Aperture Photoshop CC file compatibility

I changed the outside editor for Aperture 3 to PsCC. Now there is an error message stating PsCC can't read my raw files. Why?

I was having this same issue and I fixed it but I'm not exactly sure what did it... I'm using Snow Leopard on a Mac and I have cs5, cs6 and CC installed. Initally after installing CC, I was able to associate files using the normal "open with" and "change all" dialog. However, after installing a Mac security update today, the "open with" reverted to CS6 and when trying to change all to open with Photoshop CC, it would just revert to CS6. Here's what I did today before I was able to change them all back to CC.
1. Installed Photohop CC Update
2. Restarted Computer
3. Changed *one* file to open with CC and closed the dialog
4. Installed PHotoshop CS6 Update
5. Opened that "one file" (which still had open with Photoshop CC selected) and hit "change all"
Magic. Not sure what did it... but maybe if you repeat that process, it will work for you.

Similar Messages

  • Tips on using Aperture with Photoshop PSD files

    For all the people like me coming to Aperture with hundreds of Photoshop files, I would like to offer what I've learned so far in this area.
    1. If Aperture is importing your psd files but not showing an image, you probably need to change some preferences in PS. Apple has a tech note showing how to set the PS prefs here: http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=302624
    Warning: all of the choices should be set to the ones onscreen, not just "maximize compatibility". And even then, I have found I can't simply re-save the file to produce the image Aperture needs. I had to use "Save As" from Photoshop, creating a new file, to import a visible image file into Aperture.
    2. Once the psd file is in Aperture, you need to realize that Aperture treats it as a master and won't let you make further changes to it. So, if you select this psd file and choose "Edit in external editor," Aperture will create a duplicate file and send that to Photoshop, thus protecting you. If you don't want two full-size masters of the same image in your library, there are two work-arounds.
    Very Important Tip: in the Aperture preferences you must tell Aperture to use the psd file format for the "Edit In External Editor" command. My copy of Aperture defaulted to the TIFF format, which is bad if you want your layers preserved as you should.
    One work-around is to import the psd file(s) as referenced masters. When you want to make changes to the file in PS, choose the file in Aperture and select "Show in Finder." From the finder, open the file in PS, make your changes, save, return to Aperture and update the preview if Aperture hasn't automatically done so. I don't like this method because it requires referenced masters and I want all of my files managed by Aperture.
    Second method works with managed masters in the Aperture library or referenced masters for that matter. However you cannot use this technique if a psd file in your Aperture library has versions you want to save. You can only do this with files that have not spawned versions which you want to keep. In other words, be very careful. Best to do this as shortly after the import process.
    Pick the file, choose "Edit in External Editor." Aperture duplicates the file and opens that in PS. Make some changes, save and return to Aperture. Notice the original master and this new changed version are in a stack. There should be a badge on the changed version indicating it has been edited externally. Here's the trick: Unstack the two images and delete the original master. Now you have only the externally edited master in your Aperture library. If you choose "Edit In External Editor" with this file, Aperture will not duplicate it and send the duplicate to PS, it will send the selected file.
    Apple has a useful FAQ on using "Open With External Editor" here: http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=302820

    My suspicion is that Aperture is going to try loading the video card VRAM with your image .... 600Mb worth. So, paging in/out of system memory is going to be a royal pain.
    Check that you haven't any alpha channels saved, as Aperture will save them but will not composite them.
    Finally, to disable previews, uncheck in preferences, AND also uncheck Maintain previews under the library projects list gear icon.
    Cheers!

  • Photoshop CS6 files are compatable with CC files

    My college is using photoshop CS6 and I have installed photoshop CC. I was told that files are not compatable between the two.

    Standard Photoshop PSD files can be backwards compatible (with the caveats mentioned) – here is a test of saving back from CC to CS6 & CS5:
    http://davecrossworkshops.com/2013/05/10/moving-files-backwards-photoshop-cc
    There are also some practices you can use to increase compatibility between versions, not just for Photoshop but for all the Adobe CC apps.

