Canon SX1 IS and RAW conversion

Hi
I have Aperture 3 and it does not support RAW for my Canon SX1 IS. Is there any probrams out there for converting to an acceptable format for A3

Aperture works with most DNG files generated from cameras that support this format and with DNG files generated by the Adobe DNG Converter with the “Convert to Linear Image” option turned off.
from:
http://www.apple.com/aperture/specs/raw.html

Similar Messages

Weird histogram and RAW conversion

Sorry in advance if this quesion is already out there.
I've just rebuilt my machine and noticed some really weird stuff with aperture once I re-installed the program. I'm accessing the same library with the same settings but now I get some really weird conversions of my low light photos (new and old). The really strange thing is that if I just touch a slider (levels, exp, etc) not even adjust, the image previews fine. If I check the levels and then uncheck and restart aperture the photo looks fine. When I restart again...bang back to weird photo! During this weirdness the histogram gets choppy as well. Check the examples out at this site http://homepage.mac.com/dpolly/weird/index.html the grabs are in order. By the way the export of the photo always looks fine. I hadn't seen this issue unitl re-installing the app. This leaves me with the "can I trust this program" kinda feeling. Please help.
Thanks,
Dan
G5 Mac OS X (10.4.6)
G5 Mac OS X (10.4.6)

Thanks.
I just wanted to make sure I wasn't losing my mind!
When I originally installed aperture it was on a version earlier than 10.4.6. After the rebuild it went on 10.4.6 so that makes sense. I was really concerned that it was changing the master file during the RAW conversion.
I think I'll hold out for 1.1 and hope all goes well.
Thanks for such a quick response. This forum is great and I hope I can return the favor soon.
Thanks,
Dan
G5 Mac OS X (10.4.6)

10.4.10 and Canon 1D Mark III RAW Conversion in Aperture

I'm noticing bright reds are not being converted properly at all. Overall, most images look excellent; however, images with a large amount of red look terrible. I've tried converted the .CR2 files via DNG and then in LightRoom, and the red looks good.
Has anyone else noticed this? I'll try and get some crops and place on Flickr tonight.
PowerMac G5 Dual 2GHz Mac OS X (10.4.9) 4 Gigs RAM, CalDigit S2VR Duo 1TB

I haven't seen those problems. Did you post the samples on Flickr? How can I find them?

Canon Rebel XSi and RAW

I am trying to import my RAW+jpeg mix files and the jpeg's are fine, but the RAW images give me a message that says they are not in a supported format. I have a friend who has imported his RAW files into Aperture 3.03 from the same camera model with no problem.
I am using Aperture 3.03 with the Digital Camera RAW 3.02.
Thoughts?

I imagine you mean the latest update of Digital Camera Raw 3.2 and you are on the latest software updates for the Mac and the firmware updates for the Rebel XSi:
http://www.canon.ca/InetDD/downloadDriverOs.htm?sessionid=839096DB870DC92BA93594 EC6BA63816&Families=1&Lines=7&Products=0002200420&LANGUAGE=ENG&URL=http%3A%2F%2F canoncanada.custhelp.com%2Fapp%2Fanswers%2Flist%2Fp%2F13%252C498%2Fc%2Fr_id%2F16 6%2Fsearch%2F1rnflag%3DDD&act=&actiontype=&contrl=os#
Certainly RAW+JPEG has been supported since Snow Leopard 10.6.0 so I suspect there’s some setting on the camera that is recording something differently than your friend. I use RAW+JPEG in the Adobe RGB 1998 colour space on my Canon Rebel XT without a problem. Recheck your settings for the camera, ensure all Canon stuff is current, and review the Import dialog in Aperture to see if you are handling the import of RAW+JPEG correctly.

D300 and RAW color in Aperture 2

I just got my new D300, and ran it through its first shoot Saturday. When I went to import into Aperture 2, the processed files were nasty washed versions of their NEF parents. I opened Capture NX and all of the color was there in the NEF file. I opened Lightroom, and everything looked fine, rich saturated images. In Aperture the color was all washed out.
The only thing I can think of is that Aperture is running in a different color space than sRGB, and whatever the color space that the program is working in is washing the NEF files color away. But I couldn't find a menu setting for color space, so I don't know if that's true. Or the program imposes limits on crazy color saturation (no program should ever do this).
Any ideas? Anyone else experiencing this? I finished the job in Lightroom without a problem (great color tools, I was genuinely impressed), so I'm wondering if my Aperture days are numbered.

