Barrel distortion after import (Aperture 3.5.1)

I've noticed before now that when I import any photos to Aperture, it applies some sort of automatic adjustment the first time the photo is viewed. It's usually just a slight thing, almost as though the contrast has been put up a little bit. It's something like a 'deepening' effect on the images. It isn't anything I've set (no preset or adjustments have been applied at this point), but it nevertheless affects every photo that I import.
I just got a 35mm f/1.8 lens for my Nikon, and started testing it out by shooting in raw (.NEF), just for the fun of it. When I imported the shots to Aperture, the same effect happened as before, only much more exaggerated; higher contrast, more saturation, and a certain amount of barrel distortion seems to have been applied. I don't know if this is Aperture attempting to reduce distortion that it detects, or what it might be doing, but it definitely is doing something to alter the photo. This lens has much less distortion than I was expecting, and in-camera it performs beautifully -- but after importing to Aperture the photos take on a weird look. This is particularly a problem when shooting in raw, while JPEG shots don't seem to be effected by distortion.
Any help with this issue?
Thanks!

What you are seeing is the difference between the in-camera raw processing and lens distortion correction, that is applied to the camera generated jpeg previews, and the naked raw files, that is Aperture presenting you.
When you first import a raw image, you will see the preview generated by the camera. This preview will show all incamera processing, including Nikon's lens correction. After loading the image, Aperture will replace the camera preview by a preview rendered from the raw.
Aperture does not do lens correction to correct any barrel distortion. If you are shooting raw, you will see the naked raw without any in-camera processing applied in Aperture.
If you want to profit from Nikon's in-camera processing, import the jpegs with the highest quality setting and not thr raw files. Or use lens-correction software like the Aperture plug-in PTLens.

Similar Messages

Distortion after importing to premiere

Hello I'm using a program called bandicam setup todo h.264, Recently whenever I import my footage to premiere its become very laggy and in the preview it shows signs of distortion.
Before importing to premiere
http://puu.sh/2UGMP.jpg
After importing to premiere
http://puu.sh/2UGAg.jpg
Thanks for reading!

>also imported footage from one of my cameras and had the same problem
That would indicate you do not have a bandicam problem, you have a more general problem
More information needed for someone to help... please click below and provide the requested information
-Information FAQ http://forums.adobe.com/message/4200840

Distortion after importing songs, same tune sounds WAY better in WMP!

At first I thought it was a hardware problem with one of our IPODs, but after transferring the tunes from one IPOD that died to another, and hearing the same problem, I have confirmed that the same song (Sufjan Stevens's "Flint") sounds terrible when played off the CD in ITunes (latest version)(very noticeable distortion, an AM radio sounds better), and also when imported, no matter what format ("AAC" supposedly being the "best"), while the very same song off the CD sounds great (noticeably louder at the same speaker volume level) and richer, with no distortion in the piano) when played in Windows Media Player. So what gives? I read that Apple brags about "CD quality" sound but nobody warned me it would be so hard to make a quality transfer of tunes from a CD to an IPod. Anyone else experienced a similar problem?
IPOD 15GB Windows XP

Yes!
Exactly the same problem. Got a pair of expensive shure earphones, no eq settings and not excessive volume.
i ripped radiohead amnesiac at apple lossless(!) and there is a very noticable distortion on some tracks on my 5g ipod
i really cant understand this

Image distorted after import from FCP

I've been working on this project for some time now, and it's really frustrating.
I'm editing together footage from two cameras (A Canon XL1 and a Panasonic AG-DVC 7P) in Final Cut and then exporting that as a quicktime movie, bringing that into Motion to add titles and logos. When it's exported, burned to DVD and played on a TV, some shots look really terrible.
It's as if there are lines of distortion (like it's shaky, leaving traces of the image) on many of the quick shots, especially when it's a quick pan or tilt. It looks alright on the computer screen but turns to dookie on a TV.
Is there some problem with the scanning, interlaced or progressive setting? I could use a hand if anyone has seen this kind of problem before.
Thanks a bunch,
Matt
G4 Mac OS X (10.4.8) 1.2GHz 1GB SDRAM

When doing the titles and logos are you doing them in motion and then importing them into FCP or did u bring the whole thing into motion at the end.
Also could be a problem with your burner.

Help! Strange video distortion after importing film onto IPHONE.

