D700 Files Look Terrible in Aperture

OK - what's the deal here. I have been using Aperture forever... now that I have a D700, all my files look over exposed only in Aperture. When i hit full screen, the file at first looks beautiful - then suddenly it changes to an image that looks over exposed and flat. What's going on>?

I'm looking to get a D700 in the near future, and after reading several posts like this on the Apple forums I decided to give the 'overexposure' problem a look.
I downloaded several sample photos (most supplied by users on the forums here) and imported them into Aperture. I noticed the problem described (preview looks fine until Aperture finishes loading the RAW) and saw that the thumbnail in the Finder looks OK, Quick Preview is bad, Aperture preview is OK, Aperture full is bad.
Reducing the Boost option under RAW Fine Tuning significantly reduced the problem. It is my belief that Apple simply has FUBAR default settings for the RAW conversion of D700 images.
See:
http://gallery.me.com/gothalice/100191/Picture%201 (Before)
http://gallery.me.com/gothalice/100191/Picture%202 (After)

Similar Messages

  • Edit in photoshop looks terrible

    i thought i would try the "seamless" editing between LR and photoshop. go to photo, edit in photoshop....CS2 opens up...i can edit, dogde, burn, whatever...how great! then click save....and there are my changes in LR. in a perfect world, this would be great. but, the RAW file looks TERRIBLE when opened in photoshop. it looks like a washed out bluish cast with a bit of negative effect on it. it just looks bad. then when you save and view it in LR, it looks the same...terrible. i spoke with a couple people and they said this was a bug in the beta version. looks like an issue still. so now i have to take the long way around and export to tiff, then work on the photos, then export to jpg. ridiculous. i still like the software but they really should have focused on the big things instead of the small stupid things...like the 5 star rating system for photos.

    there was no tone in my first post, what you were reading was insane frustration. i spent 5 hours on this and it still isn't working. sorry if you took it personal. the photos look faded when i right click, choose edit in CS2, and view them in CS2. if i open any other photos in CS2 they look mint. let me say they don't look night and day but they are very faded and the color saturation is not there. what settings in CS2? where do i look for these? i thought everything was perfect since it always is when i just use CS2. 2 of my other guys have the same issue, as well as another photo studio we are in touch with who dont' work with us. 4 people with the same issue is odd i think you would agree. i don't think we will get much resolved via this since i can't show you the photos. and when i do select edit in CS2, i get the box that comes up with the 3 bullet points...half the time i only am able to select the 3rd, since the first and 2nd are greyed out and yes i have the full version. bought right from adobe. what setting do you check off in CS2 to make it look great? then when i click SAVE in CS2, it brings it back to LR with my edits which is great, but it's the faded non-saturated version. i really really really wish i could give you more info but i can't. i'm not new to adobe, just LR. i have been using After FX, premiere, PS, encore, audition for years.

  • The way Aperture renders my Nikon RAW (NEF) files look different than...

    The was Aperture renders my NEF files looks different than NX...
    Ok so I use all the in camera setting/tools to the best of abilities to try and cut my editing down as much as possible but when shooting RAW I end up having to tweak every images to get them back to what they really look like... I shoot often RAW and JPG combined and when I open a NEF in NX and a JPG in PS they are identical and need very little work, when I use Aperture the NEF files are very different looking from the JPG (or NEF in NX) and every single one needs tweaking (I get more redish/pinkish skin, often a hint of green cast to (slightly off WB/tone thing) and more contrast.
    Below is screenshot showing the difference between a JPG (or NEF in NX) and a RAW file in Aperture
    [img]http://www.pbase.com/ray645/image/120052970/original.jpg[/img]
    This is just a silly snap shot in very flat overcast light, and has the least amount of shift or difference of any image type so far, when I use strobes, shoot for a more contrasty image, gel for color and manual WB the differences are huge almost to the point that you would think you where looking at two completely different images and not the same NEF opened in different software.
    How do I go about getting Aperture to render my NEF's more like what I shot like NEF in NX, JPG in anything, and even the back of the camera screen?