  • Aperture 3 RAW file edited in Photoshop

    I did this according to the Aperture 3 Manual:
    "...select an image and choose Photos > Edit With > [application name]. Aperture makes a new master and version of your image and opens it in Adobe Photoshop. After you make your changes and save the image, the revised version automatically reappears in Aperture. The external editor doesn’t change the original master."
    I exported the RAW file as a 16-bit PSD file, made changes and I saved the Photoshop edited file with the same file name. It updated the Aperture image, but there is no other image, just the PS-edited file with the sigil that means  "The photo has been edited with an external editor, and is therefore represented by the original created when the file was exported to the external editor."
    But I cannot see the original master file. It's not stacked, it's not moved, it's simply gone. How do I get the original RAW master back along side the PS edited version to make more/other edits?
    Brian

    Are your raw files part of a raw+jpeg pair or raw-only?
    When I tried to reproduce your problem, but for me the external edit is working as described in the manual.
    Set the "External Editor Format" to 16 bit psd in the "Export" preferences.
    Select the image in Aperture's browser and use the command "Photos > Edit with Adobe Photoshop CS 6"
    Edit Photoshop and use "File > Save", not "Save as".
    What exactly do you see, when you are using Photoshop as an external editor?
    As soon as I use "Photos > Edit with Adobe Photoshop CS 6", the new PSD version will appear alongside the raw, and after I save the file in Photoshop, the thumbnail will be updated.
    Do you also see the new version appear, before Photoshop opens?
    The only way I cannot see the versions side by side, is if I do not set the sorting in the browser to "Date", or if the search field is not cleared.  You may want to check the sorting of the project and check for filters.
    For example: Editing a raw-jpeg pair, first with "8bit tiff" export, then with "16bit psd" export.
    If clearing filters and changing the sorting does not bring the original back, I'd try to repair the Aperture library - this may recover missing originals in a "Recovered" project.
    Repairing and Rebuilding Your Aperture Library: Aperture 3 User Manual
    Regards
    Léonie

  • Photoshop File Compatibility

    Why doesn't lightroom recognize Photoshop files that are not saved with maximum compatibility checked on the save dialog? Almost all of my psd's have been saved w/o max comp. and now I can't view them in Lightroom. In addition to the pain of having to resave all these files, they will take up significantly (I think) more disk space. Am I missing something?

    Bob is right. There are far too many things that can reside in a Photoshop
    PSD file with compatibility turned off that Lightroom knows nothing about,
    layers, layer masks, layer effects, etc. With compatibility on Photoshop
    generates a fattened very of the image and places that in the file along
    with all of the other stuff (layers, etc.) so that programs that are not
    Photoshop stuff aware can at least see and display the file.
    Do a batch update of them and turn on compatibility in the preferences.
    Robert

  • Aperture Displays PSD Files as All Black

    Hi,
    I've followed the instructions to set up the preferences in Photoshop to maximize compatibility (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=302624), but when I import the PSD files into Aperture, they aren't displayed properly - they are just shown as black. I took some screenshots here:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/41768092@N00/2763865123/in/set-72157606737164795/
    1. PSD files just shown as black
    2. But the Quick Preview displays the big picture correctly (but not the thumbnails)
    3. The Loupe also shows it almost correctly.
    Does anyone know what might be causing these PSD files to not display properly?

