Aperture RAW conversion and noise

I've been using Aperture for many years and have recently learned something useful about how to tweak the RAW conversion settings.  Until recently I just left them at the default settings for my camera, a Panasonic GH2.
Anyhow I've not been entirely happy with shadow noise (otherwise I reckon it's a great camera).  Many web sites say that a degree of shadow noise is normal for this camera, so I didn't figure mine was any different.  I tried a variety of noise reduction approaches but none really made a worthwhile improvement.
Until a few days ago when I tried tweaking the 'Raw Fine Tuning' settings - and I found a way to make things *much* better.
Please note that the following comments may only be relevant to Panasonic RAW files, and maybe only for the GH2.  I don't know if they apply to other cameras (though I think they may.
It turns out that for the GH2, the default 'Raw Fine Tuning' setting includes 'Sharpening' of 0.78 and 'Edges' of 0.79.  This is fairly aggressive sharpening, but I didn't really realise what it was doing to noise until I  discovered that was significantly increasing shadow noise -even at base ISO!
If I set these both the sharpening sliders in the Raw Fine Tuning section to '0', the 'grain' in the shadows is much smoother - a massive improvement.
But, of course, the image is a bit less 'sharp'.  Well, this isn't much of a problem with 16+ megapixel cameras.  Unless you are making huge enlargements from originals, and really look closely at the finest details at 100%, it makes very little difference if you give up this 'sharpness'.  But the reduction in noise is actually very obvious indeed.  It's much better! 
Most of the sharpness I need on these less noisy images can easily be added by including the 'Edge Sharpen' adjustment, either at the defailt settings, or marginally toned down a bit.  I'm currently using Intensity 0.7, Edges 0.3 and Falloff 0.4.  This leaves most smooth areas untouched, so the 'noise' or 'grain' in smooth areas is as it comes from the sensor.  By toggling the Edge Sharpen on and off, I can easily confirm no change in 100% or 200% loupe views. 
That level of edge sharpening is a bit subtle, but actually achieves most of what I got from the Raw Fine Tuning sharpening sliders.  It will be applied only to in-focus contrasty things like eyelashes or hairs or other defined edges, and very nicely.
So I'm sharing this in case other people also find it helpful.  I strongly suggest removing the default sharpening entirely, and only using the Edge Sharpening slider in a cautious manner if you want to enhance sharpness.
Some related web pages:
http://www.jonroemer.com/blog/2011/01/aperture-3-too-sharp-tweak-the-default/
http://www.twin-pixels.com/raw-processors-review-aperture-bibble-capture-one-dxo -lightroom/
PS - there is a different issue with the default Raw Fine Tuning 'Boost' and 'Hue Boost' sliders, both of which are set to 1' by default.  It turns out that these introduce a very large amount of contrast and exposure gain - turn them down to zero and the image goes quite dark and flat!  The Aperture user guide says something about Hue Boost changing colours when Boost is set to '1' and this is the case.  So I've experimented with turning them both to zero, and instead using a custom curves adjustment to achieve a similar level of exposure and contrast to the default conversion and the camera's default JPG image.  By fine-tweaking the curves one can get better control of blown highlights and the overall contrast.  I'm not sure if the colours are 'better', but I think so.  I am fairly sure that I get smoother transitions in the mid-tonal ranges with this approach rather than just using Apple's default settings.  Maybe they are a but strong for my liking.  Certainly I can make curves that rarely require the 'Recovery' slider to fix over-boosted highlights.  Anyhow, you may also find that this tweak helps a bit.  Interestingly on a Canon RAW file the effect is not nearly as great in exposure terms, but there is also a definite colour change.
PSS - the end result is that I have set my camera preset for RAW fine tuning to zero settings for boost, hue boost, sharpening and edges.  I then add contrast as needed using curves, and sharpen only with a little edge sharpening.  I've then saved a few Presets with slightly different contrast curves and all with a little edge sharpening.  I can very quickly select the level of contrast needed, and I am very confident that my results are quite a bit better, with better tonal gradations and much less noise.
Hope this helps
Chris.

Nice observations, Chris.  I think the RAW Fine Tuning is often overlooked, even though it's a vital first step in RAW processing, and really the whole point of shooting RAW in the first place.  Too much boost yields horrible skin tones in my experience.  I have a default of .50 Boost and Hue Boost, Sharpening and Edges at .25, Moire .50, Radius 12.0 and Denoise .25.  I've found these are "mid range" settings for the Canon 5Dii, and first make small adjustments to the Fine Tuning brick before moving on to exposure adjustments. 

