Aperture , RAW Engine v6 and X-Trans?

What do we know, or how can we find out, what Aperture is up to with Fujifilm X-Trans RAW files?
We “know” that two of Aperture’s weaknesses are the lack of lens correction tools and less-than-state-of-the-art noise reduction control.
As best I understand it, Fujifilm includes lens correction data in their RAW files and decoding them results in files with Fujifilm’s corrections (distortion, chromatic aberrations, etc.) already fixed. That might be one weakness down. Is it true that Aperture does this?
The X-Trans sensor has pretty good low noise performance resulting in less noise at fairly high ISOs. So less noise reduction is needed. That looks like another weakness down.
Is there an objective source of information on how well Aperture handles X-Trans RAW conversions, especially on these two specific points, versus the competition (Lightroom and Capture One, mostly)?
What do folks on this forum know?

This post by Eric Chan from Adobe is very imformative and reveals the reality of processing of raw files not only from Adobe's perspective but for all software that processes raw files from digital cameras. The thread is concerning Adobe's processing raw files from a Panasonic Camera model in comparison to the Camera's JPEG rendition.
I guess the same would hold good for the possibility of improved profiles for other cameras including the Fujifilm cameras.
"Sorry for joining this thread late.
Unfortunately this is a limitation of our current color profile process. This limitation actually applies to all of our camera models that we support, not just Panasonic. What is happening is that the color transform we've built is optimized mainly for daylight and incandescent light conditions, but when applied to scenes with bright light sources (especially neon lights, and especially blue/purple lights), the transform will tend to oversaturate and clip those colors.
My team is investigating how to build better profiles going forward, but in the meantime, my main suggestion is to try reducing the Red/Green/Blue Saturation sliders in the Camera Calibration panel (not the HSL tab, and not in the Basic panel). This will help to reduce the oversaturation and clipping, and will give you a better starting point for further edits (Exposure, Contrast, etc.). As a shortcut, you can store your Red/Green/Blue Saturation slider adjustments as a preset that you can then apply quickly to other images you have that show the same issue."
Link to the actual thread.
http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1254354?start=40&tstart=0

Similar Messages

Aperture Exporting JPEG's from RAW: file size and quality questions?

Hey Everyone,
So, I'm using Aperture 2 and I've got some questions about exporting from RAW to JPEG. I shoot with a Nikon D70 so original RAW files are 5-6mb in size. After doing some basic post processing when I export the pics at "full size" with picture quality of 11 out of 12 then the resulting JPEG is about half the file size of the original RAW file. For example a 5.6mb RAW becomes a 2.6mb JPEG. The resolution in pixels per inch and and the overall image size remain unchanged. Have I lost picture quality due to the exporting JPEG being smaller in file size?
My friend who works with me prefers to edit in Photoshop and when he follows the same workflow his saved JPEG from the identical RAW file in Photoshop is minimally smaller in file size, say 5.6mb to 5.3mb. He's telling me that my Aperture edited photos are losing quality and resolution.
Is he right, are my pics of lesser quality due to being a smaller file size? I've always been told that the quality of a picture is not in the mbs, but the pixel density.
I've bee told that Aperture has a better compression engine and that the resulting files are of the exact same quality because the PPI and image size are the same. Is that what explains the much smaller file sizes in Aperture?
I tried changing the picture quality in the export menu to 12 out of 12, but the resulting JPEG then becomes larger than the original RAW at over 7mbs.
Can someone please help me understand this better? I don't want to lose picture quality if that is indeed what is happening.
Thanks in advance for your help.