    The only PSD bug that I am aware of is one that I have been wrestling with Apple over since leopard was released. It may be effecting you here but maybe not. If you have a saved alpha channel (selection) of any kind it will screw up the display everywhere in leopard including Aperture. Check to see if this what maybe doing this to you. If it is hit the thread back and I will describe my workaround. If not ?
    RB

  • Photoshop CS2: "file not compatible with this version of Photoshop" error

    So, I've been working with Photoshop for almost 20 years now, and lately I've been getting this error message on occasion (but not on every file) when I go to open a file I worked on just yesterday: "Could not complete your request because the file is not compatible with this version of Photoshop." I just worked on it yesterday in Photoshop. The file was saved as a PSD, and when I attempt to open it through Painter IX, that program tells me that it's not a Photoshop document. Why can't I open this file anymore, and why is it giving me this error message when I don't have Norton AntiVirus installed, and my 'maximize PSD and PSB file compatibility' is set to 'always'??
    Does anyone have an idea on how I can open my file? How can I get around this, and how do I prevent it from happening again?
    OS: OSX 10.4.11
    Photoshop CS2
    Info:
    Kind: Adobe Photoshop file
    Size: 394.4MB
    Created: December 13, 2007
    Modified: Yesterday at 3:54 PM

    This is the boilerplate text I use in connection to saving to a network (please NOTE the part where it explains that normally, it does work, but that it is impossible to troubleshoot someone else's network remotely, and that's why it's not supported by Adobe):
    If you are opening files over a network or saving them to a network server, please
    cease and desist immediately
    in the event you are currently experiencing problems with one or more files.
    Working across a network is not supported.
    See:
    http://www.adobe.com/support/techdocs/322391.html
    Copy the
    CLOSED file from your server to your local hard disk, work on it, save it again to your local hard disk, close it, and copy the closed file back to the server.
    Of course, the fact that Adobe does not support working across a network does not necessarily mean it won't work. It should.
    Adobe's position is that there are too many variables in a network environment for them to guarantee that everything will work correctly in every network, especially given the fact that if something does
    not work properly, it's probably the network's fault, and Adobe has no way of troubleshooting your network.
    If you can't work locally, you are on your own, and if something happens, you're on your own. If you must work from a server, make sure your network administrator is a competent professional.
    When problems arise, a lot of valuable work can be lost.

  • Please help me Automate an Aperture/Photoshop workflow

    I'm trying to streamline the process of exporting a RAW file from Aperture to Photoshop for editing and then re-importing it into Aperture. I have zero experience with Automator, but someone else on the Discussions site was kind enough to share hte Automator process he uses for this.
    Problem is, I can't get mine to work (or I don't know how to make it work).
    I created a folder called "Photoshop-IN" where I would export the RAW files from Aperture that need editing. Then I created a folder called "Aperture-IN" where the completed Photoshop files would be exported for re-import into Aperture. Then I created this workflow:
    http://homepage.mac.com/chriskresser/PhotoAlbum16.html
    I think the workflows are correct, but I don't know what to do at this point. The original poster said something about making them "watched folders", but I have no idea what that means or how to do that.
    To test the workflows, I tried exporting a RAW photo from Aperture to a "Photoshop-IN" folder. Then I opened Automator and clicked the play button for the designated workflow. It tells me it executed properly, but nothing happens. The CR2 file wasn't opened in Photoshop, is still in the folder, and didn't get moved to the trash.
    I also tested the other workflow (getting PSD file back into Aperture), and that doesn't seem to be working either. With this workflow, I get the following message. "Aperture got an error. Some parameter wasn't understood. (-1715)".
    What am I doing wrong? I realize that this might be pretty far off topic, as it is more a question of how to use Automator and possibly AppleScript. But any help would be appreciated, including direction to some resources where I could learn more about Automator (the help section is woefully inadequate!)
    Thanks again,
    Chris
    G5 2.0 dual-core   Mac OS X (10.4.3)   17" Apple LCD, iSight, Bluetooth Keyboard & Logitech Cordless Laser Mouse

    Your PS-in workflow is too complex, all it needs is a Finder action to open in PS:
    http://www.azurevision.co.uk/aperture/open-in-ps-action.jpg
    Then File>Save as Plug-in..., choose 'Folder Actions' and then where it asks what folder to attach it to, navigate to your folder. Now, every file that is copied, moved or saved into that folder will be opened in PS.
    The import into Aperture workflow is mostly OK, but you are passing a folder from the first action, not files. Try adding a 'Get Folder Contents' action just after the first action. With a bit of jiggling around and using the two actions of that workflow you should be able to save it as a folder action.
    A couple more threads using a slightly different approach:
    http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=1292903
    http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=1372571
    Basically these export a RAW file out to a watched folder (as you are trying to do), but instead of saving it out and re-importing into Aperture, a duplicate file is made in Aperture by using 'Open in external editor' and saving the converted file into that.
    Ian

  • Importing Multi-Layered Photoshop CS2 files...