Similar Messages

  • Aperture RAW conversion colour noise with Canon 1D Mark II

    I'm using Aperture 2.1 and am wondering if anyone here is having this problem - basically highlights end up with false colour with this camera/RAW conversion combination. The problems appears to have been introduced with the 1.1 RAW converter as 1.0 conversions don't seem to have the problem. I'm not sure if this is camera specific, or whether there is some tuning which can be done to the RAW converter to minimise the effect - attempts have so far failed with this approach.
    The best subject to produce the effect is strong reflections from water - i've attached a crop of an image which shows this problem, and I can supply a RAW with this problem.
    Conversion using RAW 1.0 (less or no colour pixelation):
    http://www.loftsoft.co.uk/pictures/KC7U5116%20-%20RAW%201.0.jpg
    Conversion using RAW 2.0 (colour pixelation):
    http://www.loftsoft.co.uk/pictures/KC7U5116%20-%20RAW%202.0.jpg
    Any suggestions as to what to do? Is this simply a RAW conversion problem which can be addressed or am I using the tool wrong?
    Many thanks,
    Cesare

    Hmm. I can see some color effects in the 1.0 conversion as well.
    Those are some touch photos... you have lots of specular highlights with the sun reflecting off the water and the railing.
    Aperture 2.x and 1.x handle the RAW conversion differently. I would suggest you try playing with the RAW Fine Tuning brick, specifically with the Moire and Radius sliders, and try fiddling with the Auto Noise Compensation checkbox.
    I don't know whether you'll be able to make the problem go away completely or not.
    With my ~30,000 1D Mark II files I've seen something similar to this (though much less extreme) on a couple of them. Always with specular highlights though -- off water or metal objects.
    Still, you may wish to submit Aperture feedback and include the RAW file.

  • Contact Sheets / Proofing and useful Aperture RAW Conversion

    All,
    I wanted to appeal to all of you pro photographers out there to share about how you handle the proofing stage (contact sheets) with your clients. I'm curious about how you all make this process as efficient as possible.
    Ok, say you have taken 1000 pictures for a wedding or some other event (forget the accuracy of that number, its just a round number for discussion sake). You need to present your photos to your client, but you need to present a subset of the 1000 photos for a few reasons:
    1) Not all photos you are going to take are going to be great. I've heard a general quote by some pro photographers that their "keeper ratios" (the percentage of pics that are really good from a shoot) run around 10%-20%. Fair enough, I don't want to debate this percentage, but it gives us a target number of 100 photos to present to a client from a 1000 picture shoot.
    2) Your client is probably not going to be happy if they have to sift through 1000 photos. I recently had a friend who paid several thousand dollars for a wedding photographer who sent them 1000 photos to choose from. They weren't particularly happy with this, and told the guy there was just too many to choose from. Personally, I felt that this was putting part of the photographer's responsibility on the client, but whatever.
    Ok...so for the sake of the example here, we have to get 1000 photos down to 100 photos, so the client can choose what 50 (for example) they want to purchase and have printed, put in their photo book, slide presentation, etc.
    Sorry for the long intro, but here is the issue at hand: we want to work quickly for the client, and get them their 100 photos as soon as possible. We also want to put our best foot forward, and give them high-quality photos. But at the same time, we want to work efficiently, and if possible not spend time doing final retouching on photos that the customer doesn't want, but rather focus this time directly on the photos the customer does want.
    I have two questions from this which pertain to Aperture's RAW conversion and workflow:
    1) Do you do any significant adjustments on photos for the contact sheets you present to clients (the 100 photos now)? Is it just a quick exposure adjustment, or are you retouching all 100?
    2) Despite Aperture's RAW conversion problems and other adjustment glitches, is it sufficient quality in your opinion for a contact sheet?
    My purpose in asking these questions is that perhaps the Aperture RAW conversion issue can be mitigated if we can get to the point of customer contact and review using Aperture-only conversion and adjustment tools, and then isolate photoshop use for only the final, significant edits. The problems with Aperture's RAW conversion are well-documented, but the question is, could it still be sufficient for small-scale proofs, understanding that for large-scale, high-res images, it won't be suffcient.
    Your opinons are valued!
    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

