NEF exposure value difference in Photoshop and Aperture

We shoot paintings with a Nikon D2X and 4 SB-800 flash units. We keep a Macbeth in the frame until we get an LAB value of around 85-90 (RGB around 230, 230, 230) in the white patch. Until recently we have used Nikon Capture to control the camera and then opened the images in Photoshop (by way of Adobe Camera Raw) to read the exposure values. On our last shoot we moved to Aperture. Testing had previously shown a variation in the range of three LAB points for previously shot NEFs between Aperture's raw interpreter and Adobe Camera Raw. When we returned to the office and began to process the images we discovered that NEF files opened in Aperture showed the LAB exposure of 85-90 we saw in the field, but when the same NEF files are opened in Photoshop, the white patches are blown out. If we open them in Aperture and transfer them to Photoshop as TIFFs the exposure is the same as Aperture shows -- 85 to 90. As an experiment we opened one in Nikon Capture NX. The values match Photoshop and not Aperture.
If anyone is interested in helping on the diagnosis, here is a link to one of our NEFs with the offending white patch:
http://www.catalogueraisonne.org/tmp/2008-06-19_144.NEF
Does anyone have an explanation of this huge difference of exposure values between Adobe and Capture NX on one side and Aperture on the other?

Hi,
Well I've downloaded your NEF file but I'm afraid I'm not seeing the difference that you are. I've loaded the image into Capture NX2, Aperture 2.1, and Lightroom 2 Beta (which is, in effect, using the ACR engine. There is a slight difference in values between them all, but only very slight. Aperture gives readings of 95.3% for luminance; LR gives me R:98%, G:99% and B:99% and Capture NX 2 gives me Readings that average 254 (which must be 99%). None of them are therefore technically blown out, however both LR and CNX2 show them the white patch as blown out if you switch on the lost highlights indicator. Aperture doesn't show them as blown out.
So the difference range is a matter of 4% roughly, which I think can simply be put down to slight differences in RAW converters and the contract curves that they apply.

Similar Messages

Camera differences between Photoshop and Photoshop Elements

Does photoshop elements support RAW in the same way as the full programme does through Bridge?
Message title was edited by: Brett N

Here are the documented differences:
Adobe Camera Raw differences between Photoshop and Photoshop Elements
More info about Elements raw support can be found here:
FAQ: Will Photoshop Elements work with my camera, or Why won't my raw files open?

Difference between photoshop and illustrator effects?

Under the effects menu in cs5, what is the difference between photoshop and illustrator effects? when do you use the photoshop ones?
Thank you.

The Photoshop effects are copies of similar effects from Photoshop. As such, they can only be applied to raster art, such as that edited in Photoshop. When you apply a Photoshop effect the Illustrator art you apply it to is rasterized in the background and the effect is applied to the rasterized version of the art. If you expand the appearance of anything with a Photoshop effect on it it will be rasterized. The other effects retain all or part of the vector art. When you expand the effect or save a PDF at least some of the original vector art will remain as vectors, although some effects (Drop Shadow, Blur, Feather, Inner Glow, etc.) to add rasterized art to the file.
The rasterization is non-damaging, in that the original vector, type, or other objets remain fully editable. If you remove the effect the rasterization goes away. There is no dialogue for rasterization resolution in the effect; you set that in Effect > Document Raster Effect Settings.

Inventory value difference between SAP and leagcy system

Hello Gurus,
My client has inventory value difference in SAP and Legacy system during cutoff activities due to following reason.
a. Rounding off
b. GRN done
C. Goods issue done
Can I do the manual posting for Value difference?.if yes then how?
Please guide me on the same.
Regards
SAP FI

Hi
It is not just difference in Valuation...
1. If GRN is done in Legacy system, you will have to upload stock in SAP also
2. If Goods issue is done in Legacy system after you got the stock file, then you will also have to post Goods issue in SAP
The Qty uploaded should match between Legacy and SAP systemj... If the qty matches and difference is in value, you will have to decide which value is final i.e. Legacy value or SAP value.... Accordingly, you will have to pass a JV in Legacy system (If SAP value is Final) or in SAP system (If legacy value is final)
BR, Ajay M

Report - quantity and value difference between delivery and invoice?

