RAW conversion really is sad.

OK, So there a some bugs. Maybe it's not as "blazing" fast as it could be. But the RAW conversion just *****. I shoot 1Ds and sure the conversions look good at full screen, even on my 30 incher. They would make some fine 4x5 prints. Trouble is the folks who sell my images don't look at anything full screen. At 100% it looks aweful. The difference between Aperture and Photoshop is dramatic. They were not kidding when Apple said it wasn't meant to replace Photoshop. I am feeling really bummed right now.

If using CC Bridge click on Edit/Develop Settings.

Similar Messages

I have an A77 and see that DxO RAW conversions look different

Several RAW conversion comparisons on the web amongst A77 users are pointing to markedly better conversions and noise handling currently within new DxO 7 eg. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1037&thread=39970661
I know that Sony's RAW have historically taken a while to arrive at optimal conversions from previous experinece with my A350. When Lightroom 3 came along it was like getting new cameras for most Sony Alpha users with from RAW performance at last matching Nikon from effectively the same sensors.
Can you let me know the likely time lag till ACR and Lightroom will have an update to this initial default to really match the DxO performance. Otherwise, to be honest, despite being a Lightroom user since the original Beta stages and a passionate supporter and advocate, I may have to consider jumping ship. Working exclusively in RAW I do need to be using the very best conversions possible to make the best out of my investment in my camera equipment.
I don't know if this lag with ARW conversions is because Sony don't co-operate with Adobe early enough or whether because Sony is only number three in DSLR share it gets less priority within Adobe than Canon and Nikon, but some timeline on a revised version of Lightroom to address this for the new Sony Alphas would be great.
Many thanks from a long time advocate who really hopes I can stick with Lightroom,
Cheers,
Paul

Hi Hal,
Many thanks...I’ll give it a try. Not trying to cause trouble as I genuinely am a fan of LR, but if they always lag on getting to grips with Sony RAWs it’s a major drawback for Sony users.
Cheers,
Paul

RAW Conversion between CS2 and Aperture``

Has any one done any sort of comparison of RAW conversation out put from CS vrs; Aperture? Recently I've been using CS2 for my port processing work and really have noticed that the CS2 processing seems to be much clearer, better tones, and detail. Lately I don't seem to be able to get a decent print out of Aperture, I've been using it since it first shipped and I know it fairly well, just feels like I'm in some sort of a slump with it.

If you search this forum for deer.nef you will find a couple of recent threads on that topic.
I have done my own tests, converting several images using both apps. My conclusion is that both deliver a good conversion. Some images may come out better from on or the other but you will probably get the best result from the one you have the most familiarity with.
Note: the current RAW converson in Lightroom is not as up to date as the one in the Photoshop CS3 Public Beta. That will change next Monday. Try your own images in both. You may have a personal style that works better withh one or the other.

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?

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

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.

Awful canon raw conversion for photos with dramatic (i.e. underwater) non-standard white balance

I'm shooting underwater (and white balancing as I shoot using a white disc) with a canon s90, and have noticed that the raw conversions done by aperture are way worse than those from jpegs when I shoot in raw+jpeg and those done by raw processing using the canon digital photo professional software. In particular, reds are pretty much lost. It may be a false lead, but I notice that in aperture, the rgb histogram shows a dramatic spike of the red channel on the far right (possibly clipping?) that doesn't show up in the rgb histogram in the canon software.
I'm not sure whether this is related to the plethora of threads about canon raw processing and overly green output. Has anyone else experienced this or have any ideas? I could batch convert to tiff in the canon software but I'd really rather not do that... For one thing the 16bit tiff files are so much bigger than the raws and it is an annoying extra step. Also, note that I can't just batch fix the white balance because (a) I'm having a hard time getting aperture to do it properly (possibly b/c the red channel is clipped as far as the aperture UI is concerned?) and (b) The white-balance changes from picture to picture as I change depth, which is the whole reason I white-balance as I'm shooting in the first place..
I've attached two versions of a picture, one of which I processed the raw in aperture and one of which I processed the raw (and converted to TIFF to give to aperture) in the canon software. I then exported both as small jpegs from aperture.
Canon Digital Photo Professional (correct):
Aperture RAW processing (very wrong):

>Is MS Picture Viewer a colour managed application? I don't know, but don't think so. Lightroom is however which might be the cause of your problems.
Not in XP. In vista it is color managed. From the sound of it, the problem is a bad monitor profile but you might also have a corrupt Lightroom database. You need to recalibrate the monitor and NEVER use canned profiles from the monitor manufacturer. They are almost always corrupt. As a very last resort, you can use sRGB as the monitor profile (delete any profile found in the windows display properties) but only to hold you over until you can really calibrate it. The other problems with weird errors are pretty worrisome though. Do you also get them when you start a fresh catalog?