    ">-DELETE project from Aperture because I can't use the app for the delivery
    of finals:
    Forgive me if I've forgotten the detail you may have posted elsewhere about this. I have seen you mention this several times, but I am really interested in the specifics behind the problems you have encountered. I have some needs in finishing that are beyond just regurgitating a photo. I'll be basically augmenting my photo with text, borders, special effects, etc. for more professional presentation, and the ability to market a photo in different ways. This is one reason I cannot discard Photoshop from my workflow. Anyway, let's assume for a moment I'm able to do all my editing in Photoshop, and those PSD files are sitting within Aperture. From there, what problems am I going to encounter? I'm tapping your brain here, as the time I have spent in Aperture has been primarily oriented toward everything prior to the finishing stage. "
    Hi Brad,
    If I've imported images into Aperture that have previously been worked over in Photoshop, none of the layers I may have created in those files will be available to me from within Aperture. This does not break but severely sprains the functionality of Photoshop. I'm keeping the images around because I think I or my clients will need them later, so what might I do with them?:
    1) If I'd like to do more work on them I either have to abandon access to the previously created layers and their magic, or export the file from Aperture, work on it outside, import it back into Aperture. Every time I want to work with those layers I have to do the same dance.
    2) If I'd like to send jpg or tif versions of those files anywhere I can choose to use the tools within Aperture or Photoshop to do so. Aperture's tools for these conversions are simply not of professional utility: no compressed tifs, no layered tif support, no quality choices for jpgs and no jpg previews. And in either case, using Aperture or Photoshop, the conversions are created OUTSIDE of Aperture and not managed by it.
    3) When I decide to archive my older projects I'm faced with the incredible limitation that Aperture will not allow me any remote search of any archive that is not "live" within Aperture. Not even Spotlight will search Aperture libraries!!!!!
    So moving already created projects into Aperture has absolutely no advantages and a number of problems, any one of which might be a deal-killer by itself.
    If I'd like to use Aperture to manage work that I create going forward I've got those limitations already listed above, but I CAN access layers in PSD that are created from within Aperture. I cannot make layered duplicates of those files in order to work on versions of those images so once again the Photoshop workflow is hobbled.
    All of this makes it a bad idea for my projects to make anything but a brief trip in and out of Aperture for sorting/proofing.
    Regards,
    fp

  • Aperture 3 RAW conversion and hot pixel problem

    I've used every version of Aperture since release, but I'm not very happy with the RAW conversion in Aperture3.
    My images from earlier versions have no hot pixel problems but if I update to the new processing I can see them.
    Single red or green pixel in the 100% crop image, that didn't show up before and also don't show up in LR.
    The images I'm importing are NEF files from a Nikon D2x.
    Is this a bug in the new RAW conversion for this camera?
    It makes all of my images now unusable through Aperture if I reprocess them?

    I haven't noticed the pixel issues that you mention, but I wasn't looking for that yet. Instead, my images from my Nikon D300 have been stressing A3 out as follows....
    I have been having new issues with A3 now. I bought A3 when it was 1st available and had all of the same issues that plagued some users, I worked through it and until recently have loved A3.
    While editing I noticed that A3 had a large number of my photos, about 30% of 34,000 images, labeled as being processed under an earlier version (A2). I decided to go ahead and re-reprocess the images, even though this step took a couple of weeks and countless crashes when I first purchased A3. Again, just over a week later, the images are now re-reprocessed within A3. And a new problem cropped up.
    My Macbook is...
    [img]http://jasonksepka.smugmug.com/photos/942470326_QzaME-M.png[/img]
    and when I open A3 and begin looking at my images, the program is slow to respond and when it opens an image I get a very unprocessed version of lines for up to 5 seconds before the image finally loads. The image and all edits do load, but the workflow is significantly effected and I would like to know why this is happening now, and how to fix it. Below is an example of what happens with each image.
    [img]http://jasonksepka.smugmug.com/photos/942470341_Q2WUZ-M.png[/img]

  • Aperture 2 Raw Conversion and Canon EOS 350D? Getting slightly worse?