    Hello again everyone. I trust you are all well.
    I am currently constructing some tutorials for my Video Editing class and I am trying to demonstrate how to import and use Multi-layered Photoshop CS2 files inside Final Cut Express 2.0.3.
    Here is the problem:
    My iBook is running Final Cut Express 2.0.3 but does not have Adobe Photoshop CS2 on it. My DELL PC is running Adobe Photoshop CS2 and I am creating my PSD's on that and then transfering those PSD's across to the iBook with either my USB stick or my iPod.
    Now according to the Final Cut Express 2.0.3 Help file, "When you import a layered Photoshop File into Final Cut Express, the file becomes a sequence in your project".
    However, when I import my PSD, that was created on my DELL in Photoshop CS2, into Final Cut Express 2.0.3, it does not import it as a sequence, but as a flattened still image.
    Is this because I need to have Photoshop CS2 installed on my iBook for the PSD to be imported correctly as a sequence, retaining the layers, or is there a compatability issue with creating PSD's on a PC and then trying to import them into Final Cut Express 2.0.3?
    Regards,
    Justin Pamenter
    Multimedia Teacher

    Thanks for your quick reply Tom!
    I had a feeling this might be the case after I did some more testing with Photoshop files created on a MAC. If I resave those PC Photoshop files on a Mac in Photoshop, they import correctly as a sequence into Final Cut Express.
    Thanks again for the advice!
    Regards,
    Justin Pamenter

  • Saving Photoshop CS4 file for Photoshop CS3

    Hello
    How should I save a Photoshop CS4 file so that a client running Photoshop CS3 can open it? In other words is Photoshop CS4 backwards compatible with Photoshop CS3?
    Marlene

    Just save it. but keep in mind that any CS4 features that you may have used will not be available in CS3.
    Always save with maximize compatibility on.

  • Editing text in Photoshop CS3 file causes crash. File originally created in Photoshop CS6

    Trying to edit text in Photoshop CS3 file causes a crash - Tried on multiple PC's
    File originally created in Photoshop CS6 with "Maximise PSD/PSB File Compatibility" set at "Always".
    Document size A4, using Arial Regular. RGB. 8Bits. 72dpi
    Colour Profile: sRGB IEC61966
    Multi business licence for CS3 and CS6 Design Standard/Premium/Master Collection all on PC
    Please Help!

    Interestingly I have found that if I modify a document in CS6 from an earlier CS3-CS5 document and save it - it works fine. But if I create a new document in CS6 the issue persists.
    Looks like I will be modifying old documents for the time being
    Would be grateful for some advise eon this.