mscriv wrote:
So, I'm using Aperture 2 and I've got some questions about exporting from RAW to JPEG. I shoot with a Nikon D70 so original RAW files are 5-6mb in size. After doing some basic post processing when I export the pics at "full size" with picture quality of 11 out of 12 then the resulting JPEG is about half the file size of the original RAW file. For example a 5.6mb RAW becomes a 2.6mb JPEG. The resolution in pixels per inch and and the overall image size remain unchanged. Have I lost picture quality due to the exporting JPEG being smaller in file size?
JPEG is a "lossy" file compression algorithm. Whether Aperture or PS, *every time a JPEG is saved some loss occurs*, albeit minimal at the 11 or 12 level of save, huge losses at low save levels. Some images (sky, straight diagonal lines, etc.) are more vulnerable to showing visible jpeg artifacts.
My friend who works with me prefers to edit in Photoshop and when he follows the same workflow his saved JPEG from the identical RAW file in Photoshop is minimally smaller in file size, say 5.6mb to 5.3mb. He's telling me that my Aperture edited photos are losing quality and resolution.
*Both of you are losing image data when you save to jpeg.* IMO the differences between the apps is probably just how the apps work rather than actually losing significantly more data. The real image data loss is in using JPEG at all!
Is he right, are my pics of lesser quality due to being a smaller file size?
I doubt it.
I've always been told that the quality of a picture is not in the mbs, but the pixel density.
The issue here is not how many pixels (because you are not varying that) but how much data each pixel contains. In this case once you avoid lossy JPEG the quality mostly has to do with different RAW conversion algorithms. Apple and Adobe both guess what Nikon is up to with the proprietary RAW NEF files and the results are different from ACR to Apple to Nikon. For my D2x pix I like Nikon's conversions the best (but Nikon software is hard to use), Aperture second and Adobe ACR (what Photoshop/Bridge uses) third. I 98% use Aperture.
I tried changing the picture quality in the export menu to 12 out of 12, but the resulting JPEG then becomes larger than the original RAW at over 7mbs. Can someone please help me understand this better? I don't want to lose picture quality if that is indeed what is happening.
JPEG is a useful format but lossy. Only use it as a _last step_ when you must save files size for some reason and are willing to accept the by-definition loss of image data to obtain smaller files (such as for web work or other on-screen viewing). Otherwise (especially for printing) save as TIFF or PSD which are non-lossy file types, but larger.
As to the Aperture vs. ACR argument, RAW-convert the same original both ways, save as TIFF and see if your eyes/brain significantly prefer one over the other. Nikon, Canon etc. keep proprietary original image capture data algorithms secret and each individual camera's RAW conversion is different.
HTH
-Allen

Aperture 3.4.1 and raw 4 update installed now many of my D700 and D800E raw files are turning in to unsupported file format?

Only happens if the file is opened for editing and not to all files. Pictures are visible in the browser. No issuses with Aperture prior to upgrade. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

leonieDF
Have not been able to re-install raw 3.13 always says newer software and closes
I have Aperture disc 1,2,and 3;
Followed commands to re-install from #3 no change in library's unsupported images when upgraded to 3.4.1
Uninstall again with Mac Cleaner all ?DLL files erased only library remains
Install #3 from disc and new permissions to open library"from newer version" and all of previous images restored, but new older ones start to blink out "they do not turn black but look like you are using rabbit ears to tune in your TV, scrambled" until viewed for processing then become unsupported.
Repaired 3.1 library and Aperture would open but not open library. Re-installed 3.4.1 many more images failing to load across entire 5700 Nef's library but not JPEG.
Close but where is culprit?
Raw 4 is always there even in Aperture 3.1 due to Lion OSX8
3.4.1 is the only down loaded upgrade, new down load each time
Raw files/cameras are D200,D700,D800E and possibly Lecia DLUX-3
IMAC 2.4 core 2 duo
4G 667
Radeon HD 2600
OSX 10.8.2
no aperture problems since 1.0 until recent upgrades
Thank-you

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.

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 2.3 update and Canon 350 (xsi) RAW+JPEG issue

Anyone know if this update fixes the problem with importing RAW+JPEG captures from Canon 350 (xsi)? I'd hate to download this update and then have to un-do it (again).
Thanks!