    Hi,
    I have compared a few images I shot with my Canon EOS 350d using the RAW converter in version 1.1 and version 2.0. These pictures showed flowers with special lighting conditions (high contrast, with selective sunlight). Then I've looked at some other pictures.
    * 1.1 shows better distribution of light. In 2.0 a wall was more evenly lighted, where 1.1 showed that there are different different levels of light.
    * in 2.0 one often has to apply 'recover hightlights', where this was not necessary in 1.1. Bright areas on flowers are much brighter in 2.0.
    * in 2.0 dark areas are quite a bit brighter
    * in 2.0 some pixel-size artifacts were introduced. For example on some leaf, darker green pixels appeared that were not there in 1.1
    For the images I was looking at (especially when 'played' with light), the new raw converter of Aperture 2.0 seems to be a step backwards.
    What are others' experiences?
    Regards,
    Rainer Joswig

    I wonder if the slowness is related to the rendering of the canon raw files.
    As an experiment, you might try exporting the raw photos and creating a new separate library with them to see if aperture runs just as slow.
    Even if you find the nonraw library runs more smoothly, I am not really suggesting you adopt this as part of your workflow. It just might be good to know if the format is a factor or if something else is causing the laggardly performance.

  • Lightroom 3 raw conversion and fuji xpro 1

    have just bought a fuji xpro 1  and found that lightroom 3 doesnt support raw conversion. i realize that lightroom4 has, but  i dont want to spend x amount of dollars when lightroom 3 meets most of mr requirements. does anyone know if or when lightroom will provide the raw conversion

    platen wrote:
    have just bought a fuji xpro 1  and found that lightroom 3 doesnt support raw conversion. i realize that lightroom4 has, but  i dont want to spend x amount of dollars when lightroom 3 meets most of mr requirements. does anyone know if or when lightroom will provide the raw conversion
    Perhaps never.  The last version in series 3 was: 3.6 and if you have got it then it will be the last one.  If it is just one off thing then you can use the trial version of LR 4.1 otherwise you will have to buy an upgrade.
    I take it you have done the upgrade by going to:
    Help >> check for updates
    Good luck and let us hope you can do something about this.

  • Aperture RAW conversion & sharpening

    If I use Aperture 3, edit in Photoshop CC (PS6) does that mean:
    Aperture applies sharpening when converting a RAW file?
    If so, is Apereture applying the default sharpening normally applied in Adobe ACR?
    If not, can use the NIK Capture sharpening plugin in Aperture, before editing in PS?
    Thanks,
    Brian

    The only way you will be able to correlate the setting in one converter to another is to run tests on each and compare the images. The numbers aren't useless they just don;t do want you would like them to.
    If you use PS as Aperture's external editor you are going to be seining PS a tiff or psd file not the Raw file so  I'm not sure your concern is justified.
    All I can do now is throw out the Fine Tuning default, set everything to "0" and go back to doing everything manually in Photoshop.
    Well if you are doing the conversion in PS then the settlings in Aperture have no effect anyway. And if you are doing the conversion in Aperture you are sending a tiff or psd file to PS (a I wrote above) and then the PS converter doesn't come into play.
    The only way your concerns would be something to worry about is if you are doing two separate conversions, one in Aperture and one in PS, and wanted the two separate images to be identical but I'm not sure why you would want to do this.
    regards

  • G10 Aperture RAW conversion: what are your impressions?

    the wait is over!
    2.4 RAW Compatibility update includes Canon G10.
    what are your impressions?
    what Aperture settings yield best results?
    how do they compare to Camera RAW and DPP?

    When you compare photos that were photographed at ISO 100 they all do a good job. When you stat going up in the ISO is where I think Aperture does a great job. I've attached a screen capture of the same photos processed with 3 different applications. No adjustments were added to the photos. The default settings were used then the photo was passed on to photoshop as a Tiff. I think it's clear why I don't like ACR. Aperture and DPP are much closer. DPP has some noise reduction on by default so the photo looks like it has less noise then Aperture. I feel that the default noise reduction just makes the photo look a little soft and out of focus. If I turn off the default noise reduction in DPP the photo looks noisy. So I like Aperture better because of the way the noise looks, the sharpness and detail of the photo. Another area to look at is the neck and chest area. Aperture holds the most amount of detail before blowing out. I know that all 3 programs have adjustments that will help fix the problems in the photo. Even after doing that to the photo in all 3 programs I still felt that Aperture was clearly better. As the previous poster said it is subjective to each persons taste.
    I've never used this way of posting a screen grab so if it doesn't work forgive me. Make sure to click on the photo to view the large file.

