Sharpening: Aperture vs. DPP

Hi all,
I've been using Aperture for about 2.5 years, and I like it.
I was going through some old photos, which I had processed with Canon's DPP software, and they were strikingly sharper and crisper than my current Aperture work. Has anyone else had a similar experience or feeling? I know about the various sharpening options in Aperture, and I don't really want to resurrect DPP, but maybe I will, just to test sharpening options. Are there plug-ins for Aperture that sharpen better than Aperture's native tools?
Thanks.

Sharpening is, as far as I can tell, a complex topic. There are three categories of sharpening that are best considered separately: Input sharpening, output sharpening, and aesthetic sharpening. Input sharpening refers to the sharpening needed to make a raw file rationally usable during development. Output sharpening refers to the sharpening needed to make an image file with the highest acutance based on the developed image. Aesthetic sharpening is the sharpening used on the output image file for aesthetic reasons.
Input sharpening is handled, if I remember correctly, by the raw fine-tuning brick. Output sharpening can be handled by the sharpening brick, or when printing. Aesthetic sharpening is usually done with the sharpening brush.
I suggest checking the raw fine tuning settings, and your output settings, before drawing any conclusions about the comparative sharpening. Remember, too, at all the camera manufacturers stir in a little bit of secret sauce, whenever they can.
HTH.
--Kirby
(Sent from my miPhone.)

Similar Messages

*Shocked* by the performance of Canon DPP, and DDP workflow with Aperture

I love Aperture. My brother mercilessly hounded me for two years, and when Aperture 2 came out, I gave it a shot. Aperture 3, despite my nightmare conversion story, has been a dream come true . . . until I discovered sharpening.
In my quest to get sharper photos, I've toyed with image stabilization, tripods, higher shutter speeds, steadying the camera, and depth of field, and even bought several professional lenses. My photos STILL did not look as sharp as those I saw in galleries and online. But wait . . . my JPEG files from my sporting events did . . .
I read that RAW files are not sharp, and sharpening is applied to JPEGs on the camera. But why is Aperture and my MBP not able to sharpen photos well using any one of the three sharpening sliders or the sharpening tool? I was then led to DPP, kicking and screaming. What I discovered was truly amazing.
Forget about the personal opinions with warmth and contrast between Aperture, ACR, and DPP. DPP is the unquestioned leader in producing sharp photos from RAW images. You drag the slider . . . it's sharp. It's even sharper than the photos I've spent 20 minutes sharpening in CS5 with sharpening masks, sharpening tool, etc. The DPP tool JUST WORKS. Even noise with high ISO is MUCH improved. High noise still can use an expensive tool to correct, but still MUCH better than Aperture.
Until Canon reveals their secrets to Apple and Adobe for RAW processing, I need to figure out a way to use DPP for RAW processing.
For those that use DPP for RAW processing, how to you work it into your workflow? I want Aperture to be a one-stop shop, but I don't want to store the original RAW, the DPP-edited RAW, and potentially a TIFF for additional editing and noise reduction?
Do you sort in Aperture first? Do you convert in DPP first? How do you maintain file integrity, and at the same time, minimize disk space usage?
If you no longer use DDP, please tell me why, and how you've worked around it?

All I can say is, either I've been in the weeds all this time, or your skills with sharpening are better than most.
A couple of questions:
1-What do you use under Sharpening for and Edges under "RAW fine tuning" you thankfully shared your settings for Edge Sharpen (^s)
2-What camera and RAW format are you using (this may help me fine-tune my preferences). I've got a 7D and primarily shoot MRAW. (Not the best for a couple reasons, but I don't need or want the large file sizes.)
To be sure, default sharpening in Aperture is pretty bad. And I have played with sharpening going on 40 hours now over several months. I could not get a good result.
Your documenting the exact settings and sharpening tool is what helped me get past whatever I was doing before. Maybe I was thrown by the higher default contrast in DPP. I'm now able to produce a better result in Aperture than DPP, or even my laboriously-sharpened photos on Photoshop. There are some tradeoffs in each, but I didn't want to use DDP as part of my workflow. Now that I've used it more, I'm convinced I don't!
And the definition setting is very useful. It's the only mainstream adjustment I've never really used.

Color in photoshop different then in aperture

i had to notice that raw files adjusted in aperture always look different in photoshop...
i work in a completely colormanaged environment and i really don't have any problems printing, but when i export files and open them in PS, there is a definite shift in color...
i called apple about this and the answer was that aperture handles and displays color differently then PS does....even with the same colorprofile/space....which does not make a lot of sense to me and i really feel that this wasn't so pronounced a couple of months ago....now my adjustments (especially for skintones) in aperture are almost useless for PS....
during my discussion with the apple tech i also found out that the "edit with PS" option always attaches adobe RGB as the profile, regardless of the setting in the prefs....to work in any other colorspace, one has to export and then manually open in PS....strange but not really a big problem, as long as one knows about it....
what really worries me is the answer i got when i said that the files look very different in aperture and PS...that the 2 apps read and interpret color differently....isn't that what colorsync is all about? or at least should be?
i am looking at my files in aperture using the "onscreen proofing" option set to the colorspace i work in....i have tried to export the same file in different spaces, all with the same result...a visible difference in PS (regardless of the PS working profile or PS soft proofing)....
i am wondering if there is a way to corrupt my colorengine? with several software updates since 10.5 and this seems to get worse? any idea anyone? i keep a clean system and maintain it frequently (and not obsessively) and everything else works great....any input welcome...

