RAW conversion in 16 Bit?

Hi to all!
I'm using Aperture for quiet some time now, and i like the way i can select and organize all my files, and doing and adjusting my projects and albums.
But since I'm starting shooting Nef files I seem to be more and more in a dilemma. I also like the way I'm working with CS4 now, and all the options I have in Camera Raw, and I'm still trying to figure out, whether there is a way in working with both apps inter-active.
My library is now a referenced, external one. So all editing of my Raw files is stored in the Aperture library internally. My 14 Bit Nef files are converted into 16 Bit in the moment Aperture is opening or converting it? As soon I open them with External Editor they are a 16 Bit (if I want so) but they are no more Raw.
Most of my files are not getting extensively edited, so it's fine with me doing my conversion and a few tweaks, and leave them so. Now I tried to open the same Nef files in Adobe Camera Raw, and as long I let Adobe store the edit files separate from the Raw files, it seems Aperture is not disturbed, and I can even open and adjust them again. So far it seems to be no problems.
But I noticed now 2 problems.
The first is that all given keywords and description are only inside Aperture library (and they would only accompanied if I export the files as Tif)
And secondly that Adobe Raw seems NOT to convert my Nef files into 16 Bit.
If someone sees somehow a workaround pls give me ideas. Also how important is this 16 Bit question at all during this RAW conversion? Would it make sense to Raw-convert a 8 Bit file, and open it after to 16 Bit to make than more layer-work or clean-up?
I'm sorry if my questions sound a bit confusing.

mogli365 wrote:
I also like the way I'm working with CS4 now, and all the options I have in Camera Raw, and I'm still trying to figure out, whether there is a way in working with both apps inter-active.
You can use both but not interactively, and it's probably not a good idea unless you really know what you're doing because you could lose track of some images that way. Many will say that there's no reason to do this, but there are some things I do starting in Bridge/ACR. I keep these images in a folder called "NOTinA2", and I browse that folder with Bridge.
My library is now a referenced, external one. So all editing of my Raw files is stored in the Aperture library internally. My 14 Bit Nef files are converted into 16 Bit in the moment Aperture is opening or converting it? As soon I open them with External Editor they are a 16 Bit (if I want so) but they are no more Raw.
Neither program is affecting the actual RAW file: Bridge/ACR are storing instructions in a sidecar file, and Aperture is storing instructions in the Library. When you export or open in Photoshop, a new file is created. There's no need to open either in Photoshop unless you need to do Photoshop work.
Most of my files are not getting extensively edited, so it's fine with me doing my conversion and a few tweaks, and leave them so. Now I tried to open the same Nef files in Adobe Camera Raw, and as long I let Adobe store the edit files separate from the Raw files, it seems Aperture is not disturbed, and I can even open and adjust them again. So far it seems to be no problems.
The two programs are both referencing the same files, and one doesn't even know the other is there. If you open a file in Photoshop from either program a new file will be created. However, if you open it from ACR, Aperture will not know it's there.
The first is that all given keywords and description are only inside Aperture library (and they would only accompanied if I export the files as Tif)
You can not share Keywords from Aperture with Bridge.
And secondly that Adobe Raw seems NOT to convert my Nef files into 16 Bit.
At the bottom of the Adobe Camera RAW window, you'll see what looks like a web link. Click it to open the workflow options dialog box. There you can change it from 8bit to 16bit, set your print resolution and tell it if you want to open them in Photoshop as Smart Objects. (that last option will "embed" a copy of the RAW file in your Photoshop document and allow you to revisit you RAW conversion settings.)
DLS

Similar Messages

12- and 14-bit Raw file conversion to 16-bit tiff

Does anyone know how Camera Raw converts the 10, 12, or 14 bit RAW file data(14-bit D3 .NEF here) into the 16-bit tiff files it can produce. I assume it either manages to leave empty space in the file, or interpolates by some means. If interpolation is the answer, is it by a method analogous to one of the spatial resizing methods(nearest neighbor or bilinear)?

Keep in mind that a 16bit image format (eg, TIF) is actually a container, and I've seen many variations on putting lesser bit depths in the format. EG, 10bits may only be stored in the first 1024 bins, or the same 10bit data may instead be stored in every 6th bin - the latter of which is the most common and best way. When I look at the 16bit histogram after ACR has converted 12bit RAW to 16bit TIF, it is as if 12bits has been converted to 16bits (actually 15bits), because every bin appears to have data in it.
As to how it's actually done, it may be proprietary ... but someone else may be able to draw conclusions from the open algorithms that are available (eg, dcraw).

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)

"Unable to save the raw conversion settings. There was a write permission error."

