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

Similar Messages

  • Creating a contact sheet of illustrations using CS6

    Is there a way to create a contact sheet of my illustrations (eps files) so that they don't come out fuzzy? If i use bridge they are way too pixelated.

    You might want to try what indesign secrets has on the subject :
    http://indesignsecrets.com/the-ultimate-contact-sheet.php
    and this is what i actually do but there are no captions
    Grid Mode and Live Distribute in InDesign CS5 | Visual Design CS5 | Adobe TV

  • I have IMAC and use Aperture and I am looking for a good App to turn a photograph into a painting look

    I have an IMAC and use Aperture and I am looking for a App that will allow me to have one of my photos look like a painting - any suggestions?  It is a gift for my brother

    I like photoshop elements.
    http://www.photoshopelementsuser.com/blog/from-photograph-to-painting/
    You can also do something like this:
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/new_page_9.shtml

  • 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 conversion & sharpening

    If I use Aperture 3, edit in Photoshop CC (PS6) does that mean:
    Aperture applies sharpening when converting a RAW file?
    If so, is Apereture applying the default sharpening normally applied in Adobe ACR?
    If not, can use the NIK Capture sharpening plugin in Aperture, before editing in PS?
    Thanks,
    Brian

    The only way you will be able to correlate the setting in one converter to another is to run tests on each and compare the images. The numbers aren't useless they just don;t do want you would like them to.
    If you use PS as Aperture's external editor you are going to be seining PS a tiff or psd file not the Raw file so  I'm not sure your concern is justified.
    All I can do now is throw out the Fine Tuning default, set everything to "0" and go back to doing everything manually in Photoshop.
    Well if you are doing the conversion in PS then the settlings in Aperture have no effect anyway. And if you are doing the conversion in Aperture you are sending a tiff or psd file to PS (a I wrote above) and then the PS converter doesn't come into play.
    The only way your concerns would be something to worry about is if you are doing two separate conversions, one in Aperture and one in PS, and wanted the two separate images to be identical but I'm not sure why you would want to do this.
    regards

  • Can I print contact sheets from Iphoto or aperture with file names?

    I can not figure out nor am I sure it can be done with these programs but if someone out there can tell me how I would be very happy. I have several jobs I need contacts on I have been printing contact sheets and then handwriting the file numbers. To old fashion for me. HELP

    1. In the browser pane in Aperture, select the images you need.
    2. File>Print...
    3. On the left-hand side of the print dialog, click on 'Sample Contact Sheet Preset'.
    4. In the layout options there is a drop-down menu for which metadata set you want to show below the images. You may get away with using 'Name Only' which gives you the current Version Name, otherwise you may have to make a new metadata set* containing just the filename.
    Ian
    * Making new metadata sets has been covered several times on the forum, the search function is your friend.
    P.S. Welcome to the forum!

  • Aperture RAW conversion colour noise with Canon 1D Mark II

    I'm using Aperture 2.1 and am wondering if anyone here is having this problem - basically highlights end up with false colour with this camera/RAW conversion combination. The problems appears to have been introduced with the 1.1 RAW converter as 1.0 conversions don't seem to have the problem. I'm not sure if this is camera specific, or whether there is some tuning which can be done to the RAW converter to minimise the effect - attempts have so far failed with this approach.
    The best subject to produce the effect is strong reflections from water - i've attached a crop of an image which shows this problem, and I can supply a RAW with this problem.
    Conversion using RAW 1.0 (less or no colour pixelation):
    http://www.loftsoft.co.uk/pictures/KC7U5116%20-%20RAW%201.0.jpg
    Conversion using RAW 2.0 (colour pixelation):
    http://www.loftsoft.co.uk/pictures/KC7U5116%20-%20RAW%202.0.jpg
    Any suggestions as to what to do? Is this simply a RAW conversion problem which can be addressed or am I using the tool wrong?
    Many thanks,
    Cesare

    Hmm. I can see some color effects in the 1.0 conversion as well.
    Those are some touch photos... you have lots of specular highlights with the sun reflecting off the water and the railing.
    Aperture 2.x and 1.x handle the RAW conversion differently. I would suggest you try playing with the RAW Fine Tuning brick, specifically with the Moire and Radius sliders, and try fiddling with the Auto Noise Compensation checkbox.
    I don't know whether you'll be able to make the problem go away completely or not.
    With my ~30,000 1D Mark II files I've seen something similar to this (though much less extreme) on a couple of them. Always with specular highlights though -- off water or metal objects.
    Still, you may wish to submit Aperture feedback and include the RAW file.

