D300 RAW conversion issue

I was messing around with the D300 in ISO 6400 recently and noticed something strange in a couple of the images. An example is shown below. The two images below were generated from the same D300 RAW file.
Both the RAW view and JPG export from Aperture2 show a strange extreme "noise" patterns in the lower 3rd of the frame. When loading the same RAW file in CaptureNX, the RAW preview and JPG generation show a relatively clean and normal lower 3rd.
Has anyone experienced this? I'm not too concerned as I can of course use NX for these instances - it does raise concerns though on the quality of the D300 RAW converter in Aperture. Additionally, Mac OS X 10.5.2 Finder Quick Preview shows the same "normal" clean-ish (for ISO 6400 anyway!).
Aperture jpg from D300 RAW at ISO 6400:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2113/2280589984_f9d407cb90.jpg
CaptureNX jpg from D300 RAW at ISO 6400:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2085/2280589988_cdc00d7593.jpg

Thanks for the info, ssprengel.
That's a shame.
Yes it's really unusable, which is a killer as the camera is great. 
I hear what you're saying but for me I can't let my RAW-processing software dictate what camera I can/can't have...particularly after doing lots of research (on which camera to get) and settling on the X-T1.
During my research I did stumble upon this issue, but really though (more like 'hoped...with all my being') that the 5.4 updates had fixed it.
Perhaps if I'd seen it with my own eyes first I might've reconsidered the purchase of the X-T1.
Oh well, where there's a will there's a way!
I guess for now I'll see what other options I have on Windows. With a quick google I think my current options are Photo Ninja and Capture one, so I'll hope they have trial version to try out.

Similar Messages

  • Contact Sheets / Proofing and useful Aperture RAW Conversion

    All,
    I wanted to appeal to all of you pro photographers out there to share about how you handle the proofing stage (contact sheets) with your clients. I'm curious about how you all make this process as efficient as possible.
    Ok, say you have taken 1000 pictures for a wedding or some other event (forget the accuracy of that number, its just a round number for discussion sake). You need to present your photos to your client, but you need to present a subset of the 1000 photos for a few reasons:
    1) Not all photos you are going to take are going to be great. I've heard a general quote by some pro photographers that their "keeper ratios" (the percentage of pics that are really good from a shoot) run around 10%-20%. Fair enough, I don't want to debate this percentage, but it gives us a target number of 100 photos to present to a client from a 1000 picture shoot.
    2) Your client is probably not going to be happy if they have to sift through 1000 photos. I recently had a friend who paid several thousand dollars for a wedding photographer who sent them 1000 photos to choose from. They weren't particularly happy with this, and told the guy there was just too many to choose from. Personally, I felt that this was putting part of the photographer's responsibility on the client, but whatever.
    Ok...so for the sake of the example here, we have to get 1000 photos down to 100 photos, so the client can choose what 50 (for example) they want to purchase and have printed, put in their photo book, slide presentation, etc.
    Sorry for the long intro, but here is the issue at hand: we want to work quickly for the client, and get them their 100 photos as soon as possible. We also want to put our best foot forward, and give them high-quality photos. But at the same time, we want to work efficiently, and if possible not spend time doing final retouching on photos that the customer doesn't want, but rather focus this time directly on the photos the customer does want.
    I have two questions from this which pertain to Aperture's RAW conversion and workflow:
    1) Do you do any significant adjustments on photos for the contact sheets you present to clients (the 100 photos now)? Is it just a quick exposure adjustment, or are you retouching all 100?
    2) Despite Aperture's RAW conversion problems and other adjustment glitches, is it sufficient quality in your opinion for a contact sheet?
    My purpose in asking these questions is that perhaps the Aperture RAW conversion issue can be mitigated if we can get to the point of customer contact and review using Aperture-only conversion and adjustment tools, and then isolate photoshop use for only the final, significant edits. The problems with Aperture's RAW conversion are well-documented, but the question is, could it still be sufficient for small-scale proofs, understanding that for large-scale, high-res images, it won't be suffcient.
    Your opinons are valued!
    Brad
    Powerbook G4-1.33GHz-17" / Powermac G4-1.4GHz   Mac OS X (10.4.2)   PB: 1GB RAM, Radeon 9600-64MB / PM: 1.25GB RAM, Radeon 9000Pro-128MB