I am having exactly the opposite problem here and it is most confusing!
I normally shoot RAW and I had been planning to use Aperture as my RAW conversion tool of choice when I noticed that Aperture does not deal properly with Chromatic Aberration on files from my Nikon D300. (I posted on this on the forum and it was interesting that we did not hear back from Appple on this).
So today I shot JPEG's for a quick edit to file to the client tonight and all the images are over saturated! I pulled up the same file on the same screen in Photoshop, put them side by side and the image looks fine in PS and rubbish in Aperture! I checked the image in Capture NX and also in Preview - all the colour match apart from in Aperture. What is going on? Aperture seems to have no colour management option as part of its workflow. I have checked the "preferences" and there is nothing there - I have no control over my image! Its a shocker! What do I do?
Again, if Apple are really planning to pitch this software at the pro market, they need to do some serious work on their colour management and RAW conversion. These are the bedrock of pro shooting these days and with out them, Aperture is just another archiving software. I have not tried Lightroom, but I wonder if this will fare any better?
Andy

A novel idea regarding RAW conversion

With the much debate about Aperture and ACR and RAW conversion, I had this thought: RAW conversion is really part of the image editing process, not part of cataloguing, selection, organization, or required for producing thumbnails.
I'm not exactly sure when the RAW conversion takes place, but I'm guessing on import, so that images can be immediately edited. Why can't thumbnails and organization take place in Aperture without converting from RAW? Adobe Bridge seems to manage this just fine. It would seem like the logical place to put RAW conversion is as a precursor to image editing in Aperture. For example, when you click the adjustment button, the conversion takes place. This would seem like a logical way to incorporate a RAW Converter plugin.
Why does the Aperture RAW conversion have to take place at all (except when a user demands it) ? Seems like this follows workflow more logically...
Brad

Interesting. Well this is confusing then -- why in
the world is Aperture not sending a RAW file to
Photoshop when you configure Aperture to use
Photoshop as its external editor?
It seems from my observations that this was a design choice on the part of Apple. This is going to get a bit technical...
When you choose to open in an external editor, Aperture automatically converts any 'master' file (tagged as 'isExternallyEditable' = false and 'isOriginalFile' = true in the XML file) to a 16-bit TIFF or PSD file, adds that as a new file stacked with the original RAW and opens the new file in the external editor. That new file is not really a 'version' in terms of it just being an adjustment recipe, but is a whole new file which is linked in the database to the RAW, just like a stack.
Once that new file is made, it's 'isExternallyEditable' tag changes to true and from then on Aperture passes the file directly to the editor. This state is shown by the target icon. This repeats until you make image adjustments to that image within Aperture, leading to your earlier problems with repeated editing of the same file in PS. If you DO make adjustments to it within Aperture it then becomes a new 'sub'-master with it's own versions.
Playing devil's advocate, there is actually a valid reason for doing things this way - pass the original RAW file to ACR, and how does PS know where to save the resulting file so that it goes back into Aperture, or which RAW master to associate it with?
A possible solution with Aperture 1.0?
The manual workaround at the moment which would give a reasonable amount of play back-and-forth would be to set up two hot folders using folder actions. One automatically opens any files dropped into it in PS. The other automatically imports any files into Aperture.
So, do all your choice editing until you just have final picks, not bothering with any image adjustments, then:
1) Go through the final picks, Apple-Shift-S (export master), saving them into the PS hot folder. They automatically open up in ACR, probably one at a time.
2) Do your RAW conversion with the superior toolset available.
3) Save into the Aperture hot folder and watch them be automatically imported.
4) Now the more manual bit - drag that converted file into the stack with it's RAW original.
You now have the original and it's converted file linked together in Aperture, although keywords etc. will be separate. Once the hot folders are set up it should be relatively straightforward. Not nearly as straightforward as it could be, but hopefully manageable.
Ian