Not using a canon 50d, using a Sony a900 instead. Actually, DPP is special because it does absolutely no noise reduction (at least in AHD mode). You can see that it is actually noisier but with a much finer grain pattern than ACR, aperture, raw developer, etc. You don't get the blotchiness associated with the NR of these other converters. The beauty of this is that when you run it through your grain reducing software it is much better for the software to deal with (the noise hasn't been processed by any NR software- which makes the noise non-random) and as such produces much cleaner images. I just did a comparison of the noise with the A900... here are links of the comparison using a publicly available Imaging Resource Raw file:
http://idisk.mac.com/kshuler/Public/3200resultsarea1.jpg
http://idisk.mac.com/kshuler/Public/3200resultsarea2.jpg
http://idisk.mac.com/kshuler/Public/6400resultsarea1.jpg
http://idisk.mac.com/kshuler/Public/6400resultsarea2.jpg
Aperture doesn't do a bad job, better than most others, but still not as good as RPP.
Klaus
http://www.bokehtests.com

Noise reduction - RAW fine tuning and the Noise Reduction tool

Hi,
1- If I get it right, Aperture's RAW fine tuning "Automatic noise compensation" (translated from French) option uses the camera's information to adjust the noise. Is that correct?
2- The Noise Reduction tool is there to provide additional noise reduction, but this makes you lose some details. Is that correct?
3- How do you use them? I often find the Noise Reduction tool a bit overkill, but that's me.
4- This one is just out of curiosity. How does A3 compare to LR3 beta for you in that regard? In my testing, LR3 did a slightly better job (but A3 totally beats the crap out of LR2 for noise). BUT I have an old D50, and newer cameras handle noise better (especially Nikon), so does it really make a difference for a 2008 or newer camera?
Thanks!
Manu

Manusnake wrote:
pilotguy74 wrote:
I don't even have this option/checkbox in my Raw Fine Tuning brick.
I wonder if it's due to the type of files (Canon 7D). Do you still have those 7D files I sent you? Does the checkbox appear in Raw Fine Tuning for you with them?
I noticed this option in the manual the other day, but forgot about it until now.
True, it doesn't have the checkbox with the 7D files. However, it as a slider "noise suppression" (again translated) in the RAW fine tuning options (and still has the Noise suppression brick).
If you don't have this one too, have you reprocessed your images with Aperture 3? Since it has a new raw engine, it may be the cause of it.
I find it strange that Apple didn't tout the new RAW engine on Aperture 3 new feature, it clearly is an improvement over Digital Camera RAW 2, especially in noise suppression.
I agree the built-in noise suppression is much better than A2, but IMHO it pales in comparison with the Noise Ninja plugin from Picturecode. The key is that you calibrate a profile for Noise Ninja by shooting a color chart full screen on your computer at varying iso settings with each of your cameras. You then feed the images back in to Aperture, and tell Noise Ninja to create a noise profile for each setting. The results are amazingly good.
Now with a lot of new cameras, noise processing is getting less important because the high iso performance is so good....but this is what makes Noise Ninja special...even when the noise adjustment is subtle, because it is working from a profile created with your camera, at the iso the shot was made at, its effects are seamless. They just announced a 64 bit plugin for Aperture 3, so no bouncing into 32 like other plugins at the moment...
Sincerely,
K.J. Doyle

Aperture 2.1.1 and OS X 10.5.5. - Can't create nor update Vaults!

After updating to OS X 10.5.5 and installing the latest RAW file plug-ins update from Apple yesterday, I cannot update my existing Aperture vaults, I get the following error message:
The following error occurred:
Aperture has detected a problem with the vault “Aperture Vault”. You need to remove this vault and create a new one.
I deleted both vaults, created new vault, and when I press Update button, it compares empty vault to my library for some 4-5 minutes (why?! It's just empty vault!) and then Aperture shows the same message:
The following error occurred:
Aperture has detected a problem with the vault “Aperture Vault”. You need to remove this vault and create a new one.
I ran Disk Utility - Repair Disk Permissions - no problems. I installed 10.5.5. combo update over the existing system, restarted, and still I cannot create a new vault. The same error message. Any ideas why?
In Console I see two lines from Aperture:
08.9.17 19:28:52 Aperture[336] .sdef error: Operation could not be completed. (NSXMLParserErrorDomain error 1549.)
08.9.17 19:28:52 Aperture[336] line number: 2
I don't know is it related to this problem or not.

