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

Similar Messages

Hello, RAW snaps too dark in Lightroom.

Hello,
I made a snap with D-Lichting automatic in JPG and in RAW format at the same time.
When I look to the snaps in Photoshop I remark a difference in histogram. Both snaps have the same wave length, not the same frequencies. The red and blue colors’ are a higher in RAW; the green colour is higher in JPG!
Both pictures look to be the same, lighting seems to be ok.
The same RAW picture opened in Lightroom is dark, under-exposed you should think.
Could I get some advice to get solved this problem?
Many thanks in advance
Marianne

Dear Rob,
ADL is off and I made again some snaps. RAW ( NEF) and JPEG are taken at the SAME time.
When I have a look tot snaps in Lightroom they look ok. When I have imported them in Lightroom they are still too dark = over exposed. What could be happen?
vriendelijke groet!
Marianne
Van: Rob Cole
Verzonden: woensdag 29 oktober 2014 13:41
Aan: Marianne Matthys
Onderwerp: Hello, RAW snaps too dark in Lightroom.
Hello, RAW snaps too dark in Lightroom.
created by Rob Cole <https://forums.adobe.com/people/areohbee> in Photoshop Lightroom - View the full discussion <https://forums.adobe.com/message/6878930#6878930>

Aperture 3 prints too dark

I've been using
aperture 2 since it came out, no problems. I upgraded to Aperture 3, and have had no problems with my Library, but it won't print like Aperture 2 did - the prints are far too dark.
I have copied the same file to Lightroom, and with exactly the same settings, it is printing fine. I still have Aperture 2 on my MacBook, and that prints fine.
So what's going on?

I've just spent the last hour doing print tests with 3.0.1 using two printers and two papers. My 27 inch iMac is calibrated with a Spyder3Pro and the brightness of the screen is turned down 4 notches from full. I have to say my default prints weren't bad, but here are the tweaks that made a difference:
• Epson R2880 with Ilford Gallery Smooth Pearl: brightness +1.15, contrast +0.03, Relative, black point comp OFF.
• Epson Stylus 1400 with Epson Premium Glossy Photo: brightness +1.10.
These settings give me prints that are pretty bang on. The Ilford paper tends to be a bit bluer than its onscreen profile so I've made a preset that punches the yellow. Works well.
Switching from Relative Colorimetric to Perceptual made little or no difference in these tests so I decided to leave it at default (Relative).
A couple of bugs:
• Print presets don't remember the assigned paper size (but this is also true in Preview).
• Clicking More Options always clears the paper size back to default (US Letter). Annoying.
• The print window won't remember its size and position between launches and moves around erratically when clicking More Options. Also annoying.
• Photo refresh is way too long when switching presets. I get at least 10 seconds of blank preview before the image appears. Refresh when adding adjustments is equally long.
Also, nothing to do with printing but this update hasn't fix my bug with my secondary display going back to Alternate view every time I switch from Browser to Viewer mode. The menu still says Blank but the display is stuck on Alternate. I need to switch between Desktop and Blank for it return to normal.
Printing is certainly different in this version. The fact that the Gamma setting is gone shows how much of a change has been made. And since older presets aren't imported, it's back to the drawing board...

Aperture D600 Raw Files too dark?

Is anyone else seeing that their Nikon D600 raw files stink in Aperture? I realize that Apple backwards engineers Raw support but if I look at a file from my D600 on Aperture and Capture NX2, the difference is 10-fold. I can see detail in the shadows in the NX2 conversion and nothing but black in the Aperture conversion. I have never seen this much of a disparity and I have used well over a dozen different DSLR's. I am curious if anyone else is seeing this? I mean in one image I can see a staircase in the NX2 conversion and nothing but black in Aperture?

"Neutral" on the camera means nothing. Those control the JPEG previews only and do not affect RAW files.
Yes I know. However, that JPEG preview is what you see on the back of the camera so having all parameters set to as little post-processing as possible will help give you a more accurate preview of the Raw file. I will give you some more background... Our first DSLR was a Canon 10D. This was before Aperture v1.0. We moved to a 20D, a 30D, a 40D, switched to Nikon and used a D80, 90, 300, 300s, 7000, and 600. I have photographers whose files I process that included Fuji (yikes!), Canon 7D, 5D, & 5DMII. Haven't had a Sony camera yet. I started with Aperture v1 and am now using the latest Aperture release. I have a very good understanding of the process.
@ funkcanna, thanks. I haven't used a D4 but it is good to hear I am not going crazy! Yes, the files just go to crap when you click on one. I too hope this is not a sign of things to come... I really don't like Lightroom but for now, I have no choice.

PSE7/ACR 5.6 issue with Canon 7D raw images too dark - solution?