I just built a new workstation for processing photos using PS CS5. I use external drives to store my images as I find it easier for backing up as well as for when I want use my laptop for sorting, etc.. I copied over all my old "Collection" files, and of course, had to "fix" them once on the new machine. Once pointed in the right direction, the collections all fill out correctly.
When I go to process a collection though, I encounter an odd problem I can't seem to sort out. I can delete files, rename files, copy/paste to the external drives, etc.. What I can't seem to do is add Labels, Ratings, or modify RAW settings. I mean, I can use ACR to make adjustments, I just can't seem to save them.
The system just ignores label, rating commands completely. When I try to save an ACR adjustment I get this error. "Unable to save the raw conversion settings. There was a write permission error."
The files are NOT write protected. I'm set up as the owner of my workstation, with complete control of the system. I can't seem to find any useful information about this error because the "write permission error" seems to only be happening on installs, so that's all I can find help for.
My system:
Intel Core i7 970@ 3.20GHZ
24.0 GB RAM
64-bit OS - Windows 7 Pro
DX58S02 Motherboard
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580

Thanks for replying. I've been going crazy trying to fix this.
To answer your first question; I use sidecar XMP files. If everything from my archive was shot in RAW I'd try converting to DNG and see if embedding the changes directly in a file worked. Unfortunately, a lot of my old stuff was shot in JPG, so sidecars seems to be the best choice.
When I add labels, ratings, as well as change RAW settings on files I place on my workstations HD everything works. It's only when I try to do these things with the same files on removable drives that I run into trouble. The drives I use are Transcend 640GB StoreJet 25ms connected via USB.
I don't think it's a UAC problem. At least, to my understanding, doesn't that control how your machine alerts you to program changes? I looked into how to change ownership, and did so, but that didn't work. Here's a link to what I mean: http://www.addictivetips.com/windows-tips/windows-7-access-denied-permission-ownership/
I'm stumped. I also hate the idea that I'll have to go through various folders to find images from already created collections, copy them to a new folder on my HD and then work on them. Then I'll have to put them all back... ugghhhh

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

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

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

Raw Conversion: Colors not accurate. Correction with profile?

Hi,
When I create JPGs from my Raw files, the results don't look natural. Some colors have more saturation, some less. For example, the colors of the KoMi A series look somehow dirty; the reds of the Maxxum 5D seem to be oversaturated (dark reds are to bright, brown faces look rather pinkish).
This is in comparison to the orignal objects, to the JPGs generated from the KoMi Raw converter and to the in-camera JPGs.
Since Lightroom has tremendous color tuning options (under HSL and Color), I wonder whether a camera-specific profile can make the colors more natural. Has anybody tried for the KoMi cameras? Can anybody share a profile?
I don't have a color checker, so this would be a tough one for me. I tried a bit, but whenever one color seemed right, another color had become worse.
Here is my equipment:
Cameras: Konica Minolta A2, Minolta A1, Konica Minolta Maxxum 5D.
Other: My room has fluorescent tubes of type 950 (5000K, highest quality, Philips Graphica Pro) or of course daylight from outside. My screen is calibrated using ColorPlus hardware. I used a grey card for most of my photos. JPGs viewed with IMatch (color-profile aware).
Regards,
Martin

Hallo Uli,
there are two aspects of the color deviation:
1. Displaying colors in LR
This is what you are addressing in the other thread. I can confirm this behavior, but let's not touch this matter here.
2. Raw conversion
This is what I am talking about in this post. The effect is actually larger than the display deviation.
Regards,
Martin

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.

RAW conversion bug with Noise Reduction

Hello,
I have found a serious bug in the RAW conversion when noise reduction is applied. When converting from two types of Canon RAW files (a CRW from a Powershot G6 and a CR2 from a 20d) I found that if you apply Noise Reduction to a RAW file on very low settings (the default setting in the NR function will produce this reliably) single-pixel lines appear at regular intervals throughout the image. Here is an example:
You can see several lines in this image:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/140/3821480263171e76604b.jpg
A 100% detail of which is here:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/179/382148021af6586d27eo.jpg
Has anyone else had this problem? Can someone from the Aperture dev team fix this?
-Steve G

Well I find this filter is quite good in 'masking' block artifact that codec like xvid, or other low compression codec have. I only apply it if I find the block artifact is too much and I find this filter is less offending to my eyes than the block artifact.
In manual it said that if you have noisy video and want to lower the size then you can use this filter. It also blur the video a bit. But I suspect it is more than blur as I try gaussian blur in time line and the result is not as good. You can see the result as well. There is the tab between source and target and you can compare the result by togling between source and target tab.
BTW, anyone with 1 core, dual, or quad core, can you tried to encode with it? Just cancel it after few minutes as I want to see what is your processor utilization with this filter on. Also you can see how long does it take to process this video from the 'estimation time left'.