  • RAW conversion bug with Noise Reduction

    Hello,
    I have found a serious bug in the RAW conversion when noise reduction is applied. When converting from two types of Canon RAW files (a CRW from a Powershot G6 and a CR2 from a 20d) I found that if you apply Noise Reduction to a RAW file on very low settings (the default setting in the NR function will produce this reliably) single-pixel lines appear at regular intervals throughout the image. Here is an example:
    You can see several lines in this image:
    http://farm1.static.flickr.com/140/3821480263171e76604b.jpg
    A 100% detail of which is here:
    http://farm1.static.flickr.com/179/382148021af6586d27eo.jpg
    Has anyone else had this problem? Can someone from the Aperture dev team fix this?
    -Steve G

    Well I find this filter is quite good in 'masking' block artifact that codec like xvid, or other low compression codec have. I only apply it if I find the block artifact is too much and I find this filter is less offending to my eyes than the block artifact.
    In manual it said that if you have noisy video and want to lower the size then you can use this filter. It also blur the video a bit. But I suspect it is more than blur as I try gaussian blur in time line and the result is not as good. You can see the result as well. There is the tab between source and target and you can compare the result by togling between source and target tab.
    BTW, anyone with 1 core, dual, or quad core, can you tried to encode with it? Just cancel it after few minutes as I want to see what is your processor utilization with this filter on. Also you can see how long does it take to process this video from the 'estimation time left'.

  • Noise issue with RAW conversions

    Dear fellow Aperture users,
    I have noticed on close inspection of my RAW images that that Apertures RAW conversion is less than poor. I shoot with a Nikon D70 and any dark areas on my images come out very dirty. I have tried correcting this using the new 1.1 controls but this doesnt help. However, when I open the same images on Lightroom, iPhoto or even Preview they come out fine, with a lot of detail!
    I love using Aperture, even though it can be very slow on my 1.33 PB G4, but these conversions are not aceptable. I have recently started uploading my images to a stock library, but they have been returned due to noise!
    If anyone has come across similar issues, or has any suggestions as to how I could rectify the situation, I would be more than happy to hear from you.
    Thanks in advance,
    Svendo

    Let me prefix this by saying my views are wholly subjective. But...
    High ISO ratings in Aperture seem to trade off between color saturation and noise vs. ACR. Aperture seems to go for saturation, which shows more noise chroma noise.
    To get around this I created a couple of different profiles for different ISO and lighting/contrast situations. My high ISO800/shadowy profile has:
    - Boost of 0.73
    - Sharpening Intensity of 0.28
    - Sharpening Edge of 0
    - Chroma blur of 5.5
    - Auto Noise Compensation On
    Camera is EOS 20d, so I'm not sure how effective this will be with your Nikon RAW's. This gets me in the ball park for most, and then I tweak from there as needed. These results are similar to those I get with ACR (when viewed at 200%).

  • I have an A77 and see that DxO RAW conversions look different

    Several RAW conversion comparisons on the web amongst A77 users are pointing to markedly better conversions and noise handling currently within new DxO 7 eg. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1037&thread=39970661
    I know that Sony's RAW have historically taken a while to arrive at optimal conversions from previous experinece with my A350. When Lightroom 3 came along it was like getting new cameras for most Sony Alpha users with from RAW performance at last matching Nikon from effectively the same sensors.
    Can you let me know the likely time lag till ACR and Lightroom will have an update to this initial default to really match the DxO performance. Otherwise, to be honest, despite being a Lightroom user since the original Beta stages and a passionate supporter and advocate, I may have to consider jumping ship. Working exclusively in RAW I do need to be using the very best conversions possible to make the best out of my investment in my camera equipment.
    I don't know if this lag with ARW conversions is because Sony don't co-operate with Adobe early enough or whether because Sony is only number three in DSLR share it gets less priority within Adobe than Canon and Nikon, but some timeline on a revised version of Lightroom to address this for the new Sony Alphas would be great.
    Many thanks from a long time advocate who really hopes I can stick with Lightroom,
    Cheers,
    Paul

    Hi Hal,
    Many thanks...I’ll give it a try. Not trying to cause trouble as I genuinely am a fan of LR, but if they always lag on getting to grips with Sony RAWs it’s a major drawback for Sony users.
    Cheers,
    Paul