    Thank you, that seems like will work, just having the boost turned down a bit on import has helped tremendously but I cant stop feeling like I am moving towards the "Fix it in post" mentality
    I will need to get better at tweaking my images... No matter how I try I cant kill the pinking skin or the very faint green glow in blond hair or bright neutral tones without affecting other areas of the image.. I am sure I will figure it out but anyone having any tips or links that could speed up my process I would appreciate it.
    The green is weird its like someone snuck a small florescent light into all my shoots without telling me, not major but enough to be annoying.
    I shoot a ton of motor sports (3000 images a weekend) and shoot JPG and have gotten good at using in camera pre sets, knowing what I got and getting it right in the camera, I wish Nikon would give up the code or whatever is needed for all the info to be carried over to Aperture..... I would pay the $100 or whatever to use the NX engine in Aperture

  • Adobe DNG files not supported in Aperture 3.1.2?

    Those of you that follow this forum may have read my previous post - https://discussions.apple.com/message/15009745#15009745 - about RAW files from my old Windows machine whice look fine in iPhoto, but when I imported my iPhoto library into Aperture 3 they have this red haze over them like a flash coloured gel.
    As I said, the older files came from my old Windows machine, where they had been stored in Photoshop Elements, and in the past I had converted them from Canon's .CRW file format to Adobe's .DNG format. I've just checked in Aperture, and it is indeed only these which are washed out - all of the Canon .CRW files look fine, it's the Adobe .DNG files which are a mess. I'll hazard a guess that Aperture doesn't support the Adobe .DNG format I have and that is the issue, but why they are supported in iPhoto and no the professional app I can't imagine. A call to Apple tomorrow morning is in order to sort this one out I think unless any of this excellent forum's followers can offer help. Has anyone had a similar experience importing .DNG files into Aperture 3? I should add that they bad either form the original import from iPhoto, or directly importing into Aperture.
    Thanks James.

    Hi Bob, here's a quote from the link Stephen provided:
    "Adobe Camera RAW converted DNGs won’t work because the fine print of Apple’s DNG support shows that it only works with unconverted DNGs—and the new lensdata support of Adobe’s DNG specification generates converted DNGs. While, Adobe may disagree with me (and there is a good reason why they should), this is just the sort of moving-target that causes me to argue against converting to Adobe DNGs."
    As I said in the post this provides some useful background information, but I can't imagine that iPhoto uses a better DNG converter than Aperture (although perhaps older, so maybe that's why I can see the files okay in iPhto and not Aperture?). As for my OS, it's the latest version, I've done two software update checks this week so would for sure have run that when it came around, but I appreciate yours and others thinking on this problem of mine.

  • Text looking terrible in InDesign document...

    I am running into an issue putting together a marketing report for my work. The small photo caption text (frutiger light size 8) looks terrible when I PDF it.
    But in addition to it looking terrible when I pdf it, it also looks terrible in the InDesign document if I get too close to an image.
    I have tried putting all the text on a separate layer that is on top of everything else (including anything that is a transparency).
    The body text (which is frutiger regular size 9) looks totally fine.
    I do have transparencies on my pages but I have to because my boss likes us to have drop shadows when we show sample document pages.
    How can I fix this? The proposal document is going to be delivered digitally, so even if it prints ok that wont work because most likely it will only be viewed on screen.
    These images show how the text changes depending on how close or far away I get.

    Does it look bad in the PDF on screen only or also when printed on a high resolution device?
    If the text is above all transparent objects than it is not a transparency flattening problem, although you did not tell us anything about your PDF export settings.
    If it looks good on high resolution print but bad on screen only it might be an issue of the used font only. To be honest, on your screen shot I don't see the problem here what you mentioned. Could you link your problematic INDD and PDF here. Not the original file, it understnd that it is not possible for you, but a small file where you reconstruct this problem with a placeholder image and blind text, one page only to keep things small.