Hello experts,
My client use u201EProof of deliveryu201D t-code: VLPOD. There is always quantity and value difference between delivery and invoice.
Do you know any report which will show this differences between delivery and invoice?
Best regards,
Maciej

Hi,
Note 867678 - Proof of delivery (POD), delivery and billing document will help you to understand POD flow.
You have the tcode VLPODF/VLPODL/VLPODA, but perhaps they will not help you. So, as the before note suggests you, you can use the tables VBFA, LIKP, LIPS, VBRK, VBRP, TVPOD and TVPODG to do your own report.
I hope this helps you
Regard,
Eduardo

Print quality difference between iphoto and aperture...?

when ordering books, is there a print quality difference between using iPhoto and Aperture? or are they sent to the same lab?
it's possible i may have some setting wrong, but when i order a book using iphoto, i never really feel the quality is that great. it's good, i just feel it could be a lot better. the print quality sort of reminds me of newsprint, albeit high quality newsprint. similar sized prints made at home on my basic 3-in-1 printer look better.
thanks...

Previews are what you view on your display. When you import a photo into Aperture (and I'm pretty sure iPhoto as well), your computer automatically generates a preview for quick viewing. The original images are stored in your library, but it is the preview that you see.
In Aperture, you are able to set the size and quality of these previews. When sharing photos between Aperture and iPhoto, the process is as follows:
Let's say that your images are stored in Aperture, but you also want to be able to view them in iPhoto without taking up too much room on your hard drive. Essentially, if you were to import the originals into iPhoto as well, you would be storing two exact, yet separate copies of the same image on your hard drive. As you are aware, with large images (whether JPEG's, and especially RAW) this would put quite a tax on your storage capacity after not too long.
So, you have your images in one or the other (in this case Aperture), but you want to play around with them in iPhoto. What you can do, is open iPhoto, go to the File menu and then select, Show Aperture Library. This will open a window with all of the contents of your Aperture Library. You can then drag any images you want into iPhoto . The only thing is, you are not dragging the original JPEG's, but rather, the previews of those images. If you have those previews set to a lower quality (again for capacity concerns), you will only have lower quality and lower detailed images in iPhoto. These images might not be ideal, or even suitable for printing high quality prints. The previews that you generate in Aperture though can be adjusted to be extremely high quality with no size limits.
My thinking was that since you mentioned Aperture, it sounded like you had experience with working with it and with ordering a photo book through Aperture. I guess you were saying that you ordered via iPhoto, weren't happy with the quality and were wondering if Aperture created books were better.
Anyway, if this is the case, I cannot answer that for you. I have never ordered a book through Aperture. If the quality of your images is good, you should be able to get a decent product no matter where you order it from. There is not doubt that the materials used and the print shop that does the work makes a difference, but if your images are good, you should still get a decent product through iPhoto. Perhaps iPhoto isn't the way to go though if you have had poor experiences with them.
If you haven't used Aperture yet, I would highly recommend it though aside from the photo book aspect of this thread. It is a stellar product.
I hope this helps.
Message was edited by: macorin

External HD, Photoshop and Aperture

So I need your help. I have Aperture on my Mac but have also got Photoshop on a netbook. I am running an airport extreme wireless network and am trying to figure out how I can make both the PC(with Photoshop) and the Mac (with Aperture) read wirelessly from the same catalog of pictures on my external hard drive. I have formatted the disc to Mac journalled and the pc will read but not write. So I formatted to fat32 and the mac will not work wirelessly but will work if I plug in the HD via usb. Is this possible to have them both work over the wireless network or am I just dreaming??
Thanks to anyone that can help