I am having exact same problems. Software update says that I have all the latest updates for system and Aperture (including the latest RAW file plug-ins). I can't update vaults. Every time I try to update, I get the following error message:
The following error occurred:
Aperture has detected a problem with the vault “Aperture Vault”. You need to remove this vault and create a new one.
I have deleted all vaults and tried creating new vaults. Aperture will permit the creation of the vault, but when I attempt to update it for the first time, Aperture works away for a while comparing the 'library' to the empty vault and returns the exact same error message:
The following error occurred:
Aperture has detected a problem with the vault “Aperture Vault”. You need to remove this vault and create a new one.
I rebooted computer and restarted Aperture holding down the option key. I requested that Aperture perform a 'Consistency Check' and when completed, I restarted Aperture the same way so that I could request that Aperture 'Rebuild Now' all projects. Once both activities had finished, I tired again to create a vault and update it and was able to create the vault, but unable to update it. The same message was returned:
The following error occurred:
Aperture has detected a problem with the vault “Aperture Vault”. You need to remove this vault and create a new one.
I did notice a change in Aperture's behavior before and after performing the 'Consistency Check'. Before performing the consistency check, Aperture had stopped giving this message upon quitting:
'Updating information for sharing previews'
After the consistency check, Aperture upon quitting would update information for sharing previews.
Is there a fix for this?

Differences between Camera RAW 6.4 and Lightroom 3.4

Hello,
I just installed the Lightroom 3.4 update and the Photoshop Elements/Camera Raw 6.4 update. I always thought the underlying RAW-engine was the same, but is that true? I have a Canon CR2-RAW file. When opening it into Camera Raw 6.4 the result differs from the result I get with Lightroom 3.4. In Camera RAW a relatively large part of the picture is colored red because of clipping in the highlights. When opening the same picture in Lightroom, only a very small part is clipping. The settings (Exposure/Recovery etcetera) are exactly the same.
Also, the histograms of the picture differ from eachother.
Who can help?
Igor

Lightroom actually uses four color spaces:
http://forums.adobe.com/message/3415073
But don't confuse 'Color Space' with 'Camera Profiles' – You can't change the color space in LR, and do not want to! The 'Camera Profiles' provided in LR are the 'in-camera' equivalents (Camera Standard, Faithful, Landscape, etc) and Adobe's Standard. Some more information here on Camera Profiles:
http://forums.adobe.com/thread/358016?tstart=0
The differences you are seeing between LR and ACR are real, but if you set the PSE color space to Adobe RGB this should be minimal. If this is not acceptable then your only option is a full upgrade to PS CS5 or PS CS5 Extended, which supports ProPhoto RGB profile. PSE does not!
Has your monitor been calibrated using hardware monitor calibrator for ~100 cd/m2 @ 6500K? If NO, STOP and go get one! If YES, read on. I personally have never liked the results using LR Camera Profiles with my Canon DSLRs (300D, 600D, 5D MKII). You can create custom develop presets using one or more of the available LR camera profiles, and they might work very well for you. You will need to shoot a standard subject, compare screen image to live subject real-time, make adjustments, and save as a new preset. Then you should be able to get pretty close for that one (1) subject type! I use the X-Rite ColorChecker Passport to create custom camera profiles with each of my camera bodies for Daylight, Cloudy and Tungsten lighting. With over 35 years of color darkroom experience the difference to my eyes is like night and day!

Exporting from Aperture, RAW+edits or JPEGs?

Forgive me if this is a basic question for seasoned users but I am new to Aperture (just coming to the end of a trial period).
I shoot in RAW format but have recently also included a JPEG medium sized version.
I have imported both versions into Aperture 3 and have chosen the raw version as the one to be viewed.
I would like to export the raw versions, as adjusted, into high quality large size file JPEGs which I can then burn to disk to share.
I can see how I export the master (with no ability to change the format) or the JPEG as it is (or at even a lower resolution). How do I get large size JPEGS from the raw version?
I have looked a little while for the answer - if it does happen to be covered elsewhere and I have not spotted it, please go easy on me.

