Camera generated Jpg vs. Aperture generated Jpg's

Hello
Can anyone tell me if there is any advantage to shooting Raw + Jpg vs. just letting Aperture create the jpg preview. I have tried it and to me it seems like aperture displays a sharper Jpg in "Preview" mode when I shoot Raw + Jpg. Am I imagining this, or is there really no advantage?
Thanks Shane

I personally never shoot RAW+JPEG because you can always generate the JPEG with Aperture. It wastes space.

Similar Messages

How to import camera generated videos from real player into iTunes?

I want to import camera-generated videos from Real Player into iTunes.

paulafromsesto fiorentino wrote:
I want to import camera-generated videos from Real Player into iTunes.
Prior to put them to iTunes, you have to convert the video in compatible format.
Best for that is Handbrake --> http://handbrake.fr/
Cheers Lupunus

Latest Camera Raw 2.3 + Aperture 2.1.2 + Nikon D300 = broken import?

After installing the latest camera raw update to version 2.3, it seems I can no longer import raw files from my Nikon D300 into Aperture when the D300 is set for USB Mass Storage, which I always used. When trying to do so, the first sign that something is wrong is the "Import" button in the Import dialog that doesn't show the number of selected pictures. It always show "Import All". Then, if I select all pictures or some of them, the Import dialog disappears as usual but then the completed import dialog appears immediately and says that 0 pictures have been imported. When checking the project where I wanted to import, there are indeed no pictures.
I then tried to import in iPhoto and it worked just fine. I reverted to Camera Raw Update 2.1, and had no problem.
I was able to import from the D300 when I set its USB connection to be MTP/PTP but no thumbnails appear in the import dialog, no matter if I shot RAW or RAW+JPEG.
So, anybody else noticed that?
Message was edited by: NemesysSoft
Message was edited by: NemesysSoft

NemesysSoft wrote:
Hmm... well, why would I want to buy a separate card reader, pull the card from my D300, put it in the reader, get it read, put it out of the reader and put it back in the D300?
typically photographers carry and shoot with multiple cards and then use card readers to get the photos into aperture
Because Apple screwed up their latest raw bundle? I'd rather not take the card out of my D300.
So, no, I haven't tried an external card reader and don't intend to buy one either.
that's your choice, we're just trying to help u out.
a fw800 card reader will be much faster importing than the camera,
if the camera settings changed at least you'll be able to get your photos into aperture.
btw, i have the same camera as you d300 and i've imported well over 100,000 photos (in the last week) since the last update, without a hitch (Camera Raw 2.3 + Aperture 2.1.2 + Nikon D300)
victor

How do i listen to camera generated audio attachments in lightroom 5

I've checked the manual. I love searched online and don't see any mention of it. Photo Mechanic and Aperture have a play button that allows playback of the audio attachments. Anyone know?

It's never been documented, but if an imported pic xxx.jpg has an associated audio annotation xxx.wav, it will show up in the Metadata pane when you select the pic. Click the arrow to the right of "Audio File" to listen to it:

Camera RAW JPG 'Save image....' dialogue reversal?

In camera RAW, to save a JPG you click on the 'Save image...' dialogue and another window opens with the JPG options.
To skip this window and directly save the image, you hold down the ALT key and click on the 'Save image'.
Is it possible to reverse these settings, so that if you want the JPG dialogue to open you have to hold down the ALT key and to save without the dialogue, you just click on the save button?

Thank you, Mr. Spock!
Very true. it would be counterintutive.
But my left hand is stiff from holding the ALT key!
Is it possible to redefine the keys in camera RAW?

A lightroom preset to produce a RAW conversion that always looks like the camera-processed JPG?