    ">-DELETE project from Aperture because I can't use the app for the delivery
    of finals:
    Forgive me if I've forgotten the detail you may have posted elsewhere about this. I have seen you mention this several times, but I am really interested in the specifics behind the problems you have encountered. I have some needs in finishing that are beyond just regurgitating a photo. I'll be basically augmenting my photo with text, borders, special effects, etc. for more professional presentation, and the ability to market a photo in different ways. This is one reason I cannot discard Photoshop from my workflow. Anyway, let's assume for a moment I'm able to do all my editing in Photoshop, and those PSD files are sitting within Aperture. From there, what problems am I going to encounter? I'm tapping your brain here, as the time I have spent in Aperture has been primarily oriented toward everything prior to the finishing stage. "
    Hi Brad,
    If I've imported images into Aperture that have previously been worked over in Photoshop, none of the layers I may have created in those files will be available to me from within Aperture. This does not break but severely sprains the functionality of Photoshop. I'm keeping the images around because I think I or my clients will need them later, so what might I do with them?:
    1) If I'd like to do more work on them I either have to abandon access to the previously created layers and their magic, or export the file from Aperture, work on it outside, import it back into Aperture. Every time I want to work with those layers I have to do the same dance.
    2) If I'd like to send jpg or tif versions of those files anywhere I can choose to use the tools within Aperture or Photoshop to do so. Aperture's tools for these conversions are simply not of professional utility: no compressed tifs, no layered tif support, no quality choices for jpgs and no jpg previews. And in either case, using Aperture or Photoshop, the conversions are created OUTSIDE of Aperture and not managed by it.
    3) When I decide to archive my older projects I'm faced with the incredible limitation that Aperture will not allow me any remote search of any archive that is not "live" within Aperture. Not even Spotlight will search Aperture libraries!!!!!
    So moving already created projects into Aperture has absolutely no advantages and a number of problems, any one of which might be a deal-killer by itself.
    If I'd like to use Aperture to manage work that I create going forward I've got those limitations already listed above, but I CAN access layers in PSD that are created from within Aperture. I cannot make layered duplicates of those files in order to work on versions of those images so once again the Photoshop workflow is hobbled.
    All of this makes it a bad idea for my projects to make anything but a brief trip in and out of Aperture for sorting/proofing.
    Regards,
    fp

  • Noise issue with RAW conversions

    Dear fellow Aperture users,
    I have noticed on close inspection of my RAW images that that Apertures RAW conversion is less than poor. I shoot with a Nikon D70 and any dark areas on my images come out very dirty. I have tried correcting this using the new 1.1 controls but this doesnt help. However, when I open the same images on Lightroom, iPhoto or even Preview they come out fine, with a lot of detail!
    I love using Aperture, even though it can be very slow on my 1.33 PB G4, but these conversions are not aceptable. I have recently started uploading my images to a stock library, but they have been returned due to noise!
    If anyone has come across similar issues, or has any suggestions as to how I could rectify the situation, I would be more than happy to hear from you.
    Thanks in advance,
    Svendo

    Let me prefix this by saying my views are wholly subjective. But...
    High ISO ratings in Aperture seem to trade off between color saturation and noise vs. ACR. Aperture seems to go for saturation, which shows more noise chroma noise.
    To get around this I created a couple of different profiles for different ISO and lighting/contrast situations. My high ISO800/shadowy profile has:
    - Boost of 0.73
    - Sharpening Intensity of 0.28
    - Sharpening Edge of 0
    - Chroma blur of 5.5
    - Auto Noise Compensation On
    Camera is EOS 20d, so I'm not sure how effective this will be with your Nikon RAW's. This gets me in the ball park for most, and then I tweak from there as needed. These results are similar to those I get with ACR (when viewed at 200%).