Whenever shooting both jpeg and raw images with my Canon 7D and uploading to PSE7 (where I use ACR 5.6 to convert raw) the raw thumbnails are a stop darker than the jpegs. When converting a raw 7D image, the exposure needs to be increased by a stop (this needs to be done whether or not jpegs are also shot). This phenomena does not occur with my Canon 50D using the same raw converter - the jpeg and raw image display the same exposure and raw images do not need the exposure increased.
I have noticed in the raw converter on the Camera Calibration tab that - for the 50D - the Camera Profile contains ACR 4.6, Adobe Standard, and the Canon camera profiles, whereas for the 7D the Camera Profile only has the Adobe Standard and the camera profiles. The converter does say 7D at the top of the screen, however, so the converter recognizes the 7D. Is there a 7D Camera Profile that needs to somehow be configured/uploaded, etc.? ( I did run CameraProfiles.exe)
The 50D and 7D are set up the same, so this is not an ALO or some other camera setup issue - I have done extensive testing in this area. Also, Canon DPP displays the thumbnails (raw & jpeg) and the raw conversion exposure correctly, which tells me that this issue has something to do with ACR 5.6.
Is this a setup issue in 5.6? Or, do I need to upgrade to PSE8 and ACR 5.7 or 6.1 to get around this?
Thanks for your assistance.
Ed

Update:
I installed PSE9, which comes with ACR 6.1, and the issue was not resolved. So, I downloaded ACR 6.2 - same problem: EOS 7D raw images (thumbnails and when opened in raw converter) are 1 stop under-exposed. As stated above, Canon's DPP doesn't exhibit this problem, nor does FastStone Image Viewer, only ACR. Anyone else having this issue? Thanks for any help.
Ed

Canon 6D RAWs processed awfully bad?!

Hi,
I previously owned a Canon 400D and loved Aperture for the entire workflow, it was just a breeze. Now got a new Canon 6D and also took some test photos with the 5D mk3, and every Raw that I import just looks awfully dark and contrasty.
That is, for a moment they look nice, and then, when they're fully loaded, they turn dark and contrasty.
I thought something would be wrong with the cameras, but opened up some of the pictures in lightroom or in Photoshop, using the adobe raw processor, and there, everything looks nice.
I never knew that the aperture raw processing was so bad, not just with colors, but also with noise reduction for example. Am I doing anything wrong, maybe with some secret color space setting or so (cam is set to sRGB), or are the raw profiles in aperture for these new cameras just not implemented properly yet?
Example Images:
Aperture:
http://chfilm.de/download/foto/IMG_0324A.jpg
Adobe Raw Conversion (nothing done, except hit auto adjust and increased the luma denoise a bit)
http://chfilm.de/download/foto/IMG_0324LR.jpg
what is going on?? I seriously what have never expected such an enormous impact on image quality by the software, especially since I thought Aperture was a Pro-tool. Look at the sharpness of the images!!

I have been fortunate enough to recently upgrade myself to a Canon EOS 6D. After my first shoot, I was heartbroken to see the poor quality of the images--dark, low contrast, etc. This was fixable in Aperture with some effort, but then I started noticing serious blue and orange color artifacts around high-contrast edges, and a near total loss of detail in deeper shadows. I was about to return the 6D as defective but then tried a couple images in Canon's RAW processing software. And I was blown away by the results--gorgeous images, perfect contrast and loads of shadow detail that could be extracted with the right adjustments. I also grabbed a trial of Lightroom, which produced results similart to Canon's software.
So there's nothing wrong with the camera. Apple's RAW converter for the 6D is just flat busted. How could something this bad have actually made it out the door?
I've been a long-term Aperture user--since version 2.0, and have grown to love the interface and the effortless workflow for organizing images. But the issues with the 6D RAW converter have pretty much forced me to abandon Aperture over night. Hello Lightroom.
As with previous comments, I suspect this is really just part of the thin end of the wedge with Aperture and that it may be headed for extinction. Sad.
Here is an example that shows the shadow issues. Both are 100% views of he same RAW file loaded without any additional adjustments--except that I've cranked up the shadow level to illustrate the Aperture RAW converter's failure:

ACR vs Aperture for Raw Processing

I have been using Lightroom for over a year (including beta versions on my old PC), but have grown tired of it's lack of worthwhile output options. I have a trial version of Aperture and think that it is a far superior product on the management and output side of things, but I am having problems getting my raw files to look good to me.
I could process all the files in Bridge first, then create tiffs or PSDs to import into Aperture, but that would negate have the purpose of Aperture. I need help with an Aperture workflow and probably with raw processing controls in Aperture.
Specs: 17" MBP with 10.5.1, Aperture 1.5.6
Camera: Pentax K10D ver 1.3
I typically convert my PEF files to DNG due to better compression in DNG, but have tried using the original PEF with identical results. Any help is appreciated.