  • Aperture 2 vs Aperture 3 RAW conversion

    I am new to Aperture and have been reading up on it. One point I thought was interesting was that v3 RAW conversion was considered improved over v2. I could understand that there could be a variance during the initial release of v3, but at some point v2 conversion would have been updated.
    Is there a difference between v2 and v3 RAW conversion?
    If so, how big of a difference? Would it be better to use Canon RAW converter instead?
    Thanks,
    Kenn

    You need to eyeball the various conversions using your own typical photos. Each different camera model is a different RAW conversion, and each individual's brain/eyes see them differently. With the Nikon D2x I prefer Nikon's conversion over Aperture's and Aperture's over Adobe's - but Aperture's workflow is superior by a lot so I use Aperture.
    If I was selling a thousand dollar large landscape print (I wish) shot on a D2x I would do the RAW conversion using Nikon Capture NX 2 rather than using Aperture, but that is just my personal preference with that particular camera model. And I see the difference as tiny, small enough that for most photography the workflow is more important.
    HTH
    -Allen

  • RAW conversion, iPhoto vs Aperture

    I currently shoot in RAW, save the folder to my desktop, convert files in ACR and import into Photoshop for edits; I then create a master edited TIFF for each saved image a, plus make 3-5 variations (composites, B&W, etc) of every master image . When all that is in the (renamed) desktop folder, I then import that folder into iPhoto where finished files are routed to Smart Folders.
    For added security I routinely backup all the RAW files using Export to an external HD.
    The ideal workflow (for me) however, would be to use Nikon's free NX2 software to convert the RAW files into TIFF, do basic editing and import both the RAW and TIFF conversions directly into iPhoto.  So far, I can't get that to work without going through the extra step of NX2>Desktop>iPhoto.
    Am I missing something in iPhoto, or maybe it can't handle that?
    Would Aperture allow that direct NX2 > Aperture import? I'm a little unclear on the Aperture RAW conversion process, so could I import RAW files folder into Aperture and then convert those RAW files to TIFF and edit them within Aperture? That way the only time I'd have to go outside Aperture would be to do something in PS that Aperture can't handle.
    Brian

    No
    You simply have to set your editing program as the external editor for iPhoto - in the iPhoto preferences you can choose to send RAW to the external editor or not - if you do then once you edit the photo you must save it to the desktop and import the modified photo into iPhoto creating a new photo - if you do not pass it as RAW then you save in the editor and it is returned to iPhoto and the database properly updated
    As to the process iPhoto uses - all originals are saved unmodified - RAW , TIFF or JPEG.  as they are imported a small JPEG preview is generated for quick access by iPhoto and other programs - with RAW an additional large JPEG preview is saved  --  when you edit in iPhoto the edit steps are saved and applied to the preview and to the thumbnail - future edits steps are also saved so you always start yoru edit with the unedited original and add edits so you never are but one step form the original eliminating the multiple editing losses that cause some people to use TIFF rather than JPEG   --  hence my comment
    Both can import and convert your RAW photos and both provide lossless editing so using giant TIFFs would not be necessagy
    and
    Unless you have very unusual requirements your work flow seems uncessary and overly complicated to me
    as to
    but if I want to see the original RAW file, and the edited versions stored within iPhoto
    If you want to see both then they both have to be there - since iPhoto always keeps the original and while editing in iPhoto you can view it at any time by depressing the shift key most people prefer to simply their work flow and save the disk space and let iPhoto handle this
    It really sounds like you do not want iPhoto and yoru best choice is to shoose a different photo manager that works like you want - or learn and understand iPhoto (and most if not all Digital Asset managers - DAMs - which work much like iPhoto) and use it the way it works
    You can use what you please and do what you please, but if you use iPhoto you are making life very difficult by going against its standard procedures
    LN

  • 1D Mark IV RAW conversion

    I recently got the 1D Mark IV. I have been disappointed by the RAW converter. RAW for the 1Ds Mark III is awesome. But the 1D Mark IV files have significant noise and squiggly artifacts in the shadows and bokeh. I think it is actually worse at low iso than at high iso. These artifacts are even worse with the color red. There is even some banding in the reds at iso 100 in an unprocessed image (master). I check the files in DDP, the artifacts are not there. So it seems that the problem is with OS X/Aperture RAW conversion. Has anyone else experienced experienced disappointing results with the 1D Mark IV?