Hi,
Any tips on how to make a Lightroom preset that will render the RAW file in a manner that looks remotely the same as the picture displayed when shot?
I'm not talking about camera calibration > camera standed, portrait etc.
With Lightrooms clunky default adjustments the histogram looks correct; i.e. the way it did when it was shot. The image also looks horrible; clipped blacks, too contrasty etc. because it arbitrarily boosts Brightness +50, Contrast +25
When I zero the settings the histogram shifts completely away from the way it was shot, as if it was underexposed, which is not correct. I've tested this with perfect exposures using a GMB colour chart.
I guess the camera is showing me a histogram of the JPEG after it has been processed.
Is there a quantifiable way to replicate this other than playing with the sliders until the RAW roughly matches the JPG and then saving the preset?
Thanks.
Update - I'm using a Canon 5DMkII and a 1DsMkII

Good grief. When I photograph a color chart, under controlled lighting conditions, exposed perfectly, that is what I want to see as the default RAW conversion, with acurate values. In fact with camera calibrations that is pretty much how it works. It's not open to interpretation. Blacks have a certain value, neutral 8, neutral 6.8 etc.
If not, then give me the tools to accomplish this quickly. In Photoshop I can shoot a scene under controlled lighting, shoot a color chart in the first frame, create a custom curve and apply this to every subsequent shot. There is a rough way to do this in LR but it's quite a backward step.
THEN I can have a filed day, changing whatever I want, but I do not like randomly dragging sliders until it "looks ok". I stopped doing that my first year of Photoshop when I learned how to use the color sampler correctly.
"If you shoot raw (as opposed to JPEG) then YOU have the power and capability to decide what stuff is supposed to look like. "
I understand I have the power to decide what stuff looks like. Nothing I have said so far argues against this. I'm asking for an accurate baseline, from which I can let my creativity run wild.
" I encourage people to ignore the LCD and go with your guts", "If you are lazy and don't want to be bothered rendering the scene, yes, I can understand why you would want somebody else to control the interpretation of the scene"
The LCD and the histogram are a quick way of evaluating correct exposure for a shot, so that blacks are not clipped and highlights are not blown out and lost forever. They are standard TOOLs of modern photography. To not use them is illogical. It would be like instructing people not to use the camera's inbuilt light meter, because it's "more creative" without it.
It does not have to be one extreme or the other. People seem to be saying "reject the jpg - it means nothing. Let the artist in you decide" and yet they blithely accept the default settings Lightroom gives. My point is, the camera rendering is a good REFERENCE POINT, far more accurate to what you saw on the day, and far more relevant, than LR's adjustments.
Once I have an accurate rendering, quickly, THEN I can be creative and enjoy the power and flexibility of RAW. If nothing else, it's a much faster way to work.

Histogram handling of camera-generated DNG files

I'm using a Ricoh Caplio GX100 camera which produces generic DNG files. Is it because Aperture doesn't officially support this camera that the main histogram doesn't display the separate RGB channels, regardless whether set to Auto Levels Separate?

Dennis-H wrote:
Is there a utility that can verify the integrity of a suspect DNG file?
his page explaines how to do that usingAdobe DNG Converter:
http://www.dpbestflow.org/node/382

No camera raw jpg previews in finder

I have two macs with the same OS and one displays jpeg previews of my camera's raw files in the finder and one doesn't. Apparently all the software is up to date and I have "show icon preview" clicked in the finder settings.
Anyone know where I can change this? Thanks!
Message was edited by: stalley

I have the problem, I've been unable so far to find a solution. Yesterday I Posted a thread on that in both this forum and DPreview's forum....no solution so far.

Camera settings when using Aperture

In this thread:
https://discussions.apple.com/message/24520115#24520115
I give the advice that it is best to only set ISO, aperture and shutter speed on the camera when shooting RAW. Leave the rest at the camera defaults.
Is that good advice?
While YMMV based on the camera model, in general it seems that there is no guarantee that Aperture can understand or honor any other camera settings besides the Big Three. Note I include white balance as one to leave alone!
Does Apple provide any advice on this?