So I used Compressor H.264 to create an .m4v file to play my film on an IPhone. For the most part it sounds and looks great. But in two separate spots this weird video distortion occurs in a part of the frame. It's like these large squares of video appear for a second or two, then disappear. The really strange part is that it's always in the same two spots. I tried re-compressing the file thinking it mignt be a problem in the pressing. Watching the files on my comp using Itunes or Quicktime player there is no distortion. But once the movie is synced onto the Iphone it's always the same result. Those wierd digital shifting cubes pop up at the exact same two spots. No matter how many times I re-compress. Any ideas? I'm at a loss and I gotta figure this out in the next few hours.

Here is an article from the apple support website that might help out.
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1211
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1425?viewlocale=en_US

Aperture 3.4.5 will not show NEF files after importing in OSx 3.8.5

Hi this is driving me crazy. I have quite a few NEF files from a Nikon E5000 that I would love to be able to process using Aperture but have run into a rather difficut situation. When I import my images into Aperture I can see the preview of the files in the browser but can not get them to display after they have been imported. I have tried importing localy through the internal hard drive on my IMac late 2007 as well as through an external NTFS formated USB backup of my files. It also chokes on direct imprting from the CF card using a card reader. In all cases they will sometimes display for a brief second both in the picture browser after importing or on the film strip view but will then disapear and display "unsupported image format" in its place. I have reinstalled aperture and run both repair persissions through disk utility and the aperture repair utility that ships with aperture. I have no problems with canon raw files or other file formats - jpg, tiff, png, photoshop, bmp. Also NEF files will open in lightroom 5 and photoshop cs6 with out issue as well.
Any help in restoring functionility would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for the time and effort in advance.
Que Too

Nikon E5000
Do you mean a NIkon CP 5000 (Coolpix 5000)? Aperture supports many raw formats, but not all, because the raw support has to be camera specific. Not all NEF files are in the same format - all Nikon cameras will call their raw files NEF.
For some cameras Aperture never included raw support. The currently supported cameras are listed here:
http://www.apple.com/aperture/specs/raw.html
It looks like your camera is not on this list, so if you want to shoot raw with that camera, develope the raw files using a different raw converter (Adobe's dng converter or the suftware that came with your camera) and import tiff or dng files to Aperture.
Regards
Léonie

How can I re-name a single image after importing it to Aperture?

I am having a problem renaming a single image after importing it - I would have thought it would be simple! Does anyone know how this can be done?

Hi RQ,
Straight out of the manual
To rename masters
In the Browser, select an image or group of images.
Choose Metadata > Batch Change (or press Command-Shift-B).
In the Batch Change dialog, choose a naming convention from the Version Name Format pop-up menu to specify how you want the masters named.For example, choose Version Name from the Version Name Format pop-up menu to have your master filenames changed to match the names of the corresponding versions in Aperture. If you choose a custom name format, enter the name you want in the Custom Name text field. For more information about naming files, see Automatically Naming Your Imported Images.
Select the Apply to Master File(s) checkbox, then click OK.
The master files corresponding to the selected images are renamed. For more information about working with the Batch Change dialog, see Batch Changing Metadata.
Hope that is what you are after.
DJ

Aperture 3.3.2 Not Ejecting Card After Import?

Has anyone else noticed that Aperture is not automaically ejecting the SD card after an Import even thogh that option is checked on the Import window? I've loaded two cards since the upgrade and so far neither time has it ejected the card as expected.

Jim,
Glad you're happy it no longer ejects the card after import. However, that's not the way it's supposed to work if you have the eject card option checked.
thank you, I think
The way it is supposed to work is not described in the manual, for it is depending on the make of your camera. The manual only states:
Note: The options offered in this dialog depend on the way your camera is made available when it is connected. Some cameras connect as mass storage devices. When you import from these cameras, the Erase and Eject options appear. Other cameras simply connect as cameras, and you will not see either Erase or Eject after the import is completed. In that case, you can erase the images directly in the camera.
I see for all cameras different controls. For my Lumix camera I see the "Eject" button, but no option to choose, if I want automatic eject. The Canon camera does not show any options at all. The automatic "Eject" option I have never seen for any camera I had - only an automatic "Erase", that I never used, for it is dangerous. So up to now I had to live with auto eject, because there never has been an option to select differently.
Apple certainly could improve the documentation of this feature in the otherwise very good manual.
Regards
Léonie

Deleting iPhoto after import to aperture

Hi,
After importing my iPhotos into Aperture can i then delete all the iPhotos?
Thanks
iMac 24" Mac OS X (10.4.9)

They would have been moved into the Aperture library unless you specified that they not be in Aperture's Preferences.
One way to check is to select an image and then see if "Show if Finder" is availiabe in the File menu. If it is, you can see where the file is stored, if it isn't, the file is in the Aperture library and you can delete the version in iPhoto.
Of course you could always back up the iPhoto version to DVD just to have one more backup. More is better when it comes to backups.