  • Aperture, Photoshop, and Apple's possible direction for Image Editing

    All,
    After using Aperture now for several days, and reading many different forum topics, in particular this one which speaks of desired enhancements to Aperture:
    http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=253594&tstart=0
    there is one thing that really sticks out on my mind. While all of us photographers have slightly different specifics to our workflow, in general they are very similar. And with respect to Aperture, there is one huge area where most of us seem to be hitting the brick wall: image adjustments, and by extension, image file management. Let me explain what I mean.
    I think it is a fair generalization to say that the vast majority of serious digital photographers are using Photoshop (or some other image editing app, but I'm just going to refer to Photoshop for convenience) for post-processing of some kind. In using Aperture, and figuring out how to fit it into workflow, we've got this situation of how to move from organization and image library management to the full gamut of image adjusting functionality (photoshop) and back again to library management. The need to use photoshop then exposes the issue of how files are stored on the filesystem, etc. Stay with me here...
    I have found myself thinking, and it is pretty clearly demonstrated in the forum topic mentioned above where folks are making suggestions for improvements to Aperture, that there's this barrel people are over in knowing whether Photoshop and Aperture should live in the workflow together, or whether Aperture should (or is intended to) replace Photoshop in the workflow. This got me to thinking about the fundamental question -- what is the intent, i.e. the vision for Aperture? Is it meant to replace Photoshop, or restated, is Aperture meant to be the app in which all image adjustments are to be made, OR is Aperture meant to just ease workflow, and is it intended not to be the primary app for image adjustments, but rather integrate with the primary image adjustment app?
    The reason I bring this up is that the answer to this question makes all the difference in what enhancement requests and what people should expect from Aperture now, and in future versions. If Aperture is the primary place for image adjustment, then its obvious that there are some very significant additions that need to take place to Aperture, and likewise, the issue of putting images on the filesystem becomes much less important. However, if Aperture is a workflow-easer, then such image adjustment improvements are minimally important if at all, and filesystem / Photoshop / PSD file integration becomes paramount.
    I know what Aperture does, what features it provides, etc. But I can't help but realize that its not really that clear (or I just don't understand yet) what the full scope of Aperture now and in the future is intended to be, and the forum topics are pretty decent documentation of the fact that the user base at this point is fairly cloudy on that too.
    I can't help thinking that in the midst of the Apple pro line of tools, where we have tools that edit: video, audio, DVD creation, text effects, and now digital photography workflow, that there's one glaring hole: static image editing, i.e. a direct Photoshop competitor. I went through the Aperture video demos before Aperture shipped, and watched these photo pros talk incessantly about how "now there's an app that addresses how I work -- Aperture". That's great, but Apple has to know the role that Photoshop plays in present photography workflow -- for those pros too. So I'm sitting here thinking to myself, why would Apple roll out such a product with some clear workflow hurdles to common Photoshop usage.
    Ok, here's the punchline: does anyone else here have a sneaking suspicion that Apple is not to far off from releasing their own image editing application that's a direct Photoshop competitor? I mean come on, Final Cut Pro, Motion, Sountrack, and by extension of the CEO to Pixar, Renderman. How can you not have a static image adjustment application entering the scene at some point?
    I'm curious what others think. I'm just trying to make sense of how to fit the neat stuff I see in Aperture into a workflow that doesn't play very nicely with Aperture at some points (because I'm using Photoshop).
    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

    So Apple adds curves adjustments,
    we'll need noise reduction, greater sharpening
    capability, etc., etc., and then when we have all
    those features, surely we'll need masking and select
    capability to perform those adjustments selectively,
    etc. Where does it end?
    Actually that could be a good cut-off point - add a few more/better 'global' adjustments but leave all mask, selection and layer based tasks to external editors. Personally, I used to swear by curves, but haven't really touched them in PS for a year since shooting more RAW and learning how to use the shadow/highlight adjustment properly. Sometimes for overall colour for JPEGs, but that bit can be done just as well in levels.
    My workflow isn't particularly typical, but here goes.
    Type of photography - stitched panoramas as a professional, plus general snapshots/nature/landscape as hobby. Single user with no network storage.
    Currently I use a very organised folder structure in the Finder, along with aliases in DragThing docks for easy access to final stitched files, all with their own unique ID. RAW conversions are done in ACR/PSCS2, or Bibble if I'm in a hurry on the laptop. About 40% of the panos are shot in RAW, 40% are bracketed JPEG and the remaining 20% are 'single' JPEG. The panoramas go through quite a lot of post-processing in PS using a whole series of actions and AppleScripts.
    I'm expecting my workflow to look something like this:
    1) Download directly into Aperture, possibly with added help from Automator/Applescript when it comes to proper date-based names.
    2) Divide download into a new album for each panorama.
    2a) If it is a people pano there will be quite a lot of duplicate shots for each panohead position - make a stack for each position and choose picks - this bit will speed things up enormously by itself. Reorder stacks to fit correct order of images going around the scene.
    3) Export to TIFF (sometimes JPEG) and stitch using PTMac (sometimes Realviz Stitcher). Oh, and any people who think Aperture is limited, buggy and bad value should go and look at Stitcher - it costs the same, has a far more limited feature set, is on version 5 and by comparison makes Aperture look bug-free.
    4) Bring stitched panorama into Photoshop to adjust seams through layers if needed, flatten, final tone adjustments (usually using shadow/highlight), possibly some colour tweaks, sharpen. For bracketed shots I will blend together the three exposures at this point using a custom action - this kind of thing is unlikely ever to make it to Aperture.
    5) Bring final print-ready file into Aperture for cataloguing/backup.
    5a) If file is too big for Aperture, make a smaller version for cataloguing and store original file in Finder. This gives me a good file for 90% of purposes, with the huge file available with a bit more work.
    Too big? I've found that Aperture gets sluggish with files over 18-20,000 pixels wide, and chokes totally somewhere between 25,000 and 32,000 pixels wide - 'image format unsupported'.
    To summarise - organise and convert in Aperture, stitch in specialist software, do PS-specific stuff then bring final image back in to join the source images.
    Ian

