Aperture RAW K-3

Apple has just release DCR 5.04, which finally includes support for the Pentax K-3. HOWEVER, at least with PEF RAW files from that camera, Aperture reports "Unknown lens" for all lenses. I have noticed before it does the same for JPEGs from this camera.
The EXIF information is clearly in the file, since if I use the Adobe DNG RAW converter to first convert the files to Adobe DNG, the lens information is included correctly.
Is there any Aperture preference setting that could address this? I'm guessing it's a bug that will never be fixed.

DNG files shot on the Pentax K-3 and imported into Aperture are displaying the correct lens identifications. PEF files are not. JPEGs are not either.

Similar Messages

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

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 RAW processing too dark?

I recently imported a set of pictures of my daughter into my Aperture library. Everything went smoothly and looked great with the previews looking like I expected. I even went through each picture one by one and flagged the ones I wanted to edit. After editing a few I went back again and looked at the unedited pictures to see if there were any more i wanted to flag and edit. Upon doing this, I noticed that after Aperture finished "Loading..." a couple pictures, they automatically got significantly darker. A couple of them to the point that adjusting "Exposure" to the highest setting makes it barely acceptable for use. On one picture I noticed got even darker after the 2nd "Loading..." process.
As a test I exported the originals to my desktop, loaded them in Lightroom, and voila, the pictures are back to their "non-dark" selves. Therefore, I believe this is an Aperture issue and I have no idea why re-"Loading..." the RAW originals would make an image even darker. I've attempted to reprocess the originals but it pops up that none of the images need reprocessing.
Any suggestions?

Are you using any in-camera post-exposure processing?
(Added:) Have a look at Keith Barkley's User Tip regarding setting your camera to get the best exposure in RAW for Aperture.
Message was edited by: Kirby Krieger

Aperture Raw Scanner Input...

I see that Aperture DOES NOT support VueScan's Raw DNG files. Do you know when we can expect that to change?
Thanks,
Robert

Hi Robert,
I did make a request through the Aperture – Feedback website five or six months ago. The problem with feedback is that no one is accountable. During that same time I was using my 90 day free tech support and an Apple Specialist was very kind and polite when I mentioned the importance of this request. In fact Pro support was very kind because they allowed me to activate the 90 days support after Aperture sat unopened on my shelf for a almost a year. The Specialist agreed with the request and mentioned that it was enough of a worthy point to formally write the request and submit it.
Towards the end of my 90 days I brought the point up to the same specialist and he said it would probably require a collaborated effort on boards like this one to try and get it implemented.
I have held off converting my slides into scans for this very important reason. I am very glad I have because just the other day 07/05/07 the Corbis “microstock” SnapVillage agency has just announced that they are making RAW files available to photo buyers because of the demand for such RAW files. It appears that photo buyers are all too aware of the RAW advantage and it looks as if Corbis is leading the pack in this new competitive arena. Who is next to follow the lead of Corbis?
After I bought Aperture 1.0, I read about many of the shortcomings so I purchased iVeiw shortly thereafter thinking I might need to zig that way. I’d really like to use Aperture but how long can someone expect to be delayed on starting up converting an image library into digital??? By this winter if there is no resolution to this Aperture shortcoming I think I’ll have to zag towards Lightroom they have been compatible with the VueScan’s RAW format for a long, long, time.
Com’on Aperture please fix this asap.
Bruce H

Aperture raw library management

Working with aperture and a macbook pro I have a feeling that I will fill the internal drive rather quickly when using raw format. Is there a way to have to raws imported to a external drive and still have the 'preview' jpgs still viewable when not attached to the external? I have a feeling it has to do with managing multiple libraries... either way I tried using google to find my answer but I dont think I quite know the correct question.

Is there a way to have to raws imported to a external drive and still have the 'preview' jpgs still viewable when not attached to the external?
Yes. Run a Referenced Library with the masters stored on the External drive.
Regards
TD

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 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.

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

Aperture RAW files preset

I've been importing RAW files from my Sony A77 for awhile now. When they import they look like the flat image I would expect. When I open a photo though and wait for a few seconds, Aperture "adjusts" the photo with heavier contrast/color/etc. Even when I adjust the RAW Fine Tuning, I can't seem to get the image back to the original flat one I want to work with.
Help please? Thanks!