I too came back to Aperture after a year of Lightroom's "workflow". It really is possible to match or surpass LR's output. There's a good guide to the adjustment tools here:
http://www.insideaperture.com/Site/AdjustmentToolGuide.html
Also lots of tips about workflow, etc. here:
http://www.bagelturf.com/
You probably won't want to spend too much money if you're just using the trial, but Ben Long's book
Aperture Pro training Series: Aperture 1.5 is very good.

When will Aperture 3 support RAW processing for the Canon 5D III?

When will Aperture 3 support RAW processing for the new Canon 5D III?

We are no phophets and also do not work for Apple - so we don't know.
See this thread to join into a discussion with others who also are waiting:
Canon 5D Mk III - RAW update?
Regards
Léonie

When using printer Epson R1900 with Aperture 3 and if I mistakenly choose the wrong paper such as, epson's luster instead of glossy, does that change the exposure? Like make it too dark one or two stops!

When using printer Epson R1900 with Aperture 3 and if I mistakenly choose the wrong paper such as, epson's luster instead of glossy, does that change the exposure? Like make it too dark one or two stops!

Hi,
If you choose the incorrect settings for printing, yes - the print quality will be affected.
Different papers absorb the ink differently, so you can end up with prints that are too light, too dark, or have a colour cast if you make incorrect choices in your Aperture or printer settings.

Raw of s100fs with 400%DR too dark in Lightroom

When i open in Lightroom a RAW-File of my s100fs shot at 400% dynamic range it appears too dark. Are there fixed Corrections I can apply?
Thanks.
In german:
raw von s100fs mit 400%DR in Lightroom
Hallo
wenn ich in Adobe Lightroom ein RAW-Foto mit 400% HDR öffne sind diese zu dunkel. Bisher wurschtelte ich dann halt rum bis es mir gefiehl oder benutzte einfach die "Auto" -Korrektur von Lightroom.
Gibts da irgendwelchen fixen Wertkorrekturen die man benutzen könnte?
Habe alle meine RAWs in DNG umgewandelt falls das relevant ist.
Dank und Gruß!

I read the article already but missed that part...thanks.
For those having the same Question:
Quote fom Dpreview:
"You can also shoot extended dynamic range images in RAW, but third-party converters won't understand that the image has been intentionally under-exposed and will produce a very dark image. You need to play extensively with tone curves, highlight recovery and fill light (or equivalent), to get the correct results from third-party software. Once you've established these correction settings, you should be able to apply them to all extended dynamic range images, though."
Thanks to all of you!

HT3946 How do I ask Apple to update Aperture to process Olympus EM-5 Raw Files

sdff
How do I ask Apple to update Aperture to process Olympus EM-5 Raw Files

Use this link:
http://www.apple.com/feedback/aperture.html

Printing correctly in Aperture and too dark in everything else.

New to photography and purchased LightRoom 2 on a friends recommendation. I really like the program. However, no matter what I tried it printed too dark. All sorts of profiles, printer driver color mangement yes/no and while I could get just a slight raise in brightness and color, it was no where near acceptable.
Did a trial on Elements and Aperture. Elements also printed dark which shouldn't be surprising both Adobe.
Last and what proved to be far from least is Aperture. While it may not have the features of the Adobe gear at least it prints right. I can now get a very nice print with my Epson 4880 with one of the built in profiles (as it should be in my opinion).
I understand the need for a proper ICC profile for best results but it seems to me you should at least get a reasonable foundation to work with. I just could not get good color saturation or proper brightness level no matter what I did. From what I read on the net I'm not the only one. Interesting how Adobe must work extremely well with millions of other Macs and PC's but not mine.

I'm no expert in color management
An expert in colour management engineeri can fail in configuring any two ICC-enabled applications for compatible assumptions. Understanding the architecture is one thing and understanding the current conditions for configuration are another.
In such situations as this, the best bet is to ask the Apple ColorSync Users List.
/hh

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.