  • Photoshop .psd files converted to Unix Executable files

    I'm an illustrator and I store my art on CDs and DVDs. After a period of time my files are converted from Photoshop .psd files to Unix Executable files and I can't open them. What can I do to get my work back??? -and keep this from happening in the future. Why does it do this????
    Thanks for any help.

    The file sizes range from 22.2 MB to 67.9 MB.
    Size isn't the issue then. Linc was asking that question because we see that with other file types. Older fonts in particular, which have all of their data in the resource fork. If that gets stripped, you end up with a zero byte file.
    Does that mean I'll have to go through the Adobe authorization process for Photoshop again?
    If the version of Photoshop you're currently using is already activated, then no. Either way, it has nothing to do with .psd files showing as UNIX executables.
    In Windows, any file that doesn't have an association to a program is displayed as a white, dog-eared piece of paper with the Windows logo in the middle. That's Windows' way of saying, "I have no idea what this is." In OS X, (except for those files which actually are UNIX executables), displaying them as such is OS X's way of saying the same thing.
    I thought I was home free when the icon changed to a thumbnail picture of the illustration, but PS refuses to open it saying it is not a Photoshop file. ???
    Now that is weird. As of Snow Leopard, Apple put the old Type and Creator codes to rest. It will read them as a last resort to try and identify an older file, but none of Apple's applications add them to any file they save. For better compatibility with Windows, and OS X's own underlying UNIX core, file extensions have taken their place. So adding a .psd extension should have worked. Without playing with one of your files, I couldn't tell you why Photoshop declared it wasn't a valid .psd image.
    On a side note, Apple added Uniform Type Identifiers to OS X to keep things separate. A big problem in Windows is that multiple apps may use the same file extension. EPS is a big one in printing. So you have Photoshop, Illustrator, Freehand, Quark and others all using .eps for Encapsulated PostScript files. However, Windows can only associate one application to any given extension. So if Illustrator happens to be the one tagged to .eps files, it will try to open any file ending in .eps, no matter what program actually created it. OS X keeps them separate with Uniform Type Identifiers. So even though multiple files may have .eps file extensions, the extra metadata keeps track of what program it actually belongs to.
    This is what is part of the LaunchServices database, and was why it was my first suggestion. If that database is wonky, you'll see weird things like this. Have you tried clearing it yet?
    The files are fine when newly burned to CD. It is only months, or years, later that they become Unix Executable Files.  This has happened to just about all of my CD backups and it's frustrating to think that CD backup doesn't work across newer OSs and Photoshop upgrades. I suspect that may be the problem, but it just shouldn't happen.
    That shouldn't make a difference. I've got a bunch of very old files created in Photoshop back from OS 8 on CD. No file extensions, as nothing did at the time. Just Type and Creator codes. They all open fine in PS CS5.5 in Snow Leopard, though the native Photoshop files do need to have a .psd extension added.