Welcome to Apple Discussions!
In your camera, are you shooting RAW+JPEG, i.e. the JPEG is imbedded within a single file that includes the RAW image? This is an option for example on Canon cameras. When you Import form your camera, there are several options in the Import pane on the right side of Aperture’s window. You can select RAW+JPEG and use the RAW as Master or use the JPEG as Master. You should always select RAW as Master as you are limiting your control over the images if you work with JPEGs as Master. The JPEGs you import with those RAW files are not wasted however as Aperture will use them when present to generate Previews. Previews, when used, are what Aperture displays in the Viewer mode; Thumbnails are smaller than Previews and are displayed in the Browser mode.
You mentioned you are making adjustments to the Masters. I assume those Masters are your RAW files. So the images that are based on your adjusted Masters are called Versions. When you export, you can still Export Masters but those files will not include your adjustments. Typically you’ll want to Export Versions so the images you export include your adjustments.
Now to maximize the quality of the exported images, you can use the Aperture -> Presets -> Image Export to define how you want the images exported. You can Export your RAW adjusted images as JPEGs, TIFFs, PSDs, etc. So let’s say you choose JPEGs as the output format for your exported files.
When you execute the Aperture -> Presets -> Image Export or Files -> Export command, you’ll see a similar dialog in terms of selecting the image format and other items. It sounds like you want to use the JPEG format, original size, with high quality (use 10 or 12 for the image quality setting).
Are you exporting to be able to view on the Web (or any screen) or to print? If the goal is just to view, then you can select a DPI (dots per inch or PPI, pixels per inch) such as 72 or 100 or whatever matches your screen. If you are sending it to other people, you may likely select 72 as that’s the old screen default density. If you are planning on printing from the exported files, then you’ll want to select at least 300 dpi in the export panel.
As for colour profile, you can use the default sRGB as that will be commonly available for most users or make another selection as you wish. Your camera likely defaults to using sRGB colour space, but you can change that in some cameras to something like Adobe RGB 1998 if you have that option.
That should get you started. To summarize, define the settings you want in the Presets and I hope you have a better understanding of what Aperture does when you import your RAW+JPEG files and export Versions.

Aperture RAW profiles broken since 10.7.4 update

Since updating to OSX 10.7.4 last week it seems to have broken some of Apertures RAW profiles for some cameras.
My Nikon D700/D300 files are all fine but my RAW files for my Lumix GX1 are green!
I also get the message "This Photo was adjusted using an earlier version of Apple's RAW processing" and then it offers me the option to Reprocess.
This fixes the green issue but doing this file by file when you've imported over 100+ is a real pain. The RAW for the GX1 was supported and was working fine before updating to OSX 10.7.4
Any ideas whats going on?

See this support article: list: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4757
The support for the gx1 seems to have been moved directly into MacOS 10.7.4, and for Aperture this is a change of raw support.
Regards
Léonie
P.S: Perhaps this will help:No guarantees, I never tried it:
Re: This photo was adjusted using an earlier version of Apple's RAW processing

Aperture RAW questions

So, I just took a peek at my system and there is only 2GB of pictures and 150 of "other". I'm thinking that the "other" are my RAW files (since I only started shooting RAW on a regular basis 6 months ago). My macbook pro has been lagging a bit lately and I have a feeling these RAW files may have somehting to do with it.
My first question is where can I find these RAW files. I've seen it before, but forget how to navigate to it.
My second question is once I find these files, would it be safe to back them all up on an external, and then delete them from my macbooks' harddrive? Or is that just stupid?
Thanks.

1. How big and how full is your system drive? In Finder, select your drive and run "File→Get Info". Capacity and Available space are listed in the "General" section at the top of the Info window.
2. How big is your Aperture Library? In Finder, select your Library file and run "File→Get Info". The size will be reported at the top right of the Info window. You may have to wait a couple of minutes for Finder to calculate the size.
3. Are your Images' Masters Managed or Referenced (or a mix)? Referenced Masters are badged (you can show Badges on any of the seven Metadata Overlays, as well as on the Metadata tab of the Inspector). If any are Referenced, determine where they are stored, find them, and find out how much storage space they occupy.
In general you should keep at least 15% of your system drive free (empty) in order to not crimp your system's performance. It is normal for Aperture users to run out of storage space on their system drives. The common solution to convert some or all of your Images' Masters from Managed (= stored inside the Aperture Library) to Referenced (= stored outside the Aperture Library, usually on a different drive). Aperture provides tools to move your Masters wherever you would like them. NB: Referenced Masters are not backed up by Aperture's Vault feature, and are not backed up automatically when you back up your Library. Therefore you must add to your backup protocol something that includes backing up your Referenced Masters.
There are many many reasons for slowing performance. Lack of free space on your system drive is a common one, but you should not rule out others without checking. It is also advised to run Software Update to make sure your OS and other programs are completely up-to-date.
Good Luck.

