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.

Similar Messages

  • 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 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 Stills Question

    FCP X 's browser will show me my stills in Aperture, but only the masters are showing.  I would like to use a version of the still ( one that has been cropped and  has other adjustments done to the still image.  Is there a way to see and bring in the versions ?
    I shoot most of my stills in RAW using a very flat picture style, ( same as the video) and then each one  is adjusted.  With Final Cut Express I would export my stills and resize to 1920 x 1080 on export.  The newly exported  jpegs woud be on the media scratch drive. 
    As I am typing my question it occurs to me that I might be better off using my previuos work flow for these large raw stills.  While it would be nice not to have duplicate files ( one RAW and one JPEG ), FCP X might not be the best software for resizing raw stills.  If I were contiuue with my older work flow where would the best place to put the converted and resized exports?

    BenB,
    Thanks for sharing your results.
    I did a quick test also.
    I creatred a new project and droped a clip in that was a 1920 x1080 29.97 fps AIC. ( It's AIc because it was on the media drive via a FCE lOg and transfer).  So by my understanding my project is now 1920 x 1080 i 29.97 fps.  I brought in 2 stills form the browser under Aperture.  One was a 5616x3744 RAW picture the second one was a 3680 x 2070 JPEG ( a still from a video camera ).
    In both cases the Background wheel was gray for a few seconds and then went to green, so some work was being done to the stills.
    Clicking on the info button while the still was selected showed that the JPEG still was now a 1840 x 1035/60 fps JPEG.
    The RAW still became a 2808 x 1872 /60 fps JPEG.
    I am somewhat surprised at the dimensions of the stills and really surprised that they are 60 fps !
    Whats up with that ?
    FCP X seemed to handle resizing the RAW stills very quickly, now a whoe batch of them might be more noticeable.  I haven't tried applying any effects or exporting them to see what they might look like.  I may try that later.
    If I can't find my versions of Aperture stills in the browser I guess I will use my old work flow and export the versions to a folder on the media drive.  Then import them. 

  • 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.

  • 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

  • Aperture newbie question

    I just got my first Mac and decided to get started with Aperture (after being a long-time Lightroom user).
    I am trying to get used to the import functions - as compared to LR - in moving my files into the Aperture library.
    I have been using various cameras (primarily Olympus) where there is an option to shoot RAW+JPEG and I see in the import box there is an option whether or not to import both, and if importing both - which to have as the MASTER or to import as separate masters.
    My question is: once the images are imported, is there anyway to change this initial selction (I know if you import them together you can later change which is the master)"
    For example - if I had it set to import both and set the JPEG as master, can you separate them into two separate masters so they both show in the browser?
    Or the opposite - if you import them as separate masters, can you then "combine" them so that only one shows?
    In Lightroom this is called "stacking", but it seems that the only way to do this in Aperture (unless I am missing something which is completely likely) is by a series of photos that were taken sequentially.
    Thanks,
    Steve

    If you import both with one as Master (JPEG or RAW), you can use the context menu to create a new version from Master and then switch it to the other file type so you have side-by-side JPEG and RAW versions. This is done one at a time though (AFAIK - there is no batch process to split them after importing together).
    If you import them as separate Masters, you can manually stack them as you wish by selecting both and then using the Stack command in the menu or using 'Command + K' keys (AFAIK - there is not a batch process for this procedure either).
    Message was edited by: CorkyO2 to fix typo

  • Lightroom Raw V Aperture Raw

    Hi all
    I'm just trying Lightroom as an alternative to Aperture now that Apple has dumped on us. All in all very happy with LR. My question. When I first load a RAW image into LR (prior to making any alterations) the colours appear far more murky/washed out than those in Aperture, am I doing something wrong on import am I missing a setting specific to my Nikon? For example I have a shot of a mountain camping trip. In Aperture the trees are greener, my tent is a bright mustard yellow. All in all a much better starting point for alterations than the same image in LR.

    I think this is fairly normal for Lightroom, you need to edit the photos to your liking. You can change the camera profile used by Lightroom to result in colors more to your liking. You can set up a preset that is applied at import to change camera profile or increase saturation or vibrance or contrast or whatever you want.

  • Lightroom open in elements editor raw question.

    I have just got lightroom 3.3 and it imports my .dng raw files no problem. if I use the save metadata  to file  and try to open in elements editor it open the file as a .tiff. instead of opening it as a raw file with ACR. I think the roblem is the metadata is not being stored in the same directory as the image file but I can't see where to check/change this. I assume that is what is causing this to happen.
    regards
    Alistair

    Thank you for your reply, the question arises from watching this pod cast. I cannot get what is shown to work, please can you [if you have the time] look at it and let me know?
    many thanks
    Alistair
    http://http://http//www.jaredplattworkshops.com/edu/podcasts/Lightroom_Podcast/Entries/201 0/7/6_Using_XMP_Sidecar_Files_to_sync_Lightroom%2C_Bridge_and_Photoshop_Camera_RAW.html

  • 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 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 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.

  • 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

Maybe you are looking for

  • Canon .MXF Files no Longer Opens in AE

    This is for .MXF files shot on a Canon XF300.  Things were working fine, but suddenly I am unable to open those mxf files in AE CS6.  Even projects previously created with AE CS6 now won't open, and give me the 'file damaged or unsupported' error mes

  • Problem connecting guitar to garageband on macbook pro 13 inch

    hi, how can i connect my guitar to the garageband if i want to record sounds? i am using 13 inch macbook pro which only has one audio port ( well, 15 inch has 2 ports ).. or do i need some interface devices?

  • Count rows in a table being retrieved from dba_segments

    Hello guys, I was wondering how can I count the rows in a table that is being retrieved from dba_segments. -- I am getting the table name from dba_segment -- Is it possible to count the number of rows in that table at the same time? -- If not, is the

  • LabVIEW laplacian filter

    I just loaded LabVIEW 2013 and the Vision Module 2013, although I have used LabVIEW for years. I have a project requiring machine vision. I started up the Vision Assistant, and used some of the tools to see what would work. I found that applying the

  • Incremental backup in noarchive log

    Dear all, Two backup script is to be written 1. for 0 level incremantal backup or full backup 2. level 1 incremantal backup first file: run backup incremental level 0 database; crosscheck backupset; second file run backup incremental level 1 database