I have an A77 and see that DxO RAW conversions look different

Several RAW conversion comparisons on the web amongst A77 users are pointing to markedly better conversions and noise handling currently within new DxO 7 eg. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1037&thread=39970661
I know that Sony's RAW have historically taken a while to arrive at optimal conversions from previous experinece with my A350. When Lightroom 3 came along it was like getting new cameras for most Sony Alpha users with from RAW performance at last matching Nikon from effectively the same sensors.
Can you let me know the likely time lag till ACR and Lightroom will have an update to this initial default to really match the DxO performance. Otherwise, to be honest, despite being a Lightroom user since the original Beta stages and a passionate supporter and advocate, I may have to consider jumping ship. Working exclusively in RAW I do need to be using the very best conversions possible to make the best out of my investment in my camera equipment.
I don't know if this lag with ARW conversions is because Sony don't co-operate with Adobe early enough or whether because Sony is only number three in DSLR share it gets less priority within Adobe than Canon and Nikon, but some timeline on a revised version of Lightroom to address this for the new Sony Alphas would be great.
Many thanks from a long time advocate who really hopes I can stick with Lightroom,
Cheers,
Paul

Hi Hal,
Many thanks...I’ll give it a try. Not trying to cause trouble as I genuinely am a fan of LR, but if they always lag on getting to grips with Sony RAWs it’s a major drawback for Sony users.
Cheers,
Paul

Recently upgraded to a Canon Mark 3 and now having issues with my RAW files in Bridge and Photoshop. I am operating with CS4. Photoshop produces an error " Could not complete your request because photoshop does not recognize this type of file"

Recently upgraded to a Canon Mark 3 and now having issues with my RAW files in Bridge and Photoshop. I have operating with CS4. Photoshop produces and error " Could not complete your request because photoshop does not recognize this type of file"

Assuming you mean 5D Mark III, Photoshop CS4 cannot directly open raw files from your camera.
Generally speaking, Adobe stopped updating older versions to be able to read raw files from newer cameras when they released a new major version of Photoshop. Photoshop CS4 is no longer receiving Camera Raw updates.
You can double check this yourself:
First you need to determine whether Adobe has released support for your new camera in your version of Photoshop. To do that, look at these two pages. You'll want to find out the earliest version of Camera Raw that can support your camera, then what version of Photoshop can run that version of Camera Raw.
Camera Raw plug-in | Supported cameras
Camera Raw-compatible Adobe applications
If you find your camera is supported by your version of Photoshop, you need to download the latest update for Camera Raw. There's more information on how to do that here:
Keeping Photoshop Up-To-Date
If your version of Photoshop cannot support your camera, you can download and install the latest version of the free Adobe DNG Converter, which can take your raw files as input and put out DNG format files, which your version of Photoshop can open.
Photoshop Help | Digital Negative (DNG)
The DNG converter DOES work, but if you want maximal quality from your raw files (not to mention the convenience and ease of use of directly opening your raw files) you'll want the latest version of Photoshop. Adobe has made substantial improvements in raw conversion quality in recent years.
-Noel

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.

Awful canon raw conversion for photos with dramatic (i.e. underwater) non-standard white balance

I'm shooting underwater (and white balancing as I shoot using a white disc) with a canon s90, and have noticed that the raw conversions done by aperture are way worse than those from jpegs when I shoot in raw+jpeg and those done by raw processing using the canon digital photo professional software. In particular, reds are pretty much lost. It may be a false lead, but I notice that in aperture, the rgb histogram shows a dramatic spike of the red channel on the far right (possibly clipping?) that doesn't show up in the rgb histogram in the canon software.
I'm not sure whether this is related to the plethora of threads about canon raw processing and overly green output. Has anyone else experienced this or have any ideas? I could batch convert to tiff in the canon software but I'd really rather not do that... For one thing the 16bit tiff files are so much bigger than the raws and it is an annoying extra step. Also, note that I can't just batch fix the white balance because (a) I'm having a hard time getting aperture to do it properly (possibly b/c the red channel is clipped as far as the aperture UI is concerned?) and (b) The white-balance changes from picture to picture as I change depth, which is the whole reason I white-balance as I'm shooting in the first place..
I've attached two versions of a picture, one of which I processed the raw in aperture and one of which I processed the raw (and converted to TIFF to give to aperture) in the canon software. I then exported both as small jpegs from aperture.
Canon Digital Photo Professional (correct):
Aperture RAW processing (very wrong):