  • Issue (aka bug):  File compatibility and alpha channels

    When I enable file compatibility mode on photoshop (so that previews and thumbnails show up), the thumbnail and preview will be wrong when there's an alpha channel in the channel palette. Specifically, the thumbnail will be masked by the top-most alpha channel in the channel palette. Consequently, there is sort of a work-around--if you create a plain white alpha channel and make sure it's the top-most alpha channel in the palette, then the preview and thumbnail come out fine. Luckily, this requires negligible extra memory.
    If there's no alpha channel or I don't save alpha channels, the preview/thumbnail looks fine.
    In spite of the work-around, a fix would be nice. It'd also be nice if there was a way to have a preview/thumbnails in Finder without the large memory penalty of compatibility mode.
    Bart

    Yes, everything in Bridge works great. However, the search function in Bridge is SLOW and a bit flaky (same problem on the Windows side as well) so I like to use spotlight instead for searching. Additionally, I like to use iPhoto to create collections of images that will contain photoshop files as well as others.
    For now, it is workable for me to just use compatibility mode in photoshop and make sure all images with alpha channels have an all-white alpha channel at the top of the stack. The file size penalty is tolerable for now. If Apple ever fixes things on their end, then it's a simple script to convert my psd files back again.
    Bart

  • Aperture exports jpeg files larger than original RAW files

    Can anyone tell me why a RAW file (10.6mb), when exported as a jpeg (10.8mb) from Aperture ends up larger than the original RAW file. The same RAW file when opened and then saved as a jpeg (6.4mb) in Photoshop is a lot smaller. The photo dimensions and resolution are the same in both saved files (34.5mb open file 300dpi 4256 x 2831 pix). I have tried this on several photos, all with similar results. For information I am saving the photos in both Photoshop and Aperture at 300dpi, original size and at a quality setting of 12. In these examples/tests I have done no work to the photos, obviously the file sizes increase after work has been carried out on the photos (in both Ps & Aperture)
    Almost doubling the size of saved jpegs has a massive implication on my library and may be one reason to consider Adobe Lightroom as this gives similar jpeg file sizes as Photoshop, i.e. almost half the size of the original RAW file
    Reducing the quality setting on saved jpegs is an obvious way to reduce file size, but not answering the question of the considerable discrepancy when saving to the same quality in different software
    Is this a feature of Aperture and nothing can be done about it ? I would prefer to use Aperture but cannot cope with the large jpeg sizes !
    Any comments would be much appreciated - thank you
    Nick

    Think you might be right Allen - The 12 quality saved jpegs seem to be pretty high quality, closer to the original than maybe the files saved in Ps at quality 12. I have just run an identical set of processing actions on all the files in Photoshop and the jpegs previously saved in Aperture at 12, 11 and even 8 quality settings seem to be better than the same files saved at 12 in Ps
    Bizarrely the file size drops from 10.6mb at quality setting 12 in Aperture, to 3.2mb when saved just one notch down at quality setting 11 in Aperture. That is a massive drop, esp considering the next one down, saving at quality 10 results in a 2.8mb file
    rw just ran some checks and tests on the file export settings and file sizes in Aperture, on a file I sent him, and we get the same results. So at least my version of Aperture is not up the wall !!
    Would be useful to have the explanations from Apple as to the vast variance in settings and file sizes, but I guess we will just have to keep guessing - and buying more and more hard drives for all the large files
    I am considering keeping the RAW originals in future, and I suppose in this case I need only save smaller jpegs, and issue at whatever size they are needed at the time - just needs a bit of planning to look after an ever increasing collection, which is about to have two sets of images added at a time now. Added to the already amassed 80 000 images at last count !)
    Thanks
    Nick

Maybe you are looking for