HT3805 I just installed Aperture 3 from a CD. i also imported my photos from my Iphoto library. After importing most of the photos imported are blurry and it tells me the program is "processing" and it never stops. What do I do?

I just installed Aperture 3 from a CD. i also imported my photos from my Iphoto library. After importing most of the photos imported are blurry and it tells me the program is "processing" and it never stops. What do I do?

I just installed Aperture 3 from a CD. i also imported my photos from my Iphoto library. After importing most of the photos imported are blurry and it tells me the program is "processing" and it never stops. What do I do?

Hidden photos in iPhoto not hidden in aperture after import

After importing all of my iPhotos into aperture, my hidden photos are being shown in aperture. Is there a way to have my photos hidden in aperture as well?

Not really.
Aperture has a seven-level rating scheme: no rating, 1-5, and "rejected".
I'm pretty sure (I don't know for certain) that photos hidden in iPhoto are assigned a rating of "rejected" when imported into Aperture via the iPhoto importer.
Rejected Images are not shown in the default Browser view of any container. The purpose, however, is less to hide Images than it is to remove them from view prior to deleting or relocating them.
If you have Images you wish to hide from view of someone who has access to your Aperture Library, you should not include them in that Library.

Unlogged Missing Photos After Import From Aperture

Hi!
I have just made the switch from Aperture to Lightroom, and have use the 1.1 version of the Aperture import plugin.
In my Aperture Library I have, according to the Library -> Photos: 11105 Photos, however after importing to Lightroom, I have only 10967 photos. I have checked the import log, and there were 4 items which failed to import - 3 were .mpo files (panoramas from an xPeria) and 1 was a .gif file. This leaves a deficit of 133 photos that I can't account for.
Is there any way to compare the aperture library to the lightroom library to see what is missing?