RAW conversion with Aperture

Has anyone compared the quality of RAW conversion of Aperture vs. Nikon Capture as well as other converters?
I really like the quality of nikon capture and would not want to purchase aperture unless the conversion was at least equivalent.
Thanks for any input.
mark
G4 17" Laptop Mac OS X (10.4.3)

I've compared Aperture's conversion side by side with Adobe Camera Raw's. My method was to do some conversions with Camera Raw and save the result along with the RAW file. Then, in the Apple Store, I performed the conversions using Aperture.
The results from Aperture are not good. They look okay at reduced size, but if you look more closely, the de-mosaicing Aperture performs is quite bad. On some images it is only "somewhat" worse than Camera Raw; on others it is so bad as to be unusable. Shadow detail suffers the most, but highlights are not immune. Some images showed color fringing that was not present in the Camera Raw conversion, even with all chromatic aberration adjustments set to zero in Camera Raw.
I ignored differences in color and tonal rendering because I did not have enough time with Aperture to learn to get the best results out of it in terms of color. It takes a while to figure out how to get good color out of a RAW converter.
In no case was Aperture as good as Adobe Camera Raw in terms of image quality. The difference was immediately obvious at 100% magnification.
I would not use Aperture for RAW conversion.
EDIT: I forgot to mention, in case it matters, my camera is a Nikon D2X.

RAW conversion, iPhoto vs Aperture

I currently shoot in RAW, save the folder to my desktop, convert files in ACR and import into Photoshop for edits; I then create a master edited TIFF for each saved image a, plus make 3-5 variations (composites, B&W, etc) of every master image . When all that is in the (renamed) desktop folder, I then import that folder into iPhoto where finished files are routed to Smart Folders.
For added security I routinely backup all the RAW files using Export to an external HD.
The ideal workflow (for me) however, would be to use Nikon's free NX2 software to convert the RAW files into TIFF, do basic editing and import both the RAW and TIFF conversions directly into iPhoto. So far, I can't get that to work without going through the extra step of NX2>Desktop>iPhoto.
Am I missing something in iPhoto, or maybe it can't handle that?
Would Aperture allow that direct NX2 > Aperture import? I'm a little unclear on the Aperture RAW conversion process, so could I import RAW files folder into Aperture and then convert those RAW files to TIFF and edit them within Aperture? That way the only time I'd have to go outside Aperture would be to do something in PS that Aperture can't handle.
Brian

No
You simply have to set your editing program as the external editor for iPhoto - in the iPhoto preferences you can choose to send RAW to the external editor or not - if you do then once you edit the photo you must save it to the desktop and import the modified photo into iPhoto creating a new photo - if you do not pass it as RAW then you save in the editor and it is returned to iPhoto and the database properly updated
As to the process iPhoto uses - all originals are saved unmodified - RAW , TIFF or JPEG. as they are imported a small JPEG preview is generated for quick access by iPhoto and other programs - with RAW an additional large JPEG preview is saved -- when you edit in iPhoto the edit steps are saved and applied to the preview and to the thumbnail - future edits steps are also saved so you always start yoru edit with the unedited original and add edits so you never are but one step form the original eliminating the multiple editing losses that cause some people to use TIFF rather than JPEG -- hence my comment
Both can import and convert your RAW photos and both provide lossless editing so using giant TIFFs would not be necessagy
and
Unless you have very unusual requirements your work flow seems uncessary and overly complicated to me
as to
but if I want to see the original RAW file, and the edited versions stored within iPhoto
If you want to see both then they both have to be there - since iPhoto always keeps the original and while editing in iPhoto you can view it at any time by depressing the shift key most people prefer to simply their work flow and save the disk space and let iPhoto handle this
It really sounds like you do not want iPhoto and yoru best choice is to shoose a different photo manager that works like you want - or learn and understand iPhoto (and most if not all Digital Asset managers - DAMs - which work much like iPhoto) and use it the way it works
You can use what you please and do what you please, but if you use iPhoto you are making life very difficult by going against its standard procedures
LN

Weird histogram and RAW conversion

Sorry in advance if this quesion is already out there.
I've just rebuilt my machine and noticed some really weird stuff with aperture once I re-installed the program. I'm accessing the same library with the same settings but now I get some really weird conversions of my low light photos (new and old). The really strange thing is that if I just touch a slider (levels, exp, etc) not even adjust, the image previews fine. If I check the levels and then uncheck and restart aperture the photo looks fine. When I restart again...bang back to weird photo! During this weirdness the histogram gets choppy as well. Check the examples out at this site http://homepage.mac.com/dpolly/weird/index.html the grabs are in order. By the way the export of the photo always looks fine. I hadn't seen this issue unitl re-installing the app. This leaves me with the "can I trust this program" kinda feeling. Please help.
Thanks,
Dan
G5 Mac OS X (10.4.6)
G5 Mac OS X (10.4.6)

Thanks.
I just wanted to make sure I wasn't losing my mind!
When I originally installed aperture it was on a version earlier than 10.4.6. After the rebuild it went on 10.4.6 so that makes sense. I was really concerned that it was changing the master file during the RAW conversion.
I think I'll hold out for 1.1 and hope all goes well.
Thanks for such a quick response. This forum is great and I hope I can return the favor soon.
Thanks,
Dan
G5 Mac OS X (10.4.6)

Bad D3 RAW Conversion - Clipped color in shadows...