  • Hi - new to the forum. I am unable to get the true colour printing I am used to from my Canon Pixma 9500 mk2 since moving to a mac and using Aperture. The colours are simply not representative of the on-screen image. Any ideas?

    Whatever I do with installing or de-installing printer drivers, selecting or deselecting colour synch or colour management options, the colour is simply awful compared to what I have been used to fir years, using the same printer with a pc and a 10 yeart old version of paintshop Pro. What is going on!??

    First guess is that you are subjecting the data to two passes of printing conversions.  If you use Aperture's color management for printing, you _must_ disable the color controls in your printer dialog.
    How this is done varies for each printer.  (The Aperture User Manual says, in full:
    To turn off color management for your printer
    Refer to the owner’s manual that came with your printer.
    Additionally, make sure you have the most recent printer driver for your printer and OS.  Printer makers have gotten good at making these files easy to get.  Most now come with installation instructions.
    Lastly, the only way to ensure that you get a good screen-to-print match is to use a hardware device to calibrate your monitor.  That doesn't seem to be your problem, though.

  • Contact sheets soft and banding

    When I print contact sheets the photos look a little soft and some have banding. The images look great when printed full size alone. Is there something I can do to get better quality images in the contact sheet? Do they not look good because they are using the preview jpeg to make the prints rather then the high res file. My current contact sheet size is 2 across and 3 down on a letter size sheet.
    Thanks

    When I print contact sheets the photos look a little soft and some have banding. The images look great when printed full size alone. Is there something I can do to get better quality images in the contact sheet? Do they not look good because they are using the preview jpeg to make the prints rather then the high res file. My current contact sheet size is 2 across and 3 down on a letter size sheet.
    Thanks

  • Contact sheet truncates and changes file name

    Greetings!
    I am using Photoshop CS3 on a G5 PowerPC running OS 10.5.4. My file name is 29 characters long and looks like this - Gar_070208_MD_42BlueHeron_055.JPG. When I make a contact sheet, PS puts the images in the correct order left to right top to bottom. What is wrong is PS changes the last part of the file name.
    My settings (I have 4 across and 5 down) are X-Include All Subfolders, X- Flatten All Layers, X- Rotate For Best Fit and X-Use Filename As Caption (Helvetica size 12 pt) The full name fits under each image with room to spare. The resulting name looks like this for the name above - Gar_070208_MD_42BlueH#4A895.JPG. I have tried making the CS a number of time varying the font size and no change. When making those changes, I notice that the file names are still wrong and are consistently the same wrong. And they get weirder, like #4A89D, #4A8A9, #4A8B1 ....
    The only thing I can figure is that PS does not like a file name longer than 27 characters, since that is what it truncates to. Or there is another problem/bug in the system.
    Any thoughts, ideas or workarounds?
    Thanks in advance!
    Cheers!
    Gar

    I have the same problem. I am using PS CS3 running under OS 10.5.2. If the file name excluding the extension is longer than 27 characters, I get the same error, starting with the # character. However, if the file name is longer than 27 characters, it still appears correct in Bridge and in the documents folder. This leads me to speculate that it is a Photoshop problem, not an operating system issue.
    When I was using contact sheet II in PS CS2 under Windows XP, it worked ok for more than 27 characters.
    Guy Painchaud

  • G10 Aperture RAW conversion: what are your impressions?

    the wait is over!
    2.4 RAW Compatibility update includes Canon G10.
    what are your impressions?
    what Aperture settings yield best results?
    how do they compare to Camera RAW and DPP?