*WARNING* Once agin, this is a VERY long post! And this contains not only SQL, but heaps of command line fun!
TLDR Summary: Aperture is storing duplicates on disk (and referencing them in the DB) but hiding them in the GUI. Exactly how it does this, I'm not sure yet. And how to clean it up, I'm not sure either. But if you would like to know how I proved it, read on!
An update on handling metadata exported from Aperture. Once you have a file, if you try to view it in the terminal, perhaps like this:
$ less ApertureMetadataExtendedExport.txt
"ApertureMetadataExtendedExport.txt" may be a binary file. See it anyway?
you will get that error. Turns out I was wrong, it's not (only?) due to the size of the file / line length; it's actually the file type Aperture creates:
$ file ApertureMetadataExtendedExport.txt
ApertureMetadataExtendedExport.txt: Little-endian UTF-16 Unicode text, with very long lines
The key bit being "Little-endian UTF-16", that is what is causing the shell to think it's binary. The little endian is not surprising, after all it's an X86_64 platform. The UTF-16 though is not able to be handled by the shell. So it has to be converted. There are command line utils, but Text Wrangler does the job nicely.
After conversion (to Unicode UTF-8):
$ file ApertureMetadataExtendedExport.txt
ApertureMetadataExtendedExport.txt: ASCII text, with very long lines
and
$ less ApertureMetadataExtendedExport.txt
Version Name    Title   Urgency Categories      Suppl. Categories       Keywords        Instructions    Date Created    Contact Creator Contact Job Title       City    State/Province Country Job Identifier Headline        Provider        Source Copyright Notice        Caption Caption Writer Rating IPTC Subject Code       Usage Terms     Intellectual Genre      IPTC Scene      Location        ISO Country Code        Contact Address Contact City    Contact State/Providence        Contact Postal Code     Contact Country Contact Phone   Contact Email   Contact Website Label   Latitude        Longitude       Altitude        AltitudeRef
So, there you have it! That's what you have access to when exporting the metadata. Helpful? Well, at first glance I didn't think so - as the "Version Name" field is just "IMG_2104", no extension, no path etc. So if we have multiple images called "IMG_2104" we can't tell them apart (unless you have a few other fields to look at - and even then just comparing to the File System entries wouldn't be possible). But! In my last post, I mentioned that the Aperture SQLite DB (Library.apdb, the RKMasters table in particular) contained 11130 entries, and if you looked at the Schema, you would have noticed that there was a column called "originalVersionName" which should match! So, in theory, I can now create a small script to compare metadata with database and find my missing 25 files!
First of all, I need to add that, when exporting metadata in Aperture, you need to select all the photos! ... and it will take some time! In my case TextWrangler managed to handle the 11108 line file without any problems. And even better, after converting, I was able to view the file with less. This is a BIG step on my last attempt.
At this point it is worth pointing out that the file is tab-delimited (csv would be easier, of course) but we should be able to work with it anyway.
To extract the version name (first column) we can use awk:
$ cat ApertureMetadataExtendedExport.txt | awk -F'\t' '{print $1}' > ApertureMetadataVersionNames.txt
and we can compare the line counts of both input and output to ensure we got everything:
$ wc -l ApertureMetadataExtendedExport.txt
   11106 ApertureMetadataExtendedExport.txt
$ wc -l ApertureMetadataVersionNames.txt
   11106 ApertureMetadataVersionNames.txt
So far, so good! You might have noticed that the line count is 11106, not 11105, the input file has the header as I printed earlier. So we need to remove the first line. I just use vi for that.
Lastly, the file needs to be sorted, so we can ensure we are looking in the same order when comparing the metadata version names with the DB version names.
$ cat ApertureMetadataVersionNames.txt | sort > ApertureMetadataVersionNamesSorted.txt
To get the Version Names from the DB, fire up sqlite3:
$ sqlite3 Library.apdb
sqlite> .output ApertureDBMasterVersionNames.txt
sqlite> select originalVersionName from RKMaster;
sqlite> .exit
Checking the line count in the DB Output:
$ wc -l ApertureDBMasterVersionNames.txt
   11130 ApertureDBMasterVersionNames.txt
Brilliant! 11130 lines as expected. Then sort as we did before:
$ cat ApertureDBMasterVersionNames.txt | sort > ApertureDBMasterVersionNamesSorted.txt
So, now, in theory, running a diff on both files, should reveal the 25 missing files.... I must admit, I'm rather excited at this point!
$ diff ApertureDBMasterVersionNamesSorted.txt ApertureMetadataVersionNamesSorted.txt
IT WORKED! The output is a list of changes you need to make to the second input file to make it look the same as the first. Essentially, this will (in my case) show the Version Names that are missing in Aperture that are present on the File System.
So, a line like this:
1280,1281d1279
< IMG_0144
< IMG_0144
basically just means, that there are IMG_0144 appears twice more in the DB than in the Metadata. Note: this is specific for the way I ordered the input files to diff; although you will get the same basic output if you reversed the input files to diff, the interpretation is obviously reversed) as shown here: (note in the first output, we have 'd' for deleted, and in the second output it's 'a' for added)
1279a1280,1281
> IMG_0144
> IMG_0144
In anycase, looking through my output and counting, I indeed have 25 images to investigate. The problem here is we just have a version name, fortunately in my output, most are unique with just a couple of duplicates. This leads me to believe that my "missing" files are actually Aperture handling duplicates (though why it's hiding them I'm not sure). I could, in my DB dump look at the path etc as well and that might help, but as it's just 25 cases, I will instead get a FS dump, and grep for the version name. This will give me all the files on the FS that match. I can then look at each and see what's happening.
Dumping a list of master files from the FS: (execute from within the Masters directory of your Aperture library)
$ find . -type f > ApertureFSMasters.txt