For the future, the app should live on the boot drive. Keep from overfilling the MBP's internal hard drive by using a Referenced-Masters Library rather than the Managed-Masters Library that Aperture most unfortunately defaults to.
-Allen Wicks

Major differences between ACR and Aperture in red channel

Hi!
I did some printing a couple of days ago and the result was really not acceptable. At first we thought it was the printer and then the process of saving the files from tiff mac to tiff pc. After that we hade a look at the channels and the findings explained exactly why we got the result. After that I decided to compare ACR with Aperture and here are the differences in the Red channel. Camera is Canon EOS 350D, ISO 200. The image is 25% zoom. I don't know if it is possible to post images but a link is perhaps good enough.
http://www.d.kth.se/~vendelin/ap-acr.jpg
Do you have any ideas why Aperture gives me this result? If this is what I can expect from Aperture I'm afraid I'll have to use another raw converter for printing and that is a shame. The Image look fine in RGB but Red is destroyed and the printer in this case uses the red channel I'm told.
kind regards,
Edvard

Obviously that would be one way of doing it but
digging after every file in the aperture lib, opening
them in ACR, saving as tiff 16, importing to aperture
is a to painful process.
If you have to do it for every image it would be annoying, but if you don't often have blown out color channels it would not be too bad...
I actually use Aperture myself by importing TIFFs because my camera is not supported in Aperture directly.
As you pointed out the dark
area is in fact not dark grey but black. No
information there what so ever. Is this a common
problem with aperture? Has anyone else experienced
this or is this image an extreme example?
I'm not sure why that would be, that's a different issue. I have not seen anything like that as Aperture seems to recover as much detail as any other converter.
Are you sure there is no detail there, if you raise exposure some? ACR is set by default to automatically change adjustments, you may want to try auto-level or something like it.
<...>
Is this really a problem with Core Images or is it an
Aperture problem? Correct me if I'm wrong but
aperture uses the same RAW converter as iPhoto does,
in other words Core Images framework? I see why Apple
want Aperture, iPhoto and other to use their raw
converter that's built into the operating system but
when the performance is lacking perhaps the Aperture
team should consider to build one for them selves?
<..>
You are thinking about it backwards. What Apple is doing is to spend resources producing a pro level converter, which then every part of the system (including iPhoto) can use. If Aperture were going to build thier own RAW processor then why would you not want iPhoto to be able to use it as well?
And in fact that's pretty much what happened, before Aperture came out OS X RAW conversion was pretty mediocre. But after Aperture Apple spent a lot of resources improving RAW conversion and it's far better now - whcih also benefits iPhoto.
Is there any form of modified RAW converter for OS X
I could use to replace the one shipping default? I
would do anything in order to keep using aperture for
prints also.
Sorry, there's no way to swap out the OS decoder.

Rebate Processing - Value Difference -Verfication level and Sales Volume

Dear All ,
We are using standard rebate process - Customer Rebates and we have encountered the following issue .
1. The Rebate agreement was created on 01/12/2010 with validity from 01/12/2001 , valid through 31/03/2010.The Rebate recipient was not activated for Rebate in the month of DEC 2009 and was activated on 15/01/2010 . We have executed VBOF and found that the Accruals are calculated from 15/01/2010 till date which is 25,010 USD ( for the invoices which are created from 15/01/2010) but it is not taken into consideration of the invoices which are created in the month of December 2009.
We have checked and calculated manually the accruals which is amounting to 35,575 USD for the period ( 01/12/2009 to 14/01/2010) . This accrual amount is not updated for the agreement .
Can any one give inputs on this issue.
Thanks in advance .
Regards
Veera
Edited by: veera PV on Mar 6, 2010 11:07 AM
Dear All ,
I have executed the VBOF couple of times and the sales volume is updated correctly now - 51,277.20 USD . but when i selected the agreement and clicked on verfication level it is not showing up all the invoices and the value shown is 43,025.10 USD . There is difference of 8252.10.
Now the issue is how do i get all the invoices in the verfication level.
Can any one give inputs on this .
Thanks in advance to all of you.
Regards
Veera
Edited by: veera PV on Mar 6, 2010 11:08 AM

Hello,
please check this thred Re: VBOF Issue related to updating Old Invoices after activating Rebate Check.
Best regards,
Ivano.