  • TS3946 Aperture Book: images look fine in Aperture but not in PDF preview.  OS 10.9, Aperture 3.4.5

    Aperture 3.4.5, OS 10.9.  When making a PDF prior to ordering a book, I note that images look fine within Aperture book module, but about 10 out of 100 images look terrible in the PDF.  Shall I ignore this and go ahead and order the book?

    Hi,
    Strangely I'm now having exactly the same problem all of a sudden.  I've been building the book for about a month now (I've made about 6 before without any trouble) and along the way have been producing a pdf of the book to see how it will look.  Yesterday I noticed some of the images seemed to have lost colour when looking at the pdf version and then today, many pictures all of a sudden look exactly like the example you've supplied above. 
    I've tried shutting down my imac and restarting thinking it was a memory issue, have checked if I had any filters activated (which I don't and I haven't used filters in books before either), have tried repairing then rebuilding aperture, copying the book to a new library, new location, opening on a different mac and then printing again but none of this had any positive effect. 
    So from what I understand from your last post, the workaround you came up with was to revert to the original of each image that had the problem and then make the adjustments again? 

  • Dotted Stroke created in Indesign look terrible in pdf...

    Help.
    I'm creating dotted strokes in InDesign, which when exported (or distilled) to a pdf look terrible - no Anti-aliasing.
    This can be fixed by creating the same shapes in Illustrator, expanding the stroke, then placing that file in InDesign. But that means each shape has to be re-created in Illustrator each time - which is not a good solution as I am setting up templates for other agencies around the world to use. Editing and creating these strokes in InDesign is the only solution. However, it doesn't seem possible to 'expand' the stroke in InDesign prior to creating the pdf...
    ...any ideas?
    Thanks

    This is a screen issue only, depending on the local Acrobat/Reader settings in antialiasing vector objects.
    BTW: Don't use Distiller or any other Postscript like EPS anymore, use only export.

  • Why do my image previews in cover flow folder view option look terrible?

    Recently upgraded to OSX 10.6 Snow Leopard and have noticed that image previews look terrible in the cover flow folder view option - work with image files numbering in the thousands and really need this option to work - dosen't seem to matter how long I give the machine to process the preview and can find no consistency in the file type or format the machine seems to have trouble with

    ~/Library/Caches. Quit all applications then delete this folder. If a normal delete doesn't work, do a secure delete (Finder > Secure empty trash {this will take longer})

  • Movie looks terrible when exported. Help!

    So i just got back into some video work. I used to know how to video edit, but there has been some time between my once educated stage and now.
    To get myself going I installed this old program and used a few files that I took from youtube. I converted the files to WMV's and began to cut away. After some considerable manipulation, music added and what not, i decided to export my project.
    Here then enlies my probelm; every time I go to export the project the video looks terrible. The quality is degraded, the cuts between scenes are slower, and what is perhaps most annoying, is that anywhere a clip was manipulated ie (slowed down, reversed, whatever) the size of the clip shrinks to about half the size.
    I can't figure out what is wrong, but then again I barely know anything about this program. What could be wrong? The project looks great on the time line. It's only when its rendered or exported that it gets all messed up. The clips are from youtube. the music is just an mp3. Is the footage just not high enough quality? Is the program I have too old? Any information regarding a solution to these problems would be greatly appreciated. Sorry if this is a stupid question.

    Do you have any other suggestions or advice pertaining to my situation?
    Two:
    1.) Use G-Spot to tell you what CODEC is used, and possibly use a different conversion program to get the material into Premiere.
    2.) Use a program like one from Moyea, or FLV to AVI. The conversion from FLV to another highly compressed CODEC like you probably used for the WMV will destroy any quality that you might have had.
    If you had PrPro 1.5, or later, Moyea makes a plug-in to Import and edit FLV within PrPro. You might want to contact them, just to check if your version, known as PrPro 1.0 in most circles, will work with their plug-in. In PrPro 2.0, the Moyea plug-in works fine. However, when starting with FLV's quality is ALWAYS going to be an issue. There is no way around this.
    Copyright issues totally aside, you'd be better off working from a ripped DVD of that Disney production. Do consider copyright issues long and hard. Won't go into the legal issues, but they should be considered.
    Good luck,
    Hunt

  • Edited video quality looks terrible!