Printing too Dark

It may be since Aperture 2.0, but possibly since installing Leopard (and even with 1.5), I can't get my monitor brightness and print brightness to match. I have been using an Eye-One Photo to calibrate my monitor (30" ACD) and my printer (Epson R1800). Before Leopard, this worked quite well. Now not at all.
I try to adjust brightness on the monitor according to the spectrophotometer and the Eye-One Match software, but the prints come out way dark. I even lower the monitor's brightness to the minimum, and my prints are still way too dark. This all worked fine with Tiger.
Can anyone suggest where I can look to address this problem?
Thanks!
- David

Hello everyone. I chose this thread to make my first post because I have been reading everything I could find regarding color spaces, colorsync, and printing within Aperture, in an effort to make good prints with Aperture. I've only been using Aperture for a month (2.1); never used any previous versions of Aperture. I'm going to buy a new printer soon, so I wanted to get the entire Aperture printing-process learning curve mastered using my current hardware (Canon i9900) before working with a new printer.
I profile everything with i1, and I use Zedonet's PrintFab RIP for my printer driver. I'm almost to the point where I can produce prints to my liking, in that they (nearly) perfectly match my screen. My question specifically addresses PrintFab's settings. Is anyone using it? Google and Apple Forum searches did not yield a single thread where someone said they use PrintFab with Aperture.
Regardless, some of you color-space experts might have an answer to my question. PrintFab needs you to select the document's color space (not just the printer profile); similar to printing in most color-managed applications, but instead it's set up in the print driver. It allows you to import existing ICC profiles too, such as Adobe RGB (1998), but it defaults to sRGB. I want to match PrintFab's setting to the color space of the data sent to the printer driver from Aperture's print dialog, when Aperture is printing a RAW image, and the Aperture print settings are set to "System Managed" for the ColorSync Profile. Is Aperture leaving the color space intact (it's internal wide gamut profile) or is it converting it to sRGB, or Adobe RGB(1998) like when you round-trip to an external editor? What colorsync profile should I import into PrintFab (e.g., Apple RGB (1998), Adobe RGB (1998), Wide Gamut RGB, sRGB, or something else) to match the color space Aperture uses for "System Managed" (i.e., printer manages color) printing?
Cheers

Images too dark? colorsync issue or corruption?

I am not sure if this is related to Aperture, or not, but it is impacting the quality of my experience in Aperture...
I have noticed that my MBP2007 display profile seems too dark, and I think there is some preference or application that is loading at startup that is interfering with it. I am using the default LCD profile for the MBP, and have made sure there are no other profiles selected (selecting other profiles does not appear to change the results in any positive way).
Here is what I have observed: I noticed in Aperture that all my images seemed to need correction for being too dark. This is strange, since my Nikon seems to be taking perfectly balanced photos. So I started to dig around and remove all preferences that were associated with any color application I have used. I restarted and noticed that when the desktop image first appeared (a photo I had taken) it looked like it had the correct tonal range. Also, all the images in Aperture looked correct! However, this was short lived, and now each time when I restart, the process starts the same way, with the image appearing correctly at first, but then, as the menu bar started to appear, the image suddenly became too dark, as though a profile had just been applied! I have looked at the Console log, but cannot see anything that looks suspicious in terms of something that may be loading and interfering with the profile. I have tried to delete colorsync preferences, but have not been able to correct the issue again! Any ideas? I am really stumped by this!
Thanks for any help!

Hmm ... interesting. The ICC type MNTR Monitor profile for the display should be shown in the Devices section of the Apple ColorSync Utility.
A generic ICC profile for the make and model of display is shown as Factory Profile and a measured ICC profile for the specific calibration state of the display is shown as Current Profile.
The ICC MNTR profile shown in Apple ColorSync Utility > Devices > Display > Current Profile should be the same as the one shown in System Preferences > Display > Color.
Apple ColorSync 2.5 introduced the VCGT Video Card Gamma Tag that sets the state of the video system to the state described in the measured profile.
This was - and is - intended to do away with the difficulties caused by competing gamma utilities e.g. Knoll Gamma for Photoshop that tried to take control of the video system on startup.
(selecting other profiles does not appear to change the results in any positive way).
The intention of some who were involved in the ICC architecture was that working space profiles would by type SPAC Color Space, but then Apple and Adobe wanted type MNTR Monitor profiles to do this job.
This produced the problem that type MNTR Monitor profiles have to do double duty, both as monitor profiles in which equal amounts of RGB do not produce gray and as working space profiles in which equal amounts of RGB do produce gray.
So, this is why System Preferences > Display > Color shows both measured monitor profiles and monitor profiles for RGB working spaces such as sRGB, eciRGB, adobeRGB and so on and so forth. If you click a profile that is not your measured monitor profile, you reset the video system.
Instead of resetting the video system, as you may be doing, install a good ICC profiling packing, calibrate your monitor, and characterise that state in a monitor profile that will be automatically installed by your ICC profiling package.
Not all problems are configuration problems, some are bugs too, but if one has a sense of what the different dialogues do and how they are supposed to work together then problems produced by system misconfiguration can at least be eliminated in troubleshooting.
/hh

Aperture RAW processing too dark?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for