I suggest the following as a conceptual framework.
Cameras today do two things that are best thought of as distinct families of operatons. They _record data_, and they _make pictures_.
I use my camera as a data recorder. I then upload the data to my computer, and use Aperture (and other software programs) to make pictures from the data I recorded. The camera saves this data in RAW files.
As an almost universally applicable rule, computers do a better job making pictures than cameras do. (Personally, I would like to see this distinction made real: I don't want to pay for camera bodies that do any more computing than data recording and display requires. How many Sony cameras -- just to pick on the brand I use -- have ever been used to show slideshows on Bravia TVs?)
The settings that are important for data recording are (as you listed) those for _exposure_: duration (stupidly known as "shutter speed"), aperture (I suggest "hole size"), and (as I understand it) signal amplification (stupidly known as ISO). Everything else (including White Balance) are, literally, post-processing operations. ("Post-processing" is, afaik, a short form of "Post-exposure processing".) The other exposure settings are important, but not usually thought of as settings: focal length, focus distance, location and direction of camera.
The above is for RAW data recording. JPG is not a light data format, it is an image format. As such, JPG requires post-processing. For me, JPG is a quick-and-dirty, proofing format. It has its uses. I almost never use it.
Keith Barkley wrote:
Does Apple provide any advice on this?
Not that I know of. Apple prefers to flood valleys and let users figure out where to build their vacation homes and how to not crash their boats on submerged rocks. They have mastered the art of presenting appealing vacation-lands. Part of that is _not_ listing rules for use beyond the most general, and certainly not letting users know how cold it gets at night or that scorpions can nest in your slippers. Specifically, they remove any odor of engineering from every product they sell. The advice you are asking for is good, useful, and ... (broadly) engineering. Apple prefers (imho) to have its users provide that to those who seek it, so that those who don't seek it won't be discouraged from buying the vacation package .
--Kirby.

"Referenced": the original files from my camera's card - or Aperture files?

New to +Aperture 2+.
I may be misunderstanding *Referenced vs Managed*.
I understand that Managed takes care of everything - including backups to the Vault.
But does "Store files…" (e.g. in ~/Pictures/Images etc) mean:
1 - keep the original ('DSCN' etc) files uploaded from my camera's SD card etc in ~/Pictures/Images etc,
or
2 - keep some other, new, files generated by Aperture in ~/Pictures/Images etc?
IOW which files will be stored outside Aperture if I opt for Referenced?
Is there anything (else) I cannot do with Referenced?
TIA!

Mark,
When you import as referenced, the file location for storage is the location that Aperture copies the files to from your camera or memory card. All the edits and metadata relating to your photos are stored in the Aperture library.
AFAIK, the only thing you can't do with referenced files that you can do with managed files is have Aperture saved them in the Vault. In referenced, only the adjustments and metadata are saved in the Vault - you have to save your photos to backup or another disk manually (or with Time Machine).
Regards,
Calx

GPS compatable cameras that work with Aperture

Apart from the Nikon D1X and D2X are there any other cameras out there that let you plug in a GPS device to catch location data on the metadata file for the image? The high end Canon poducts don't mention this in their product spec's; is this oversight or absence? Any other models or makes as alternates to the expensive Nikons or work arounds for less costly cameras?
Powerbook G4 Mac OS X (10.4.5)

At the moment Aperture crashes (more exactly:does not respond until restart the programm), when showing GPS Info (Lat Long) in a D200 jpg File.

Problem with Sony NEX-5 camera raw images in Aperture 3.

Aperture 3 cannot says the RAW files from my Sony Alpha NEX-5 camera are an "unsupported image format". Aperture 3 is a full new copy (not an upgrade) purchased 10 days. My mac is an iMac 3.08 GHz Intel 2 Core, running 10.5.8, and with 4GB of 800 MHz RAM. All software upgrades have been performed.
Aperture 3 says RAW files from my camera are supported. I downloaded directly from the camera by USP in the correct USP setting in the camera , i.e. 'mass storage mode'. Preview can see the .arw files but iPhoto and AP3 cannot. I've read that a possible fix is to down load via a Firewire 800 card reader. I'd rather avoid that as they cost about AU$170 - which is quite an impost when AP3 just cost me AU$249.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Kind regards,
Karl McC

Thank you e2photo.
Yesterday I found a similar post about the same issue with a new Canon camera. They fixed the problem by copying the files from the camera to a folder on the computer. Then they loaded the files into AP3 from the folder. Great news; it worked!!
Thank you for your thoughts on iMovie as I had not tried to download movie content yet. You prompted me to do a little trial. No problem. iMovie 08 read the ACVHD movie and it looks great.
Kind regards,
Karl McC

New photographer, new camera, no support in Aperture: Have you been there?