This will be a list including path (relative to Master) which is exactly what we want. Then grep for each version name. For example:
$ grep IMG_0144 ApertureFSMasters.txt
./2014/04/11/20140411-222634/IMG_0144.JPG
./2014/04/23/20140423-070845/IMG_0144 (1).jpg
./2014/04/23/20140423-070845/IMG_0144.jpg
./2014/06/28/20140628-215220/IMG_0144.JPG
Here is a solid bit of information! On the FS i have 4 files called IMG_0144, yet if I look in the GUI (or metadata dump) I only have 2.
$ grep IMG_0144 ApertureMetadataVersionNamesSorted.txt
IMG_0144
IMG_0144
So, there is two files already!
The path preceding the image in the FS dump, is the date of import. So I can see that two were imported at the same time, and two separately. The two that show up in the GUI have import sessions of 2014-06-28 @ 09:52:20 PM and 2014-04-11 @ 10:26:34 PM. That means that the first and last are the two files that show in the GUI, the middle two do not.... Why are they not in the GUI (yet are in the DB) and why do they have the exact same import date/time? I have no answer to that yet!
I used open <filename> from the terminal prompt to view each file, and 3 out of my 4 are identical, and the fourth different.
So, lastly, with a little command line fu, we can make a useful script to tell us what we want to know:
#! /bin/bash
grep $1 ApertureFSMasters.txt | sed 's|\.|Masters|' | awk '{print "<full path to Aperture Library folder>"$0}' | \
while read line; do
openssl sha1 "$line"
done
replace the <full path to Aperture Library folder> with the full path to you Aperture Library Folder, perhaps /volumes/some_disk_name/some_username/Pictures/.... etc. Then chmod 755 the script, and execute ./<scriptname> <version name> so something like
$ ./calculateSHA.sh IMG_0144
What we're doing here is taking in the version name we want to find (for example IMG_0144), and we are looking for it in the FS dump list. Remember that file contains image files relative to the Aperture Library Master path, which look something like "./YYYY/MM/DD/YYYYMMDD-HHMMSS/<FILENAME>" - we use sed to replace the "./" part with "Masters". Then we pipe it to awk, and insert the full path to aperture before the file name, the end result is a line which contains the absolute path to an image. There are several other ways to solve this, such as generating the FS dump from the root dir. You could also combine the awk into the sed (or the sed into the awk).. but this works. Each line is then passed, one at a time, to the openssl program to calculate the sha-1 checksum for that image. If a SHA-1 matches, then those files are identical (yes, there is a small chance of a collision in SHA-1, but it's unlikely!).
So, at the end of all this, you can see exactly whats going on. And in my case, Aperture is storing duplicates on disk, and not showing them in the GUI. To be honest, I don't actually know how to clean this up now! So if anyone has any ideas. Please let me know I can't just delete the files on disk, as they are referenced in the DB. I guess it doesn't make too much difference, but my personality requires me to clean this up (at the very least to provide closure on this thread).
The final point to make here is that, since Lightroom also has 11126 images (11130 less 4 non-compatible files). Then it has taken all the duplicates in the import.
Well, that was a fun journey, and I learned a lot about Aperture in the process. And yes, I know this is a Lightroom forum and maybe this info would be better on the Aperture forum, I will probably update it there too. But there is some tie back to the Lightroom importer to let people know whats happening internally. (I guess I should update my earlier post, where I assumed the Lightroom Aperture import plugin was using the FS only, it *could* be using the DB as well (and probably is, so it can get more metadata))
UPDATE: I jumped the gun a bit here, and based my conclusion on limited data. I have finished calculating the SHA-1 for all my missing versions. As well as comparing the counts in the GUI, to the counts in the FS. For the most part, where the GUI count is lower than the FS count, there is a clear duplicate (two files with the same SHA-1). However I have a few cases, where the FS count is higher, and all the images on disk have different SHA-1's! Picking one at random from my list; I have 3 images in the GUI called IMG_0843. On disk I have 4 files all with different SHA-1's. Viewing the actual images, 2 look the same, and the other 2 are different. So that matches 3 "unique" images.
Using Preview to inspect the exif data for the images which look the same:
image 1:
Pixel X Dimension: 1 536
Pixel Y Dimension: 2 048
image 2:
Pixel X Dimension: 3 264
Pixel Y Dimension: 2 448
(image 2 also has an extra Regions dictionary in the exit)
So! These two images are not identical (we knew that from the SHA-1), but they are similar (content is the same - resolution is the same) yet Aperture is treating these as duplicates it seems.. that's not good! does this mean that if I resize an image for the web, and keep both, that Aperture won't show me both? (at least it keeps both on disk though, I guess...)
The resolution of image 1, is suspiciously like the resolutions that were uploaded to (the original version of) iCloud Photos on the iPhone (one of the reasons I never used it). And indeed, the photo I chose at random here, is one that I have in an iCloud stored album (I have created a screensaver synced to iCloud, to use on my various Mac's and AppleTVs). Examining the data for the cloud version of the image, shows the resolution to be 1536x2048. The screensaver contains 22 images - I theorised earlier that these might be the missing images, perhaps I was right after all? Yet another avenue to explore.
Ok. I dumped the screensaver metadata, converted it to UTF-8, grabbed the version names, and sorted them (just like before). Then compared them to the output of the diff command. Yep! the 22 screensaver images match to 22 / 25 missing images. The other 3, appear to be exact duplicates (same SHA-1) of images already in the library. That almost solves it! So then, can I conclude that Lightroom has imported my iCloud Screensaver as normal photos of lower res? In which case, it would likely do it for any shared photo source in Aperture, and perhaps it would be wise to turn that feature off before importing to Lightroom?