CS5 - Color difference between Photoshop and other programs

I'm running CS5.5 student edition on a brand new Asus Q500A laptop running Windows 8. i7 processor and a UMA graphics card.
I do not have calibration software; I'm using Calibrize for the moment and colors appear fairly true when browsing after calibration.
My problem is that overall colors in Photoshop appear more saturated than those in regular browser windows, particularly reds. I set up my computer to run the Win8 photos app and my desktop with Photoshop simultaneously and the color difference was immediately noticeable. I did a quick screen grab to show the difference; the inset photo is the one viewed in Win8's photos app, and the background is the exact same photo open in Photoshop.
This is the second install of this program. I originally installed it on a Dell Inspiron with a DuoCore processor (way out of spec, I know - that's why I upgraded!) and I seem to remember having this issue then, too. I found a way to correct it, but I don't remember how I fixed it and Photoshop is no longer on that machine so I can't look over my settings.
I have not changed the color profile in Photoshop. When installed it chose North America General Purpose 2 as default and I've left it there. I experimented with the other color profiles and while the color tone in Photoshop changes, there is still a difference when the image is viewed in another program.
Any help is much appreciated - I can't trust the program to handle color properly right now and until I can, I'm dead in the water.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. When I view the image on another computer or my iPhone, the image views properly. It's my photography, from a tree in my back yard. I know how the image is supposed to look, and right now it doesn't look right in Photoshop.
On my previous machine, I am almost positive that it was saving as sRGB by default as well. I don't remember what color profile I was working in, but I know that I did not have a color profile/space error pop up on opening new images, nor do I have that problem on other images saved on that machine that I'm opening on the laptop.

Differences between photoshop and Flickr

Hi everyone,
There is my problem : I modify my picture in Photoshop CS4 and save it in Jpeg to the max quality. When I transfert my picture in Flickr, I loose some saturation, the colors are less vivid. I'd like to know if I do something wrong. There are in Attach Files my two pictures. The difference isn't so huge, but it's annoying. Thank you very much
Halychou

Definitely a color management issue, as noted above. Save for Web and Devices is one way to convert your images to sRGB for publication. However, it may be that you want to just work with images in the sRGB color space to begin with. This can simplify things in that you can just Save As JPEG and the image will be tagged with the sRGB profile.
A pertinent question: How are you getting your images into Photoshop such that they are tagged with a profile other than sRGB?
I know that the Adobe Camera Raw default is to convert to the Adobe RGB color space. If this is what's causing your images to be opened in Photoshop with the Adobe RGB color space, you should know that the target color profile is selectable in Adobe Camera Raw. Specifically, there's a link at the bottom center of the ACR dialog allowing you to select both color space and bit depth.
Also, in the Edit - Color Settings dialog, there are some checkboxes that you can set to have Photoshop warn you when you're opening a document in other than your preferred working space. I find it handy to have such warnings enabled.
Hope this helps.
-Noel

Difference between iPhoto and Aperture and photo storage

I'm thinking about upgrading from iPhoto to Aperture but I'm a little confused about the differences in the way photo edits are handled. The iPhoto to Aperture page says that Aperture stores photo changes in one photo rather than duplicating them, therefore taking up less space. BUT they also use a unified shared library. So how is it possible for Aperture to handle edits differently if the library is now shared between the two applications?