    I am seriously confused... Take a loot at the photo. On the left is the viewer and on the right is the canvas.
    I have filmed with an HD video (5D MKIII) yet why is it, when I edit this specific part of the video it goes so poor quality?
    I have changed all the playback settings to full quality and HD. I even tried to export it and it came out poor quality as well!
    Befire rendering it looked fine, yet when it has been rendered it looks terrible. When I view it for editing it also looks fine (as you can see) but in the canvas it looks terrible again.
    Why is it doing this and is there a way to fix it?
    Thanks

    That could be the problem... where it says 'Quicktime Video settings' that was set on H.264. I haven't converted my .mov files to ProRes no...
    I'm guessing I'd need to convert them then import them and edit them all again then?
    Thanks for the reply

  • File paths etc in Aperture

    I don't have Aperture, but am curious to know whether it's possible to get it to import / store RAW files in one location (on an external hard drive for example), but automatically store corresponding JPEG / TIFF files in another location (e.g. Mac hard drive). I only have a small hard drive on the Mac and so am trying to manage this whilst still having access to all the images even if I don't have the external hard drive with me...

    You should certainly look into using Aperture with Referenced Originals.  You store all (or as many as you want) of your imported files on your external drive, but keep the Aperture Library on your system drive.  You need to have the external drive mounted, and the Originals on-line, in order to make adjustments to your Images and to print them or export full size files, but when your Originals are off-line you can still assign and change metadata, organize the Images in your Library, and export the Previews.  This is the standard configuration for anyone with a laptop or any machine for which the system drive doesn't provide enough storage space for the imported-into-Aperture files.
    Read this section on the linked page in the User Manual for some more information:
    What Are Managed Images and Referenced Images?
    You might also find my short introduction to the parts of Aperture helpful in making your decision.

  • I tested my new Canon 5D Mark iii with my 85 1.2 L lens. The images look terrible! What gives?

    I just purchased a new Canon 5D Mark iii body. It is replacing my 1Ds Mark ii. I tested it with my 85 1.2 L series lens. I took the RAW images into Capture One 7 to look at them. I was highly disturbed at what I saw. The quality was no where near my Canon 1Ds Mark ii. The images seemed somewhat soft even after applying a consderable amount of sharpening. They also looked flat and lifeless, even after pumping the contrast and adding Clarity. All in all they looked terrible! I must have something wrong, as I have read countless times that the new chip gives incredible results. 
    When first attempting to set up my camera I set it to Adobe RGB and for RAW images only. I noticed that you seemed forced into deciding on a specific "Picture Style". I left it on the default settting of "Standard". Should that effect my RAW files, or is that bypassed altogether when shooting RAW? I noticed that in "Standard" mode that some in camera sharpening was applied to the files. Is that my problem? Should that be turned down to zero, as I would normally do all my sharpening afterward either in Capture One 7 or other software. I shot all my test images with fast shutter speeds so that is not the issue. This lens is in perfect condition and has always produced incredibly sharp contrasty images. What on earth could be wrong? Any suggestions? I am a professional shooter for the last 20 years, so this is really perplexing me! Help!!!