No Import aperture library option after upgrade 06 to 08

About 2 years ago I started Aperture and stopped iPhoto06. Now I want to make a calendar. So I have read that iPhoto08 has option to import Aperture library... I got cd on ebay and upraded.
Now I have iPhoto 08 ( he he nice ) but I do not have option to import Aperture library ...
help

show I meant !
all works - thanks for help !
... calendar of moto leopard expedition comming !!! and here som wrk in fce from this trip - http://vimeo.com/14251963

Can photoshop cc stack and align photos produced from lenses with barrel distortion

I have a series of astrophotos that include terrestrial foreground and the milky way in the background. The images were taken with a wide angle lens at f/2.8. To increase the signal to noise ratio I would like to stack the images; however, due to the rotation of the earth the position of ht milky way relative to the foreground changes in each shot. To correct for this I have imported the raw images as layers from lightroom and made a copy of all the images and transformed one copy of all the images into a smart object for stacking the foreground. On the background (sky) copy, I made a layer mask that masked out the foreground for each photo. Next I used the edit > auto-align-auto feature to align the images. Next I deleted the layer masks and stacked the images using layers > smart-object > stack mode > median and photoshop did stack the images. While the center and center top of the images did stack with a good image and an increase in the SNR, the rest of the photo came out blurred/smeared. I have tried this many times and I keep getting the same thing. Is barrel distortion causing this and if so is there anything I can do to correct for it? I am attaching a before and after photo here, so hopefully you can see what I am talking about. It is only aligning part of the sky and is just smearing the rest.

That would be my guess - that the movement of the stars between shots was enough to bring lens distortion into the equation. Which lens are you using? If it's just a simple barrel/pincushion distortion then you might be able to fix it before stacking. But anything more complicated like mustache (in case you're using the Samyang/Rokinon 14 mm) would probably lead to issues.
Even with simple barrel distortion you might run into problems. The fixes are only approximate, intended to remove visible distortion in an image when viewed as a whole. But this use is a particularly extreme test of how perfect the correction can be, I wouldn't be fully surprised if there are still sections that are out of alignment. It's an interesting problem, I'm curious to hear how it plays out. That said, I'm sure you're far from the first to do this, so perhaps visiting an astro-photographer forum would be helpful.
Personally, I'd have Lightroom apply the lens profile correction, then export all the images to Photoshop, using the same post processing. If you're using the Samyang there's a profile you can download, but it only gets it close. You may have to do a bit of manual masking on specific areas to make sure everything is as sharp as you want it.
Edit: I could see it just being a PS alignment issue. There's a lot of stars there. I'm not sure how the algorithm works, but I'd assume it just lines up a few points. If it messed up one of the points by just a tiny bit it'd probably throw off the entire image. I haven't used that function in a long time, but I remember trying to use the stacking feature back with CS5 and it did an absolutely terrible job. I've heard it has gotten better, but everyone I talked to that did focus stacking all used third party software for that stuff. Maybe there's a better program that people are using for this kind of work.

How do delete photos from iphone after import to new photos app?

With iphoto (or aperture which I own), after importing photos I was always asked if I wanted to remove the photos's from my phone. With the new photo's app I don't get that option, and I certainly don't want to delete 1200 photos by having to individually select each one on the phone. Any ideas?

You should ask on the forum that Apple told you to use for Beta software discussions. This isn't the place. The moderators will likely soon remove your post.

Barrel distortion after import (Aperture 3.5.1)

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for