>Is MS Picture Viewer a colour managed application? I don't know, but don't think so. Lightroom is however which might be the cause of your problems.
Not in XP. In vista it is color managed. From the sound of it, the problem is a bad monitor profile but you might also have a corrupt Lightroom database. You need to recalibrate the monitor and NEVER use canned profiles from the monitor manufacturer. They are almost always corrupt. As a very last resort, you can use sRGB as the monitor profile (delete any profile found in the windows display properties) but only to hold you over until you can really calibrate it. The other problems with weird errors are pretty worrisome though. Do you also get them when you start a fresh catalog?

RAW conversion for Canon 5D Mark II

I can't open my raw files from my Mark II I have PSE 6 and have upgraded my raw conversion to 5.2 it still won't recongnize my .cr2 raw files from my Mark II it recongnizes my .cr2 from my 40D whats up?

Some of the Adobe download links are wrong and take you to an earlier version of Adobe Camera Raw. The latest version is ACR 5.6 which brings support for the newest camera models such as:
Canon EOS 7D, PowerShot S90 & G11, Nikon D3S and others. It’s also backward compatible and will support all earlier models including the EOS5DmkII.
First you will need to exit Photoshop Elements.
To get the plug-in for PSE6 go to the link below - instructions are for Windows users. They will differ for Mac users.
http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/thankyou.jsp?ftpID=4626&fileID=4303
Download the plug-in for Elements 8
Open the zip folder you just downloaded and click Extract Files.
You should see a 64 bit folder and a plug-in file below it. The plug in has a file name: Camera Raw.8bi
Now drag the plug-in file (or copy it) into the File Formats folder in the following location:
C:\Program Files\Adobe\Photoshop Elements 6.0\Plug-Ins\File Formats. See Gotcha
If running windows Vista you will probably get a pop-up requesting Administrator permission. Assuming you are the Administrator for your computer, simply agree.
I can confirm it does work as I have recently updated my plug-in for PSE6 using the above method. To test it, go to one of your photo folders, right click on a raw file (NEF, CR2, DNG etc) and select open with Photoshop Elements. The image should automatically open in ACR 5.6 giving you access to the latest slider adjustments, including white balance and exposure.
Note: If you have an earlier Camera Raw plug-in, I suggest you move it from the File Formats folder to My Documents before you begin. This will prevent it being overwritten by the new Camera Raw file (it will have the same name) and you can always move it back again if the download installation fails.
If you are using a 64-bit edition of Windows, then move the plug-in file from the unzipped download folder by navigating to:C:\Program Files (x86)\Adobe\Photoshop Elements 6.0\Plug-Ins\File Formats.

Poor raw conversion from Fujifilm X100 .raf format in Lightroom 3 and 4

I'm seeing very poor results when doing raw conversion from Fujifilm X100 .raf format. Who can I contact about this? Is there anything I can do?
See below for what is supposed to be a white curtain, lit by stage lighting. It results in a blown out blue channel, serious loss of detail, and very ugly gradient.
(Lightroom 4.2, Camera Raw 7.2 on LEFT --- Fujifilm X100 in-camera jpg on RIGHT)
And for more detail:
(Lightroom 4.2, Camera Raw 7.2 on TOP --- Fujifilm X100 in-camera jpg on BOTTOM)
(Lightroom 4.2, Camera Raw 7.2 on LEFT --- Fujifilm X100 in-camera jpg on RIGHT)

The blue light is so intense that it is, or almost is, saturating the sensor.
The camera’s built-in raw conversion handles this by shifting the color to cyan—clipping the blue and allowing the green to contribute more. I doubt there was cyan lighting in the scene, only blue.
Adobe does not shift the hue, but this makes the blue seem over saturated. Adobe’s conversion may be more colorimetrically correct, but less pleasing in this case of intense lighting that the sensor cannot accurately record.
It is a difference in camera profile used between the camera and Adobe. Since Adobe does not supply camera-match profiles for much more than Nikon and Canon cameras, you’re not going to be able to fix things other than managing the over-saturation using HSL or WB or other things like lower-vibrance, higher saturation.
You could try making your own camera profile using an X-Rite Color-Checker Passport or the color-checker and the Adobe DNG Profile Editor:
http://xritephoto.com/ph_product_overview.aspx?id=1257