    When you compare photos that were photographed at ISO 100 they all do a good job. When you stat going up in the ISO is where I think Aperture does a great job. I've attached a screen capture of the same photos processed with 3 different applications. No adjustments were added to the photos. The default settings were used then the photo was passed on to photoshop as a Tiff. I think it's clear why I don't like ACR. Aperture and DPP are much closer. DPP has some noise reduction on by default so the photo looks like it has less noise then Aperture. I feel that the default noise reduction just makes the photo look a little soft and out of focus. If I turn off the default noise reduction in DPP the photo looks noisy. So I like Aperture better because of the way the noise looks, the sharpness and detail of the photo. Another area to look at is the neck and chest area. Aperture holds the most amount of detail before blowing out. I know that all 3 programs have adjustments that will help fix the problems in the photo. Even after doing that to the photo in all 3 programs I still felt that Aperture was clearly better. As the previous poster said it is subjective to each persons taste.
    I've never used this way of posting a screen grab so if it doesn't work forgive me. Make sure to click on the photo to view the large file.

  • Alternative to Outlook to back up contacts on PC and use calendar

    New owner of iphone 3gs 16gb but have just discovered iphone does not support Outlook 2000.
    I have a recent laptop but my microsoft office is 2000 professional and this currently suits my needs. I am not in a financial position to upgrade Outlook.
    Is there a free alternative? I just cant toback up all my contacts on the pc and if poss have use of a calendar function so that I can do away with the paper filofax!!!!
    Thanks

    Outlook 2000 will probably never sync with the iPhone, But there is a solution to at least IMPORT contact data from it into the iPhone. Here are the steps for this fairly easy 2-minute process:
    1) Open Outlook 2000 and select File : Import/Export
    2) Choose "Export to a File"
    3) Choose "Comma Separated Values (Windows)"
    4) Select your Contacts folder
    5) Select your desktop or other place to save the temporary export file. Remember this name/location for step 10.
    6) Click "Finish"
    7) Now you need to open Windows Address Book. It is found in Start : All Programs: Accessories : Address Book
    8) If it asks you if you want it to be your default vCard viewer, click "No"
    9) Now we will import your contacts from the file you created using Outlook. Choose File : Import : Other Address Book : Text File (Comma Separated Values)
    10) Choose the file you saved (in Step 5 you picked the name/location)
    11) "Files of Type" will default to CSV; leave it at that and click "Open"
    12) Click "Next" and accept the default field mappings
    13) Click Finish
    14) Now dock your iPhone and select the "Info" tab on your iPhone section of iTunes
    15) Click "Sync contacts from:"and choose "Windows Address Book" instead of Outlook
    16) Click "Sync" at the lower right of the iTunes screen. Voila!
    However BE WARNED!
    This fix can be problematic and can lead to your contacts being deleted from your iPhone. Read on!
    We associated our iPhone/iTunes account with the Windows Address Book when we did the import. This worked fine for me. Then, somehow, WAB decided to associate itself with Outlook. Then, because this didn't work, iTunes kept overwriting the iPhones contacts with WAB contacts--which were a grand total of ZERO.
    You can tell you will have this problem if your file : import/export options in WAB are grayed out.
    To fix it, do this:
    1) In WAB, go to tools : options
    2) In the Data Sharing options, select "Do not share..."
    3) Restart WAB and make sure the import/export functions are available. (Not a bad time to make a backup, either!)
    4) Sync up your iPhone..should work!

  • Raw to jp2 and jp2 to raw conversion

    i am using J2KImageWriter and J2KImageReader for conversion along with J2KImageWriteParam and J2KImageReadParam.
    When i am setting the encoding rate using setEncodingRate() method, the output file size (jp2 file) is same for many values such as 2,3 ,5 etc. the compression ratio achieved is in thousands which is not desirable.
    What can be the reason for that.
    Kindly help me.
    Thanks in advance
    Preeti

    Dude you are an Absolute Genius, you solved my issue in 2 sec, sorry couldnt reply any sooner, just checked your suggestion and guess what it was selected on MOVE lol hahahahahahaha. 
    If you ever need my help get in touch anytime
    www.smilin-occasionz.com
    cheers pal
    Smilie

  • I wonder how pro photographers use aperture?I shoot raw and my harddrive is alreay full.I'm not able to import new pictures.Is it ok if i create a vault and delete all my projects in the HD.Can I use an external HD use aperture through the vault??

