Metadata display menu. You can select the display of metadata here.

Finding metadata in iphoto

Hi,
I'm trying to see the picture metadata (shutter speed, aperture, lens zoom) in iphoto. I have no problems getting to them in aperture 2 but all the information I can get from iphoto '09 is the type of file and the size. I'm trying to make a book in iphoto and would like to have that information printed by its photo. I've been trying to find some documentation that would give me some ideas of how I can do this, without having to switch back and forth between aperture and iphoto, but have not been successful. Any information you can give me will be greatly appreciated. thank you for your time.
Eli

Thanks, that was easy enough... I feel a little stupid for not being able to figure that on my own. Is there a way to have it shown automatically when a photo is selected?

RAW vs JPEG Tiff vs PSD

Someone mentioned that with a RAW format file from my Nikon camera, I can manipulate the image more extensively than if I have the camera save the JPG file.
Eventually I save it as a TIFF or PSD.
2 questions...
a) Is Tiff vs PSD a better lossless format to save in?
b) Can someone give me an example of what I can do with an image saved in RAW format that I cannot do with JPEG? I am using Photoshop Elements 4.0.
Thanks much!

There are several pros and cons for JPEG and for RAW format. Here is list of some:
JPEG format
+ smaller file size
+ great portfolio of software to manage this format
-- just 8-bit (8 stops) dynamic range
-- lossy compression format
RAW format
-- larger file size
-- just a few programs to manage this format
+ usually 12-bit (12 stops) and larger dynamic range
+ lossless compression format
Generaly speaking if you don't care then JPEG format is enough for you. Just shoot and you have a photo. But having JPEG photography is almost like having the print of a photo, digitaly speaking You have lost the original so you are able to make just minimal adjustments, otherwise you will see what posterization and noise gain means and you will not like it
You are content with the JPEG photo unless you enter the RAW world Much larger dynamic range allow you to make photo-corrections like white balance, exposure, contrast adjustment, etc. in large scale. You are working with virginal data from the camera sensor not affected with lossy compression of the JPEG format. It is just aperture, lens, light and you. No digital filters usually used when camera is making JPEG from the same data.
http://www.nama5.com

No problems to report!

Because I see people with problems with Aperture, I just want to say, I've been using Aperture for professional wedding, concert, and personal work, editing since it was first introduced. I have had as many as 60,000 images in the library, and had no problems other than speed when browsing/searching the entire library. I never have problems when dealing with real world editing of a single project. I now use iPhoto as my main import program, and reference files in Aperture for editing. Still... no problems with the database, or anything else. I'm guessing there are a few others out there who will also confirm that Aperture is a great and very usable application, even in this, it's early incarnation.

I'm another huge fan. I hope this thread gets read by people considering buying Aperture. Because Aperture had a distastrous first release, and because Adobe has a savage PR machine, there's a lot of misinformation out there about Aperture.
I bought the first copy of Aperture available in Toronto, and was extremely disappointed with how it ran on my G5 with its puny video card. Really wanted to like it, though. Transferred everything to Lightroom because of the performance issues. Truly hated everything about Lightroom, from it's modal operation to its ugly interface, to its nasty white balance on NEFs, but it got the job done until I bought a new computer. As soon as I had a shiny new MBP with a fast video card, I transferred everything back.
Aperture just thinks more the way I do. It's easy to compare multiple images, to adjust images while you're sorting and rating, to compare versions while you're adjusting. (Try comparing three images at 100% in Lightroom--oops, can't). You're not locked into a linear way of working through your pics. Love the loupe tool and the tooltip metadata display. Also find it very useful that the previews are so easily available to other apps in the media browser. I frequently roundtrip to Photoshop and from time to time to Capture NX (this is still an export/re-import situation).
There are a couple of develop tools I'd love to see in Aperture (lens/perspective correction, chromatic aberration fix/purple defringing). And in my fantasy world they'd implement something like the upoints and masks that Capture NX has.

Aperture lens misidentification

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for