So I can't ask when support for the EOS 450D (Canon EOS Rebel XSi) might mystically appear, because nobody ever talks about product release dates, I guess.
So let me ask the opposite question - how often have updates happened in the past? Every month? Every two months? Every six? Are they coming more frequently? If you had an unsupported camera, how long did you have to wait?
And when was the last update?
I went out and bought Aperture and the new XSi, and it never even crossed my mind to ask if it was a supported combination - I chose the camera based on the features I needed, and just assumed that Aperture would work with it.
I'm feeling a wee bit stupid, and a wee bit sore about it, especially since, par for course, I guess, it looks like it works just fine with Adobe's products.
And does anyone have any recommendations for what to do in the meantime? For now I'm using Aperture to pull in the photos, and then pulling stuff into Photomatix to do HDR (I have some lovely dreamy hallucination that maybe someday Photomatix will add a plugin for Aperture to the mix, but I guess it's not really that good of a UI fit)...
I suppose I could use hot folders to import via a tool which does the conversion externally, in the meantime - can anyone recommend what tools might be a good fit?
Ah well.

Adsy wrote:
The XSi (450D) is brand new. Adobe only just started supporting it a week or so ago. I expect Aperture will do so in the not too distant future.
In the meantime, you can use Adobe's free DNG converter program to convert the RAWs to DNG which can be imported into Aperture and work fine. The DNGs are still RAW, just a different format which Aperture can understand.
Agreed, but note that DNG is usually a "filter" of sorts to the true original RAW data, as is Aperture. Let's hope that Apple does indeed reduce the wait time for Aperture/RAW support for your camera. You may want to experiment with your camera vendor's free RAW converter as well.
Good luck!
-Allen Wicks

Camera to iPod to Aperture import

I am looking for a way to move images off my memory cards while traveling w/o a laptop. I understand images can be moved off cards and onto an iPod, but that battery consumption on the iPod is high and results are inconsistent. Any one have comments on actually using an iPod for temporary storage of large RAW (NEF) image files, and then moving them into Aperture?

For me it worked great on my trips last year. In china I took about 16GB of photos and downloaded them onto my 5.5G 80GB iPod in the evening before going to bed so battery life wasn't an issue for me. I was able to download about 2GB without fully draining the battery. I would recharge the iPod overnight and it was good to go for the next day of shooting. Mind you my iPod was pretty new at the time so the battery was still good. I suppose as the iPod gets older the battery may not be able to handle a full 2GB of data.
When you download the RAW onto the iPod you cannot view it on the iPod though, but you can see that the files are there. Then once you get home you can import them into Aperture through the import panel as if you were downloading from a camera.
WARNING: The new "classic" iPods do NOT support the camera connector. I have no idea why Apple made this decision. Perhaps it's a bug, but so far they have not addressed it, nor commented on it. So if you want to go down this route, make sure you get the previous version of iPod.
Message was edited by: Host

Camera settings vs. Aperture settings

I have noticed that Aperture reads my RAW files just fine but shows me a file with settings that are different from my camera settings. An example would be my Kelvin temperature. My camera can be set to 6700K and Aperture will show it as 5955K. How do I get Aperture to use my camera's settings?
Thanks,
Jeffrey

You can't, really.
I believe, though, that these numbers are somewhat up to interpretation as far as what the color temperature actually is. You will not get an exact temperature match, at least not right now, with Aperture.
Best results are typically to shoot a grey card or similar in a frame and use that to color balance your photos in post-processing. I tried using an ExpoDisc, both to set in camera and as a reference frame for later correction in Aperture -- and got results that were pretty much identical in the end.

Camera generated Jpg vs. Aperture generated Jpg's

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for