Aperture may save you some space if you choose not to generate previews, but then you won't be able to integrate with other apps.
As Terence Devlin says. But being able to manage the Previews is quite a space saver. In Aperture you can selectively generate previews only for the photos that you want to share with other applications, and you can specify the size and quality of the previews you want. iPhoto on the other hand will always create previews for all photos, and all in very high quality. In Aperture I delete previews for redundant photos and keep the previews only for my highest ratest photos that I am likely to share with other applications and want to use as a screensaver or slideshow.
If you share your photo library between Aperture and iPhoto and edit a photo in iPhoto, then iPhoto will add a preview for this photo, even if you disabled previews in Aperture.

Material Value difference between FI and MM

Dear Experts,
The balance of perticular material not matiching with my FI gl balance (MC.9 and FBL3N). I am getting FI balance from FBL3N amd sort it by the meterial.
Now how I reconcile the difference amount.
Sourav
FICO Consultant

Dear:
We once faced the same issue and were manged to resolve it. We first sorted all GLs in which postings are routed through MM. No direct entry is allowed in these GLs. Documents types are set by default e.g WE for good receipts e.t.c. Then we executed these GLs in FS04 to track the changes made in their GL master for checking post automatically tick removal . We found some GLs in which post automatically tick was removed for sometime and some manual adjustment were posted into them by CO module. If you find any such changes in GL master record ,then select these GLs and execute them in FBL3N , look for any abnormal posting with different document type like SA e.t.c. In this way you can do the reconciliation between material ledger and FI ledger.
Regards

Aperture, Photoshop, and Apple's possible direction for Image Editing

All,
After using Aperture now for several days, and reading many different forum topics, in particular this one which speaks of desired enhancements to Aperture:
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=253594&tstart=0
there is one thing that really sticks out on my mind. While all of us photographers have slightly different specifics to our workflow, in general they are very similar. And with respect to Aperture, there is one huge area where most of us seem to be hitting the brick wall: image adjustments, and by extension, image file management. Let me explain what I mean.
I think it is a fair generalization to say that the vast majority of serious digital photographers are using Photoshop (or some other image editing app, but I'm just going to refer to Photoshop for convenience) for post-processing of some kind. In using Aperture, and figuring out how to fit it into workflow, we've got this situation of how to move from organization and image library management to the full gamut of image adjusting functionality (photoshop) and back again to library management. The need to use photoshop then exposes the issue of how files are stored on the filesystem, etc. Stay with me here...
I have found myself thinking, and it is pretty clearly demonstrated in the forum topic mentioned above where folks are making suggestions for improvements to Aperture, that there's this barrel people are over in knowing whether Photoshop and Aperture should live in the workflow together, or whether Aperture should (or is intended to) replace Photoshop in the workflow. This got me to thinking about the fundamental question -- what is the intent, i.e. the vision for Aperture? Is it meant to replace Photoshop, or restated, is Aperture meant to be the app in which all image adjustments are to be made, OR is Aperture meant to just ease workflow, and is it intended not to be the primary app for image adjustments, but rather integrate with the primary image adjustment app?
The reason I bring this up is that the answer to this question makes all the difference in what enhancement requests and what people should expect from Aperture now, and in future versions. If Aperture is the primary place for image adjustment, then its obvious that there are some very significant additions that need to take place to Aperture, and likewise, the issue of putting images on the filesystem becomes much less important. However, if Aperture is a workflow-easer, then such image adjustment improvements are minimally important if at all, and filesystem / Photoshop / PSD file integration becomes paramount.
I know what Aperture does, what features it provides, etc. But I can't help but realize that its not really that clear (or I just don't understand yet) what the full scope of Aperture now and in the future is intended to be, and the forum topics are pretty decent documentation of the fact that the user base at this point is fairly cloudy on that too.
I can't help thinking that in the midst of the Apple pro line of tools, where we have tools that edit: video, audio, DVD creation, text effects, and now digital photography workflow, that there's one glaring hole: static image editing, i.e. a direct Photoshop competitor. I went through the Aperture video demos before Aperture shipped, and watched these photo pros talk incessantly about how "now there's an app that addresses how I work -- Aperture". That's great, but Apple has to know the role that Photoshop plays in present photography workflow -- for those pros too. So I'm sitting here thinking to myself, why would Apple roll out such a product with some clear workflow hurdles to common Photoshop usage.
Ok, here's the punchline: does anyone else here have a sneaking suspicion that Apple is not to far off from releasing their own image editing application that's a direct Photoshop competitor? I mean come on, Final Cut Pro, Motion, Sountrack, and by extension of the CEO to Pixar, Renderman. How can you not have a static image adjustment application entering the scene at some point?
I'm curious what others think. I'm just trying to make sense of how to fit the neat stuff I see in Aperture into a workflow that doesn't play very nicely with Aperture at some points (because I'm using Photoshop).
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