  • Aperture suddenly displaying "unsupported format" for Nikon D300s RAW files

    I am using Aperture 3.1.3 on my iMac 24 with Snow Leopard 10.6.8.   A couple of days ago I applied an update for Aperture RAW files that was in my update list, even though I don't use any of the cameras involved. 
    After that update Aperture gives me an "unsupported format" error on all my Nikon D300s RAW files. Every RAW file in the library.  I have never had a problem with this at any time over the last 2+ years of using Aperture.
    I have tried using time machine and rolling Aperture back to the end of July (my most recent backup) along with rolling back the RAW file plist. I then did a repair permissions, and reimported the photos after this.  I have rebooted numerous times.  All to no avail.  I have not yet tried a library rebuild that would be next if I must.
    I use a Referenced library, so I was able to check out individual RAW files with Adobe Camera RAW.   They open fine so there is no file corruption issue. 
    Any thoughts on what might be happening?  Any other file(s) associated with RAW conversion that I might need to roll back?   I do not see any mention of a problem like this when searching the web or the forum (although I may have missed something by not searching the correct terms).
    Any help would be greatly appreciated!

    The raw camera bundle is  /System/Library/CoreServices/RawCamera.bundle
    Go to /System/Library/CoreServices with the Finder, locate the the RawCamera.bundle package, select it and then do a File->Get Info on the package. You should have version 3.8.0, that is the latest and the one that you should have downloaded last week. If it is not 3.8.0 stop here and post back what version you do have, something isn't right.
    Assuming you have 3.8.0  use the Finder to navigate to /System/Library/CoreServices and then delete the RawCamera.bundle package. The Finder will ask you to authorize the delete.
    Then go to Digital Camera RAW Compatibility Update 3.7 download and install it. That will put you back to the last CameraRaw update before this one.
    See if that fixes your problem.
    As always when messing around with system files it is possible to mess things up so make sure you have a good backup before proceeding, And if any of these instructions make you nervous you might want to hold off doing them.
    good luck

  • Aperture 3 RAW conversion and hot pixel problem

    I've used every version of Aperture since release, but I'm not very happy with the RAW conversion in Aperture3.
    My images from earlier versions have no hot pixel problems but if I update to the new processing I can see them.
    Single red or green pixel in the 100% crop image, that didn't show up before and also don't show up in LR.
    The images I'm importing are NEF files from a Nikon D2x.
    Is this a bug in the new RAW conversion for this camera?
    It makes all of my images now unusable through Aperture if I reprocess them?

    I haven't noticed the pixel issues that you mention, but I wasn't looking for that yet. Instead, my images from my Nikon D300 have been stressing A3 out as follows....
    I have been having new issues with A3 now. I bought A3 when it was 1st available and had all of the same issues that plagued some users, I worked through it and until recently have loved A3.
    While editing I noticed that A3 had a large number of my photos, about 30% of 34,000 images, labeled as being processed under an earlier version (A2). I decided to go ahead and re-reprocess the images, even though this step took a couple of weeks and countless crashes when I first purchased A3. Again, just over a week later, the images are now re-reprocessed within A3. And a new problem cropped up.
    My Macbook is...
    [img]http://jasonksepka.smugmug.com/photos/942470326_QzaME-M.png[/img]
    and when I open A3 and begin looking at my images, the program is slow to respond and when it opens an image I get a very unprocessed version of lines for up to 5 seconds before the image finally loads. The image and all edits do load, but the workflow is significantly effected and I would like to know why this is happening now, and how to fix it. Below is an example of what happens with each image.
    [img]http://jasonksepka.smugmug.com/photos/942470341_Q2WUZ-M.png[/img]

  • Lightroom vs. Photoshop Raw conversion

    I have noticed that the Lightroom RAW conversion looks about 1/3 to 1/2 stop brighter compared to Photoshop on the same image with the same settings (I'm using LR 2.4 and Photoshop CS4).  Anybody else notice this or have any thoughts?  I'm assuming they use the same RAW conversion engine.

    Thanks for the response.  Well, when I export from LR to a JPEG and do the same from Photoshop (viewing them in photoshop), I get two slightly different toned images (I mistakenly said the LR images are brighter...they're actually darker).  Viewing them this way should remove any monitor discrepencies (I'm working on a calibrated Lacie 724 monitor with 120% Adobe 1998 gamut so that should not be an issue).