    I wonder how pro photographers use aperture?I shoot raw and my harddrive is alreay full.I'm not able to import new pictures. I don't know what to do. I created a vault. My plan was to create a vault(put all my master files into an external harddrive) and then delete all my projects in my mac pro's harddrive. Is it the correct way to do it ? What should I do if I have thousands of raw files ? How should my workflow be? Can I use an external HD and use aperture through the vault,without keeping the master files on my computer's hard drive?? Or should I shoot raw+jpeg and store raw files in an external backup harddrive and import only jpegs into my aperture library?

    There's a bit to learn.  It will slowly make sense.
    Aperture is an empty field.  You're given a tractor and a whole bunch of attachments. What you grow, how, and where, is entirely up to you.
    Vaults are for back-up and only for back-up.  They have nothing to do with storing your working files.
    When your Library outgrows your system drive (and for good performance, you should leave c. 20% of every drive empty), it's time to convert some of your image's Masters from Managed to Referenced.  ("Managed" and "Referenced" refer to Masters, not to Libraries.)
    There are hundreds of posts in the forum, and several pages in the User Manual on using Masters.
    Many people run Aperture with the Library on their system disk, and most (or all) of their images' Masters on external FW drives.  This is a good set-up.  Note that you will likely have to take steps to back-up the data on your external drives.
    If you do the above, there should be no reason to delete any Projects.
    The choice of RAW or RAW+JPEG or JPEG depends on the kind of work you are doing.  I capture RAW only -- but I don't do any commercial shoots.  Pros on deadlines report that the RAW+JPEG works well for them.  Capture JPEG if it saves you time.  IMHO, there is not a good reason to shoot JPEG to save space (space is cheap; time expensive).
    Short-term solution: buy and use a FW800 external 1 TB drive, formatted "Mac OS Extended (Journaled)", and using Aperture relocate the Masters of all images older than 30 days to that drive.  (Be sure to change your back-up strategy to include this new drive; you may need a second new drive.)
    This general post of mine might help you understand more about Aperture.

  • Panasonic Lumex DMC-LX1 raw conversion for Aperture doesn't work.

    I've seen many people having raw conversion problems. Direct import of Lumex raw files to Aperture does not work.
    Adobe DNG conversion of raw to dng does not work.
    I'm running on Photoshop CS.
    Perhaps my DNG conversion settings aren't right? Tell me what they should be.
    Do I have to go as far as changing the raw.plist or whatever it's called.
    Would CS2 with the Raw conversion Plug-in work instead?
    Remember that..."If all the woman lived across the sea, what a great swimmer Yellowman would be"!
    2.0 Duelly G5 4gigs ram. 23" Flat Cinema   Mac OS X (10.4.6)  

    Joe,
    good to see that you are reading these posts. I am sure that many users whose cameras' raw files are currently not supported by Aperture would love to help out in any way they can.
    However, as we are living in a converging world, why doesn't Apple talk with Adobe and share some of the information used for RAW conversion? I'm thinking dcraw which (according to a note in its source code*) is using data provided by Adobe... and that same data is also contained in the Raw.plist.
    Thus, if Adobe knows something and shares it with dcraw, and Apple uses some of the dcraw code (at least the m2 matrices found in Raw.plist are equal to the dcraw ones), why can't you guys all share the same information, and thus speed up RAW support for all cameras?
    Just a thought.
    Kindest regards,
    Karl
    * This is the bit:
    Thanks to Adobe for providing these excellent CAM -> XYZ matrices!
    void CLASS adobe_coeff (char *make, char *model)
    powerbook G4 17 1.33 GHz   Mac OS X (10.4.6)  

Maybe you are looking for