So Apple adds curves adjustments,
we'll need noise reduction, greater sharpening
capability, etc., etc., and then when we have all
those features, surely we'll need masking and select
capability to perform those adjustments selectively,
etc. Where does it end?
Actually that could be a good cut-off point - add a few more/better 'global' adjustments but leave all mask, selection and layer based tasks to external editors. Personally, I used to swear by curves, but haven't really touched them in PS for a year since shooting more RAW and learning how to use the shadow/highlight adjustment properly. Sometimes for overall colour for JPEGs, but that bit can be done just as well in levels.
My workflow isn't particularly typical, but here goes.
Type of photography - stitched panoramas as a professional, plus general snapshots/nature/landscape as hobby. Single user with no network storage.
Currently I use a very organised folder structure in the Finder, along with aliases in DragThing docks for easy access to final stitched files, all with their own unique ID. RAW conversions are done in ACR/PSCS2, or Bibble if I'm in a hurry on the laptop. About 40% of the panos are shot in RAW, 40% are bracketed JPEG and the remaining 20% are 'single' JPEG. The panoramas go through quite a lot of post-processing in PS using a whole series of actions and AppleScripts.
I'm expecting my workflow to look something like this:
1) Download directly into Aperture, possibly with added help from Automator/Applescript when it comes to proper date-based names.
2) Divide download into a new album for each panorama.
2a) If it is a people pano there will be quite a lot of duplicate shots for each panohead position - make a stack for each position and choose picks - this bit will speed things up enormously by itself. Reorder stacks to fit correct order of images going around the scene.
3) Export to TIFF (sometimes JPEG) and stitch using PTMac (sometimes Realviz Stitcher). Oh, and any people who think Aperture is limited, buggy and bad value should go and look at Stitcher - it costs the same, has a far more limited feature set, is on version 5 and by comparison makes Aperture look bug-free.
4) Bring stitched panorama into Photoshop to adjust seams through layers if needed, flatten, final tone adjustments (usually using shadow/highlight), possibly some colour tweaks, sharpen. For bracketed shots I will blend together the three exposures at this point using a custom action - this kind of thing is unlikely ever to make it to Aperture.
5) Bring final print-ready file into Aperture for cataloguing/backup.
5a) If file is too big for Aperture, make a smaller version for cataloguing and store original file in Finder. This gives me a good file for 90% of purposes, with the huge file available with a bit more work.
Too big? I've found that Aperture gets sluggish with files over 18-20,000 pixels wide, and chokes totally somewhere between 25,000 and 32,000 pixels wide - 'image format unsupported'.
To summarise - organise and convert in Aperture, stitch in specialist software, do PS-specific stuff then bring final image back in to join the source images.
Ian

What is the difference Photoshop and Photoshop Extended with respect to registry and files

Can someone please help with the difference between Photoshop and Photoshop Extended with respect to files installed or Windows registry.I am aware of the difference in Features.I am not concern about the difference in Features.

True

NEF exposure value difference in Photoshop and Aperture

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for