  • Lightroom doesn't recognize ACR 5.5 and my D300s RAW images

    Lightroom 2.4 does not recognize my Nikon D300s RAW images. I downloaded ACR 5.5 and after install both Bridge and Photoshop CS4 handle the D300s RAW images but my Lightroom 2.4 will not import them saying that it is a damaged or unrecognized file type. I have rebooted my entire Vista system and the problem persists. Any suggestions on how I might make Lightroom recognize ACR 5.5 and my D300s RAW images? Thanks in advance.
    Harry Campbell

    Harry Campbell wrote:
    Any suggestions on how I might make Lightroom recognize ACR 5.5 and my D300s RAW images?
    You don't want Camera Raw 5.5 (unless you want to use Photoshop CS4), you want the DNG Converter 5.5 which can convert the D300 raws into DNGs that are compatible with Lightroom 2.4. The next version of Lightroom (presumable 2.5) will have the support built in without needing the DNG Conversion...

  • Web service call on hosted env fails with hex to raw conversion error

    Hi,
    I use Enciva to run some hosted Apex applications, and I've had a call open with them for a few days re: setting up a web service call to an e-mail checker, provided by a company called Rolosoft. The e-mail checker runs fine from outside the hosted environment, but I get the following error trying to call from the Apex application:
    ORA-06502: PL/SQL: numeric or value error: hex to raw conversion error
    Has anyone hit this error before with web services, I've tried manual and RESTful but get the same error message.
    Thanks,
    Mike

    Hello,
    We encounter the same issue using manual WebService !
    Environnement Settings :
    Oracle 11g R2 - Windows W2K3 - NLS_CHARACTERSET : AL32UTF8
    Apex 4.1
    Any suggestions, helps ?
    Thanks,
    G.

  • RAW conversion in 2 then update to 3 and its RAW conversion

    I noticed that when I upgraded from 2 to 3 then 3.1, Aperture notified me that the RAW conversion it did in 2 is not the same as 3 and, would I like the 3 conversion done? When I said yes to one test image, it came out considerably darker.
    What have people been doing with that change and, is it happening generally to all RAW conversions to 3 with most camera brands and models?
    My preference is to leave them as version 2 as I always like the way Aperture handled RAW. There was a test comparison of RAW converters a year or so ago (I think it was a French site) and Aperture 2 held its own and was my preference.
    So now I am wondering, how will new previews be when I import them into version 3? (Have not shot anything lately.) Since I prefer the Aperture 2 RAW to JPEG converter, can I set Aperture 3 to convert more like that?

    I don't really want to reimport.
    By processor do you mean RAW processor?
    It's not that the new RAW in v.3 is bad, it is just darker.
    I read up more in Aperture Help. Apple seems to indicate that one might like to keep the earlier RAW processed images and you can. Although, from the sounds of it, they make the v.3 RAW converter sound much better than v.2.
    So, still, I just don't know how to "process" this issue myself.
    How have others upgrading from 2 to 3 dealt with it and, did you notice the darker image after the conversion? Did anyone keep the v.2 processed images?

  • Nikon D300 RAW and PSE 5.0 (Win)

    I have just started to process my Nikon D300 RAW images in my ACR / PSE 5.0 (Win) installation.  The RAW conversion works OK but when I want to remove the actual RAW files from my computer to store elsewhere, the computer will not let me move or delete them because "they are being used by another program or person."
    I have also noticed other strange goings on with these RAW files sometimes causing PSE to freeze.
    A quick check with the Process Explorer diagnostic tool from Microsoft indicates that something called Photoshop Elements File Agent.exe is still running in the background.  Is this a problem of the RAW files themselves or PSE?  Has any other user met this?  I have backed up "My Catalog", restarted my computer and uninstalled / reinstalled my PSE 5.0 to no avail.
    Any help gratefully received!