Canon G9 and RAW: colors are different

Hi,
I tried to find an answer in this forum and on the web but had no success, though somebody must surely have noticed this before. I have a Canon G9 and when I import RAW images in Aperture 2 (2.1.3, with the latest updates), the colors look quite different from when I open the same RAW images with the Canon supplied software (Raw Image Task) or even with the Gimp. I am not even able to make the Aperture version resemble the Canon one by just changing white balance or other simple parameters, so it's not a trivial issue.
Did anybody face the same problem and found a solution?
thank you very much in advance for any suggestions,
cheers
giuseppe

Hi Andreas,
thank you very much for your reply. I guessed something like that was going on. The colors from the Canon (or Gimp) raw conversion are much closer to the original than the Aperture ones though, so this poses a problem: If I want to use the Canon or Gimp conversion but store the image in Aperture, then I have to export the RAW file as TIFF or JPG losing the benefits of non-destructive editing on RAW files in Aperture.
I wonder if there is any software which could re-save the RAW image with some additional information that could make Aperture read in the correct settings for the RAW conversion. At any rate, it seems a bit strange to me, to say the least, that while an open source software like Gimp (even Picasa, I just found out) is able to the do the correct conversion (comparing with the actual scene's color as my eyes see it) - as Canon's own software - a commercial professional product like Aperture can not.
What do people usually do in situations like this? I tried to reconstruct the same colors that Canon gives me but I cannot even get closer to it. I guess it should be possible to do it with a very detailed manipulation of the Levels, but that is just too much work to do for every image...
cheers and thanks again for your comments
giuseppe

Canon 50D CS3 raw conversion noisier than DPP

The ACR CS3 raw conversion of Canon 50D files seems considerably noisier than conversion in Canon's own DPP converter. Is this correct, and are there plans to put it right?

ACR pretty much leaves the noise reduction up to you to configure the way you want it. The Canon software applies noise reduction automatically. I don't know if this noise issue has changed in later versions of ACR, but there won't be any more updates for your version. Have you downloaded the profiles that have been provided? Have you updated your ACR to version 4.6?

Exported Raw Conversion Image Resolution and Assigning a Color Profile, etc

In Aperture 1.1, although I set the exported Raw conversion image resolution to 300 dpi in the preferences, it continues to come out at 72 dpi which is something of an inconvenience. Also, is it possible to assign a color profile to the "exported version" so that it is congruent to my PS CS2 color workspace (if that is what its called). Is this program capable of carrying out a conversion as a background operation? Finally, can the layout windows be configured so that they remember how they have been used in the past? Thanks.

Iatrogenic huh! Cool!
Anyway, I'm not real clear on what it is you are trying to accomplish. Despite your obvious vocabulary skills, there seems to be some disconnect relative to what you are trying to accomplish. You are right that "exporting a version" in Aperture is roughly equivalent to what happens in ACR when you "Open" a RAW image into Photoshop. In both cases you have, hopefully, already done the adjusting of parameters you want prior to "exporting", or "opening". When you "open" or "export" you wind up with an "image" composed of pixels, whereas in the RAW adjustment phase you are just working with a temporary thumbnail and a set of mathematical instructions. Big difference, I suppose is that when you "open" and image from ACR into CS2, the resulting image is truly just pixels and has not had a "file type" applied to the file yet, until you "save" it, while in Aperture, if you "export" a file to CS2, or to the desktop, you end up with the file type already applied. Presuming you "export" a 16 bit TIFF or PSD, there is no operational difference.
I could be wrong, but with the new Bayer Demosaicing algorithms in Aperture 1.1, and the Camera RAW adjustments, you should be able to come up with an adjusted image that is VERY close if not identical to one done in ACR, with the possible exception of lens abberation adjustment. I was very critical of the RAW adjustments in 1.0.1, but I am very happy with the capabilites in 1.1. That said, I think there is still some room for improvement in user friendliness of some of the adjustments such as Levels.

Canon SX1 IS and RAW conversion

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for