Aperture RAW file compatibility

Hi there guys.
I've been considering Aperture2 for quite sometime now but am disappointed to find out that there is no RAW support for my camera, a Panasonic Lumix DMC FZ-28. The closest support is for an older FZ-50 instead while my camera is newer than this.
With that, I would like to know what my options are with regards to importing the RAW files from my camera to Aperture2 should I decide to pull the trigger and get it.
Thanks ahead.

A couple comments,
RAW is overrated for small-sensor Digitals like your Lumix. If you shoot in .jpg and use aperture for light editing and organization, you'll probably see an advantage over what you're currently doing. The fact that aperture's ads talk so much about raw is irrelevant, you can do anything it does (other than raw conversion, obviously) with a jpg. The only difference is that you have less control over the raw conversion, which your camera bight do better than aperture (it's a matter of taste at that point, not science).
Or, you could get a better camera, i.e., a nikon or canon that is actually going to be supported as soon as possible and has decades of history of making good cameras.

Aperture RAW support now independent of OSX?

When 10.5.2 arrived yesterday, it added RAW support for several new cameras to the OS, but not to Aperture 1.5.
Now, according to the new Aperture 2 pages, "* Cameras and camera backs followed by an asterisk require Aperture 2 with Mac OS X Tiger v10.4.11 or Mac OS X Leopard v10.5.2 or later."
10.4.11 did not include support for these new cameras, so this leads me to the likely conclusion that support for new RAW formats must now be internal to Aperture. i.e. It is NOT using the RAW support in OSX 10.5.2, but its own internal codebase instead.
If this is indeed true, does it mean we can expect speedier RAW updates for Aperture in the future? That would certainly be nice.

no doubt about this!
it was short sighted to have allowed aperture to rely on the OS for RAW file support. as a result, this positioned aperture in poor regards. now it looks like all these are now yesterday stuff, because with version 2 i'm able to import, view, and edit my ricoh g100 raw files. i couldn't do this with version 1.5, even with mac os x 10.5.2. so the current version is, i think, heading off in a good direction for aperture users.
Message was edited by: danielchow

Crazy TIFF problems at Aperture 3.4.3 and iPad 4

Hello,
i post 2 photos, thats the best to show whats crazy.
Aperture (normal export, Photoshop and so on)
http://files.ref6.com/aperture/aperture.jpg
Screenshot from my iPad 4 (also on my iPhone 4S)
http://files.ref6.com/aperture/ipad4.png
U'll see a type of a grid on the iPad screenshot.
There is also a second crazy problem:
I have some edited photos inside aperture from photoshop, removing some ugly parts of the photo with the repair tool.
Inside aperture i see the dots of the repair tool at the place where i used it - ONLY a second or so before aperture generates the preview (the big one, not the thumb). And... my iPad shows my only the crazy versoin:
http://files.ref6.com/aperture/aperture-2.jpg
http://files.ref6.com/aperture/ipad4-2.png
Any ideas? :-)

Thanks! =)
Yeah, i tried flattening those images, doesn't help. Thats a really crazy problem.
I could fix it... but thats insane.
2 Solutions:
the fast one
1) drag&drop the "bad" from Aperture to the desktop or where ever... (just drag&drop it, no duplicate action or so! attention: changed images with aperture are exported as JPEG, thats bad!)
2) drag&drop the image from it's new place (desktop or so) inside Aperture
3) delete the old "bad" image
4) sync
...the long one ;-) - if u made any changes with Aperture to the photo
1) edit the original (RAW) inside Photoshop (generates a copy of the RAW as TIFF inside Aperture)
2) open the "bad" image inside Photoshop
3) copy the "bad" image to the new one
4) save
5) copy the metadata from the bad image to the new
6) sync
But thats a really bad solution! Why does this happen?!

Aperture , RAW Engine v6 and X-Trans?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for