    Hi dj_paige
    1. Sorry but Windows XP (SP3).
    2. My current RAW workflow involves deleting the
    NEF RAW files from the PSE Organiser after
    conversion, copying / backing up the NEF files to
    an external HDD (which works OK) and then moving
    them (via standard Windows Explorer
    drag-and-drop) from the "Download" folder to an
    "Archive" folder on my computer internal hard
    drive.  I got the same error message when I tried
    to delete them from the "Download" folder.  My
    son, who works in computers, put me onto the
    Microsoft "Process Explorer" utility, to try and
    find which program was still using the files.
    3. I have had no problems with this workflow with
    my previous Nikon D70.  My suspicions about the
    D300 RAW files arose when the problem happened
    with the first one I tried to move / delete.
    4. The other "strange goings on" relate to trying
    to reopen one of the affected D300 NEF RAW files
    back into PSE Editor.  My PSE5 installation just
    stopped.  Today, after having reinstalled my PSE
    software, when trying to import one of the
    affected D300 NEF RAW files back into PSE
    Organiser, I got an error message relating to
    "Memory".  As this is all somewhat vague, I will
    try to recreate and note the error messages received.
    I look forward to any progress on this matter.
    Kind Regards
    Adrian Law

  • 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. 

  • Nikon D3 Raw Conversion difference between ACR4.4 and CaptureNX

    Digital Photography Review has just published an in depth review of the D3. In it they compare raw conversions by ACR 4.4, ViewNX 1.0.3 (Capture NX), and Capture One 4.0.1. The ViewNX conversion mirrors the camera's jpg standard; but there are significant differences - to my eye at least - between that and the colours in the GretagMacbeth chart of the ACR result.
    Is this sort of thing common knowledge among the LR community?
    I would have thought this a rather fundamental issue; but would welcome any thoughts from those more familiar with this level of colour expertise.
    Anyone interested can see the dpr result on page 17 of the review at
    www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD3/page17.asp

    It's not unique to a D3. Check out http://www.damianharty.com/Purple.html for my take on it all - including a step-by-step guide to the calibration process Michael mentions.
    Others get very uptight about the fact that this isn't a "proper" calibration and I'm sure that technically they're right, but life is short and this route works well for me. It also ends up as an LR preset and is super-fast to apply.
    If "accuracy" was the only consideration, the camera wouldn't have "vivid" and "portrait" and all those other settings in it. We also wouldn't have had, in days gone by, the choice between Fuji Velvia and Kodak Portra - see http://www.damianharty.com/Film.html for my take on all that, too.
    Both my articles are typically short-attention span things that appear on the net. Try "Real World Color Management" for a genuine guide through it all.
    Or else don't worry about it.
    Damian
    PS I'm sure I used to be able to format links more nicely than that. Where did that go?

  • Need help with RAW conversion in 1.5

    Previous tests on RAW conversion have confirmed that Aperture and CI pretty much all in camera settings except white balance. In my previous tests with everything set to pretty much "normal" in camera Aperture's RAW conversion was close but not exact to the camera produced JPG's of the same exact image (camera set to RAW+JPG). I have no way to test but now the same exact images are no where near the same color balance or temperature.
    Does anyone else have this issue with 1.5? What is going on?
    I can post some examples if it would help.

    Hello, rwboyer
    Quote: "[sic with] pretty much all in camera settings
    except white balance. In my previous tests with
    everything set to pretty much "normal" in camera
    Aperture's RAW conversion was close but not exact to
    the camera produced JPG's of the same exact image
    (camera set to RAW+JPG)."
    What are you using as a comparison for the jpegs?
    Comparing a RAW photograph to a jpeg duplicate would
    not look the same under close examination.
    Let's see the examples.
    love & peace,
    victor
    Let me rephrase and provide an example,
    I have the camera set to produce a RAW file and a JPG of the same shot. In Aperture 1.1 the way both file looked side by side in Aperture was close but not identical, the way both files looked exported to JPG were close. After switching to Aperture 1.5 the same exact files look completely different.
    Here is an example exported from Aperture 1.5
    {Moderator note: Links to images were removed. Please only link to images that would be 'family-friendly'.}
    Thanks
    MacBookPro Mac OS X (10.4.6)