    It doesn't look like the Edge Sharpening panel is part of the RAW conversion, it can easily be turned on or off.  However, the RAW Fine Tuning panel, at the very TOP of the the Adjustments pane, is available only for RAW files. 
    I noticed those Apple default settings are exactly the same for my 1DM4, 1DM3, and 40D.  For my 1DM4 files, I need to pull the Sharpening to 0, and push the De-Noise to maximum.
    I've also been playing with the in camera sharpening and noise reduction in the Custom Functions within the camera.  If you shoot in JPG mode, the files look great in Aperture, because the Canon profiles are processed right in the camera.  RAW files look great in DPP (Canon's RAW converter, Digital Photo Professional), also because of the native Canon profiles in that program.
    A friend of mine said Canon upped the native sharpening in camera on the 1DM4, so she dropped it to 0 in the Standard shooting mode.  I'm going to try that and see what happens.
    Anyway, I need to shoot in RAW, much of my work is indoors in poor lighting, and Aperture is a huge part of my workflow for large numbers of images.
    I'm still playing with it, and I've sent feedback to Apple about it.

  • RAW conversion comments

    I respect a photographers personal opinions regarding their perceptions of differing quality levels in RAW conversions but in the commercial world these perceived differences between Aperture and say ACR are so minimal they certainly do not qualify as a deal breaker.
    In the real world of commercial photography, design and printing, photo images are ultimately used as 8 bit CMYK files or when used for Giclee printing as 8 bit RGB files. These files go through so much retouching and manipulation after the RAW conversion that the esoteric quality differences talked about in these posts are irrelevant.
    The proper use of any Camera RAW converter is to balance the image before outputting it as a 16 bit TIFF or PSD for refined manipulation in Photoshop. This would include refined levels adjustments sometimes with layer masks and appropriate sharpening at the final output size.
    We typically use the RAW converter to:
    1- Pull back highlights that appeared to be blown
    2- Open shadow detail that appeared to be plugged
    3- Correct color casts and saturation
    4- In some cases add special effects such as conversion to rich B&W
    Very few serious professionals in either the commercial or fine arts world are going to use the RAW conversion as their final image.
    We can argue forever about the pros and cons of this or that RAW conversion quality, but in the real world Aperture's solution, while not absolutely perfect, does an excellent job within a program that enhances real world productivity.
    Dual 2ghz G5   Mac OS X (10.4.3)  

    Tom...
    With respect, your logic is hard to accept. You state that in the commercial world, images are typically so heavily manipulated that initially quality of RAW conversion is non-issue.
    I am surprised that no one has bothered to challenge this idea. So I'll step up.
    If my RAW conversion out of ANY program is going to introduce banding artifacts, 'parquet flooring' patterns, or other noisy type data into solidly colored areas, that will need to be fixed in this manipulation of which you speak. Who could justify having to do this sort of thing when there are perfectly good RAW converters out there that don't add this particular headache to the workflow?
    Your message states that "Apertures solution, while not absolutely perfect, does an excellent job within a program that enhances real world productivity."
    That statement stands as a contradiction when you consider that extra 'fixing' may need to be done to some images coming straight out of Apertures RAW conversion.
    I suspect that you (and others) are not seeing problems because evidence is mounting to support the idea that Apertures RAW conversion works better for some flavors of RAW than others. So, perhaps some people are seeing consisten image trashing, and some not. If this is the case, one could easily understand why some are 'satisfied' and some are positively livid.
    However, I digress. I still don't agree at all with the idea that in the commercial world a substandard RAW conversion would make an acceptable starting point for any commercial image, regardless of how much manipulation down the track its going to go through. I can't see any art director being satisfied knowing this was going on in their shop.
    "Aperture - sure it mangles your images, but it does a heck of a job keeping track of them!"
    Jim

Maybe you are looking for

  • Urgent: Can't lookup entity bean

    Dear all, I define a business process in workflow engine, which invoke a java class to get DB data through CMP entity bean. The entity bean was packed in to a ear and was workable/callable within the same ear. However, when the workflow engine can't

  • Extract image in Photoshop CS4

    Hello, I'd like to extract an image in Photoshop CS4, but I can't find the Extract tool. I saw an online tutorial that says it's under the Filter Menu > Extract. But it's not there. Any thoughts? Thank you.

  • How can I upload my app by application loader?

    My status is "waiting for upload". But I choose the .app file by the application loader. How come?

  • How do i download photoshop elements 8

    I just purchased a new computer and need to reload photoshop elements 8, but I lost the original software

  • USB data cable for E71x

    Can this cable be used to charge the phone from the computer?