    Hi Corey,
    Picture styles are ONLY applied to JPEG images or video.  They are never applied to RAW.  Canon will "tag" the meta-data of the image indicating picture style choices so that desktop processing software that understands those choices can apply it after-the-fact.  But the point of "RAW" is that the camera will not perform any change to the image which would result in a loss of original data.
    As for the soft focus... the good news there is probably nothing wrong with your camera or your lens.  It probably just needs a slight focus calibration adjustment (you don't even need to send it in for this.)
    The camera sensor is analogous to a movie screen.  If the image is blurry... it's not the movie screen... it's the movie projector (or the focus).  However... keeping with that analogy... suppose we focused the image perfectly... but then moved the project a foot closer to the screen.  The result would be a slightly out-of-focus image even though there is actually nothing wrong with the projector.
    The phase detect focus sensors are on the floor of your camera.  When the reflex mirror is down, some light is bounced down into those sensors to focus the image.  The distance to the AF sensors vs. the distance to the real sensor is supposed to be calibrated to match... but it's actually possible for the AF sensors to think the image is focused when it's really slightly out of focus on the sensor.  For this reason, your camera has auto-focus micro-adjustment capability -- in other words this is something you can test and tune yourself.  The REASON you might do it yourself is because it turns out it can be different for every lens (even two EF 85mm f/1.2L lenses in a row might have slightly different focus).  This adjustment is only available on the mid-range and pro bodies -- it's part of the reason you buy a premium body.  The camera can actually remember the AF adjustment for each lens uniquely.
    See this article:  http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/12/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths
    Or this article:  http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/are_your_pictures_out_of_focus.shtml
    BTW, to test the lens, I'd suggest getting a focus calibration target.  You want controlled conditions when you do this -- don't shoot typical everday subjects because it wont be precise enough.
    I use a DataColor Spyder "LensCal".   The LensAlign products are also popular.
    Tim Campbell
    5D II, 5D III, 60Da

  • Why are my RAW files looking like infrared?

    Hi All,
    I use Aperture frequently for my editing - just recently had a ridiculous problem that results in my RAW files looking infrared.
    Have I enabled only a red channel or something?? Please help!  See pic!

    Wow, what a silly oversight - I knew I had had an update to do, but hadnt bothered with it yet. Thanks a bunch Ernie, I should have thought of us.
    Much appreciated.

  • RAW to Jpeg quality looks fine in Aperture not so good on Web page

    I am using the latest version of Aperture with the Retina display. The Raw images look tremendous, after I resize the image and save it to jpeg the image still looks good. When I upload to a web page the image looks horrible. There is a lot of noise and the image over all looks blurred. I open it in Aperture and it looks fine. What is the issue? I have tried the different settings when saving the image and nothing works. I have also saved the image in a tif format and still the same issue. Looks great in aperture not so great on the web. Please help if possible.

    Your site is likely re-sampling your file, perhaps because it is too large.  Ask the Webmaster what size and quality to make the JPGs, and export to that.  There may also be a browser issue.
    If you provide some details re: exactly how your are exporting, which site you are using, how the JPG is used, etc., someone here may be able to provide additional guidance -- but this seems to be a Web question, as Aperture -- from what you say -- is working well for you.

  • H.264 slideshow from iPhoto looks terrible in QT X

    What is going on here? I just exported a slideshow from iPhoto '09 as 1280x720 h.264. Quen I play this with quicklook or with QT X it looks terrible. Colors are washed out and desaturated.
    However, if I view it in QT 7 Pro on the same machine, the movie looks fine. Colors are bold and nice.
    This file is going to play on another mac (not SL), how will it look there? Can anyone explain why this occurs?
    Thanks,
    -Ed

    Yeah, with 400 slides, even without the video and music, you're going to have a large file any way you look at it. However, large isn't a BAD thing when you're looking at creating something for DVD since large usually = high quality = good for that purpose.
    Let's ignore the final output for now and always export as small ( or medium, just enough to see that your timing is right) for your tests. Figure out between the Keynote presentation and the QuickTime movie what appears to be going on. Do you hear audio then a loooong pause before the next transition? Are your movies not displaying like you want them to? Both of these are caused by the differences between the way Keynote and QuickTime deals with media. In Keynote, if you want a movie clip to play for 4 seconds, you have to put in a 4 second delay for it. When you export this to QuickTime, QuickTime puts in the video PLUS adds the 4 second delay so that you'll have pauses where it looked like Keynote was synched better.
    Make a copy of your presentation and, if you have any delays, remove all of them and re-export to see if that solves a few of your problems.

Maybe you are looking for