What William said , but with the caveat that your RAW Fine Tuning settings play a determinant role in the extent of the adjustments you can make _with the other adjustment tools_, and in how you perceive the Image.
(The latter is equally important to the image developer, imho.)
Somewhat contrary to your thinking, maximizing Boost and Hue Boost, and minimizing Moire and Noise, would (I think -- I'm no expert here) give you the greatest possible range for your adjustments.
I try to match the RAW Fine Tuning settings to the environmental light. In the north-eastern United States, where I live, I use a RAW Fine Tuning preset that is about 9 for Boost and 7 for Hue Boost. During a recent trip to Patagonia, however, I quickly found that I couldn't get the equivalent of something I saw in the world, and then I remembered to raise both Boost and Hue Boost.
A local painter friend said to me, on arriving in Hawaii, "It's like having your eyes tattooed".
The settings for your RAW converter are important -- and knowing how and when to change them is, too. There is no reason, in terms of data-retention, to aim for a particular "look" in the converted-from-RAW image. But the conversion does play an influential role in the appearance of your data.
HTH,
Kirby.

Is there a way to save Aperture RAW edits (previews) as .tif files?

In iPhoto Preferences/Advanced, it is possible to choose to save RAW edits as .tif files. The resulting files are then stored in the Previews folder inside the iPhoto Library. In Aperture, edits of RAW files are stored in the Previews folder as .jpg files. I am aware that I can export the edited versions as .tif files outside of the Aperture Library. Is there a way to do it inside the Aperture Library, just the way iPhoto does??

Probably collecting everything on an artboard into a new layer might give you the option to use a script to save layers to files.
But this is a feature request but no as of yet has suggested a way that this might work, at least I do not think so.

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

Aperture Raw Update 5.07

Aperture vers 3.5.1 has a new digital camera raw update 5.07 (build 760.1) that I successfully downloaded and applied to all my Aperture libraries - without any problems - and I am also able to upload Nikon d810 NEF/RAW files into Aperture 3.5.1 as well, with no processing problems.
Please note that there is a new OSX update 10.9.5 that also needs to be downloaded to use the Aperture digital camera raw update 5.07
Good luck

Dear Torreypines,,
thanks for your reply. However I quoted the discussion "RAW files suddenly show up as "not supported" (Aperture 3.5.1, OS X 10.10)" to illustrate my test method (uninstall and install an older Digital Camera Raw Update Compatibility).
I do run the latests Aperture Update (updated directly from the Mac App Store).
To illustrate, here is a screenshot of an IMessage discussion.
Action : drag and drop a Nikon D7000 NEF file to the discussion and send it to an IPhone
- Test 1 : Yosemite, Aperture, Digital Camera Raw... up to date => plain black
- Test 2 : Older (5.07) Digital Camera Raw => picture ok (unfortunately, Aperture ko)
This illustrate also what appends into ICloud. All NEF files uploaded since a few weeks are plain black into photostream on IOS Devices (Iphone and Apple TV).
Kind regards,
Jérôme

Is Apertures RAW quality different from brand to brand?

Ex. I own the Nikon D50. Has Apple put the same effort into making a quality RAW reader as with other camera brands, or is there no difference at all? From what I have read there was a huge quality difference in viewing RAW files when Aperture went from version 1.5 to 2.0, so what exactly is it with each camera that Aperture has to support to be able to import the RAW file? Ex. the Nikon D90 and D700 are not yet supported. Why? Does Apple have to build a unique RAW plugin for each and every camera brand and model in the world to make it work with Aperture?

So many questions, so little use of search function.....
DVDstudios wrote:
Ex. I own the Nikon D50. Has Apple put the same effort into making a quality RAW reader as with other camera brands, or is there no difference at all?
Each raw file is proprietary format of the camera manufacture. Each raw processors/developer sw is unique. Only manufacture's own sw will pickup in-camera settings. None of the 3rd party (Aperture, Lightroom/ACR, etc) will.
From what I have read there was a huge quality difference in viewing RAW files when Aperture went from version 1.5 to 2.0, so what exactly is it with each camera that Aperture has to support to be able to import the RAW file?
Better algorithm and rendering. In particular to Ap 1.5 vs 2.0, go to Aperture product page and you will find lots of details.
Ex. the Nikon D90 and D700 are not yet supported. Why? Does Apple have to build a unique RAW plugin for each and every camera brand and model in the world to make it work with Aperture?
All raw files are supported as function of Mac OS X, and not a function of Aperture. Just a way Apple chose to implement it. Adobe will update ACR to include new raw formats fairly quickly. Until ACR is updated, DNG is also not viable for D90. Clearly D700 is not an issue for this.
Just so you know, Nikon still does not have CaptureNX/ViewNX that support D90 released. They will update very soon. Meanwhile if you want to shoot raw, recommend you shoot raw+jpeg so that you can keep going for now.
Cheers

Anybody know where I can find Aperture RAW update 4.02?

Doesn't seem to be showing up in the list of most recent RAW updates, looking for support for NEX-6. Thanks!

What is your Aperture version, Jack?
The Raw support for the NEX 6 is only available with Aperture 3.4, see footnote *** in http://www.apple.com/aperture/specs/raw.html.
Regards
Léonie

Aperture RAW K-3

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for