Exposure to the Right, RAW Conversion

Hi,
I am quite new to ETTR only having started seriously looking into it this week. I have got the "in camera" part OK. What is giving me a headache at the moment is the subsequent RAW conversion as far as exposure is concerned. I note that if I reduce exposure with the "exposure" slider or "recovery" slider, I can get rid of any clipping. But I notice that the histogram and appearance of each procedure is different. Could someone lead me gently and advise which if either is the preferred route?
Peter

Jao vdL wrote:
Yeah, your time is far more valuable than a potential 0.3 dB better signal
to noise.
Horseshyte....
Unless you are shooting a fleeting moment never to happen again (such as news, sports or something like a wedding), you would be a fool not to double check the scene contrast range and compare it to your sensor dynamic range and decide for yourself where to place your exposure on the scale between "normal" VS ETTR.
Most cameras these days handle a good 10-11 stops of scene contrast range no problem. If you are shooting on even a hazy day (let alone a cloudy day) todays sensors can prolly handle the scene with a plus 1/3 to 1 stop increase in base exposure. A +1 stop increase win base exposure in a scene with 10 stops or less will prolly not blow highlights but will result in a capture that when ETTR will produce a less noisy image than "normally" exosed (based on the through the lens metering of todays DSLRs).
If the scene contrast range is less than the dynamic range of the sensor, you are wasting bits to do a "normal" exposure...
All bets are off if the scene contrast range is beyond the dynamic range of the sensor...but of course, making that determination requires knowing both the dynamic range of the sensor (not supper easy to determine) and the contrast range of the scene (again, not easy to determine).
But don't disregard ETTR out of hand without knowing EXACTLY what we are talking about in terms of scene contrast range and dynamic rang os the sensor. In any even, you should try real hard to know what the f$%ck you are doing BEOFRE you actually exposure the frame...

Aperture 2 raw conversion very bad with some subjects (like sunsets)

Please take a look at this composite:
http://amrosario.com/rawsun.jpg
These conversions were done in Aperture 2 using only the three different raw conversion engines and no other adjustments. As you can see, the 1.1 version is more yellow than the other two. What, in fact, the scene actually looked like is closer to the 1.1 conversion. The other two are way off. Not to mention the extreme banding visible. What the heck is going on?
The only way I was able to get something close to the 1.1 version using the 2.0 converter was to whack out some saturation to an extreme with not so goo results. I also processed the pic in ACR 4.1 and, even though I got a little banding around the sun, the initial color was correct. Also, the white balance is the same setting for all three images (including the one I processed in ACR).
I mean, what's with all the red/pink in these conversions. I know Aperture 2 does away with some yellow in pix, but this is crazy. And the banding is quite unacceptable.
Any thoughts?
Antonio

Yeah, thanks for that tip. I boosted and it helped, but I think it could be better. The color still runs a bit on the pink/magenta side. I'll keep trying and see what happens. Still, the change can be a little jarring if not expected.
Antonio

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

RAW conversion for Canon 5D Mark II

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

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

CS6 raw conversions

CS 6 raw conversions of Nikon Raw files, it makes a blank thumbnail with only the image file name, it does not do this in CS 5, does anyone know the problem?

You can change the Workflow Settings, click the hotlinked text at the bottom of your ACR (Adobe Camera Raw) window.
You can adjust the Resolution, Color Space, Bit Depth, Size, Sharpening and whether or not you want the image to open in Photoshop as a Smart Object.

Aperture 3 Raw conversion from Nikon D700 - Bad results - Anyone?

I recently upgraded to a Nikon D700 and have noticed I am getting some really bad conversion results from my raw files which involve my having to do a lot of work to get decent images. Most images are too dark and with strong orange cast... Any ideas? I thought it might be the camera, so I tried another computer with photoshop raw converter and images are fine. I have noticed the original import settings are strange on Aperture but cannot seem to change them, they always revert back to maximum hue boost and max boost ect... Any help would be great! thanx!

I have a Nikon D700 and have just tried the Aperture demo- same results as you guys, disappointing RAW conversion. Contrast and sharpness quite poor and blues are 'off'
I currently use Capture NX and was looking for something a little less 'clunky'. Though it may not be as slick as Aperture, its RAW conversion is spot on (as you would expect from a Nikon sponsored app)
It's easy to compare the differences- open an unedited RAW file in Capture NX and save as an uncompressed, 16 bit TIFF. Import this and the original RAW file into Aperture. Prepare for disappointment :-/

A novel idea regarding RAW conversion

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

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

RAW conversion in 16 Bit?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for