...and other issues.
Well. My thread was deleted last time and I didn't get any reasons as to why. What is up with this place? Good thing I always copy my message before posting. Never know when the internet is going to go kaboom... (or somebody is going to delete your thread.)
I just shelled out $200 for this product and the moderators are deleting my threads?!
I think I smell fish.
- Issue 1.
Aperture's raw conversion for the Nikon D3 is clipping the color from shadows.... generally. (About 99% of the time.) It is possible that the couple of images I haven't seen the problem occur in have color detail just above the clipping threshold.
This really makes for some ugly images.
Aperture team: How about we get an update to fix this?
I just spent 5 hours importing and organizing ~3k images into my existing library now that Aperture finally supports the D3 but now I can't use it. Unfortunately I have been forced to use Bridge for the last couple of months due to no D3 support. Through this, I have become accustomed to its (Bridge's) speed and ACR's RAW conversion. Now Aperture flies and it is MUCH appreciated but the raw conversions are a little noisy and the colorless shadows is a BIG problem.
In the samples below, watch the shadow on the brown wall behind her as well as the shadow areas on the neck in the close up. Note that the red strap in the file with the color clipped has almost no red left.
I have another image I took that I was playing with to see how far I could pull the file and still retain shadow detail. The image is in color and looks alright when opened with ACR but when I open it in Aperture, there is almost no color at all in the image. This leads me to believe that Aperture's D3 raw conversion is throwing away color information at a specific level.
I have a couple of sample images side by side here:
http://www.uberfoto.com/images/misc/temp/colorclipfull.png
http://www.uberfoto.com/images/misc/temp/colorclipcrop.png
- FYI, I don't have any of these issues with D200 NEF's.
- Issue 2.
The RAW sharpening has absolutely no affect on any of my D3 images. I bring up the camera model because it could be a specific camera issue. I haven't heard of anybody else having this problem.
- Issue 3.
Where are the CA removal tools?
I don't mean this in any sort of rude way. My intention was to bring up some issues that I have come across and see if I could get some feedback.
-Josh

The email I received was strictly regarding my post being deleted. I have not heard anything in reference to the RAW 2.0 problem.
Here is a comparison of the same image. One exported from Aperture and the other opened in ACR and saved as a JPG.
http://www.uberfoto.com/images/misc/temp/colorclipAP-ACR.jpg
http://www.uberfoto.com/images/misc/temp/colorclip_AP-ACRzoom.jpg
Another thing I noticed is that Aperture preview generator does not clip the color data like the raw converter does. Previews created after image adjustments retain their color in the shadows while the full composite view displays in monochrome. This is an image I took in the studio where the PW died and the flash didn't pop so it was very dark. The original image was nearly all black with no discernible details until I pulled the exposure back up. The ACR conversion looks nearly identical (discarding small differences in brand interpretation) to the "Preview" in AP2.0.
http://www.uberfoto.com/images/misc/temp/colorclipraw.jpg
http://www.uberfoto.com/images/misc/temp/colorclippreview.jpg

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

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 :-/

Raw conversion color differences

Yes, I know that Adobe had to guess at how raw files are encoded (I shoot Nikon)a and that perfect color conversion should not be expected but...
I started with Capture NX2 and while I loved the quality of pictures I could get from it, it was very slow and cumbersome, and publishing photos was not possible.
I switched to LR3 and found the photo management (publishing, collections, etc) to be marvelous (maybe other products have it as well, but I found my happy place. However, I noticed that even with a calibrated monitor the colors were not right. Below are two pictures labeled cnx2 and LR3. The CNX2 version was processed to include "bluing" the sky. Not much else was done. The LR3 version (done as a training aid until this was found) is unprocessed except for an X-rite color checker profile applied (more on this later). Notice how the CNX2 red has turned pink or magenta in the LR3 version. To try and fix the pink, I bought an X-Rite color checker and installed their plugin for creating profiles. Made no significant difference. This is really bothering me. Sure with some skills I haven't yet acquired I may be able to target the red and fix it, but to do it correctly I'd need to know what It's supposed to look like, and I had hoped to no longer require the use of CNX2 so that wouldn't be the case. I'm considering going back to CNX2 for raw conversions and maybe capture sharpening (I'm more comfortable with CNX2 capture sharpening numbers than I am with LR3).
CNX2
LR3/ACR 6.x
Thoughts? Suggestions?

function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}
Jeff Schewe wrote:
Really, people tend to give Nikon and Canon far too much credit...in fact, they just barely got this stuff to work. I will say the cameras and sensors are pretty darn impressive...their image processing knowledge, not so much.
Canon does seem to know how to make pleasing images and get the most out of their data.
Some examples: Canon does a better job, in some ways, at rescuing partial overexposure (compare sunset images). And they know how to put a raw converter in a piece of silicon that runs in a tiny fraction of a second.
But these things aren't really important... The real issue is even simpler:
If all you did was make the default profile for each camera produce the same colors the cameras themselves produce, while still providing all the same configurability and features, you'd cease to get complaints about colors being "off".
Whether you think the cameras produce "good" color or the camera company engineers know anything about color is irrelevant.
No one would be harmed by this, but you'd stop confusing customers who expect one thing and see another.
-Noel

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 really is sad.

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for