  • Brushes not working with new RAW conversion for Nikon D7000

    I have always worked with RAW files w/A2 & A3.1.1 with my Nikon (D80) And now, just got Nikon's D7000 and of course, waited for the RAW conversion that just came out.
    Apple addressed the Nikon D7000 RAW situation (which was fixed this month), but now when I use "brushes" on RAW pics, very little if any changes occur.
    Very little affect occurs (if any) with A3.1.1 and the "new" RAW conversion for Nikon. I shot (at the same time) both RAW and JPEG (as cameras can) and put them side by side in A3. Pulled down Dodge / Burn / Skin Smoothing & Blur from brushes and they all did a great job. But on the RAW pic that was taken at the same time..... nada, nothing (maybe a minute change, but nothing to call home about).
    Bottom line, the newest RAW capability that came out a couple of weeks ago, somehow messed up brushes? I don't think I am that smart or lucky to see this issue. Am I missing something here? If so, please set me straight.
    I have tried the places one pulls down brushes but no affect on RAW. Using curves from bricks and luminance, etc, works just fine. Guess I am stuck with JPEG's until this is resolved by our A3 guys, or someone realigns me.

    I am able to import them, but I cannot edit them as RAW files. They behave like .jpegs. So correcting exposure for example is a horrible experience. My 5D Mark II files behave as they did in Aperture, so it is the FZ1000 RAWs in particular that are problematic.

  • RAW conversion comments

    I respect a photographers personal opinions regarding their perceptions of differing quality levels in RAW conversions but in the commercial world these perceived differences between Aperture and say ACR are so minimal they certainly do not qualify as a deal breaker.
    In the real world of commercial photography, design and printing, photo images are ultimately used as 8 bit CMYK files or when used for Giclee printing as 8 bit RGB files. These files go through so much retouching and manipulation after the RAW conversion that the esoteric quality differences talked about in these posts are irrelevant.
    The proper use of any Camera RAW converter is to balance the image before outputting it as a 16 bit TIFF or PSD for refined manipulation in Photoshop. This would include refined levels adjustments sometimes with layer masks and appropriate sharpening at the final output size.
    We typically use the RAW converter to:
    1- Pull back highlights that appeared to be blown
    2- Open shadow detail that appeared to be plugged
    3- Correct color casts and saturation
    4- In some cases add special effects such as conversion to rich B&W
    Very few serious professionals in either the commercial or fine arts world are going to use the RAW conversion as their final image.
    We can argue forever about the pros and cons of this or that RAW conversion quality, but in the real world Aperture's solution, while not absolutely perfect, does an excellent job within a program that enhances real world productivity.
    Dual 2ghz G5   Mac OS X (10.4.3)  

    Tom...
    With respect, your logic is hard to accept. You state that in the commercial world, images are typically so heavily manipulated that initially quality of RAW conversion is non-issue.
    I am surprised that no one has bothered to challenge this idea. So I'll step up.
    If my RAW conversion out of ANY program is going to introduce banding artifacts, 'parquet flooring' patterns, or other noisy type data into solidly colored areas, that will need to be fixed in this manipulation of which you speak. Who could justify having to do this sort of thing when there are perfectly good RAW converters out there that don't add this particular headache to the workflow?
    Your message states that "Apertures solution, while not absolutely perfect, does an excellent job within a program that enhances real world productivity."
    That statement stands as a contradiction when you consider that extra 'fixing' may need to be done to some images coming straight out of Apertures RAW conversion.
    I suspect that you (and others) are not seeing problems because evidence is mounting to support the idea that Apertures RAW conversion works better for some flavors of RAW than others. So, perhaps some people are seeing consisten image trashing, and some not. If this is the case, one could easily understand why some are 'satisfied' and some are positively livid.
    However, I digress. I still don't agree at all with the idea that in the commercial world a substandard RAW conversion would make an acceptable starting point for any commercial image, regardless of how much manipulation down the track its going to go through. I can't see any art director being satisfied knowing this was going on in their shop.
    "Aperture - sure it mangles your images, but it does a heck of a job keeping track of them!"
    Jim

Maybe you are looking for