I think using the previews (as in quick preview mode) yields results that lie. When making all adjustments, I'm looking at the RAW file.
I think some clarification is needed here for both of you to determine what is going on.
1. Quick Preview Mode uses a jpeg preview that is embedded by the camera within the raw file. It's not "lying". It's just giving you the camera's version of things. Just like Aperture, ACR, DPP, Nikon Capture NX each have different color engines and will give different renderings of the same raw file - the same is happening here. The color and tone of Aperture's Quick Preview Mode is not going to match Aperture's rendering, it will only match the rendering of the OEM software that came with your camera. Quick Preview mode is no different than using something like Photo Mechanic.
2. PSSSSS - your color should be matching between Aperture and a file exported into Photoshop but there are a many variables at play here and you need to pin them down to figure out what is going on.
-I assume you are working on a calibrated display (one calibrated with a hardware device like an Xrite Display or Eye-one or similar). That's the only way to know that what you are seeing is accurate in either program.
-For Aperture, make sure you are not in Quick Preview Mode and you do not have soft-proofing turned on.
-For Photoshop, make sure you do not have "Proof Setup" turned on and in your Color Settings make sure that it is set to "Preserve Embedded Profiles".
-With all three of the above done your color should match. If it does not there another possible issue I'm aware of and that is that Aperture is not compatible with certain kinds of display profiles. This goes back to 2006 and I don't know if it has been corrected. What I found then is that Aperture did not display images correctly if the display/monitor profile uses a "Large (LUT)" setting.
Here's a thread going over that issue:
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=469271&tstart=0
I think certain screen calibration pucks like the Huey do use the "Large (LUT)" setting but do not let you know that or give you any other options.
-One last possible issue, PSSSSS, is that your post lists a MacBook Pro as your computer. Are you using an external display? If not there could be an issue in MBP screen and/or its profile. How so? I've found that MBP screen, while the best to date, is still wanting. It can show images as noisy when they are not and it can show images as slightly posterized when they are not. I don't know if this affect is across the board or only within certain programs. For example, when I shoot tethered, my Canon 1DsM3 tethering to my MBP and using Canon's DPP software. The previews in the DPP can look noisy and a touch posterized, as I just mentioned, but the same files opened on my desktop Mac Pro/Apple Cinema Display look just fine.
-In this thread, http://discussions.apple.com/message.jspa?messageID=7518140#7518140 , you mention "Show Master Image" or using the loupe shows a color shift in the image. I'm not seeing that at all on my system. If I remember correctly, this was part of the problem I saw when I found the display profile to be incompatible with Aperture (again, mentioned above).
Jon Roemer
http://www.jonroemer.com
http://jonroemer.typepad.com/

G10 Aperture RAW conversion: what are your impressions?

the wait is over!
2.4 RAW Compatibility update includes Canon G10.
what are your impressions?
what Aperture settings yield best results?
how do they compare to Camera RAW and DPP?

When you compare photos that were photographed at ISO 100 they all do a good job. When you stat going up in the ISO is where I think Aperture does a great job. I've attached a screen capture of the same photos processed with 3 different applications. No adjustments were added to the photos. The default settings were used then the photo was passed on to photoshop as a Tiff. I think it's clear why I don't like ACR. Aperture and DPP are much closer. DPP has some noise reduction on by default so the photo looks like it has less noise then Aperture. I feel that the default noise reduction just makes the photo look a little soft and out of focus. If I turn off the default noise reduction in DPP the photo looks noisy. So I like Aperture better because of the way the noise looks, the sharpness and detail of the photo. Another area to look at is the neck and chest area. Aperture holds the most amount of detail before blowing out. I know that all 3 programs have adjustments that will help fix the problems in the photo. Even after doing that to the photo in all 3 programs I still felt that Aperture was clearly better. As the previous poster said it is subjective to each persons taste.
I've never used this way of posting a screen grab so if it doesn't work forgive me. Make sure to click on the photo to view the large file.

5d mark II raw images soft

Hi All-while importing 5d mark II images into LR2 I've noticed they are very soft, almost to the point you think they are out of focus. At first I though it was a camera problem, but after reviewing the forums I see I'm not alone. When using Canon's DPP the images are sharp. While I do notice the colors are off slightly, I am more concerned with the image quality and was wondering if anyone had any ideas. Thanks

Maybe I can provide you with some examples.
I have not noticed any major sharpening differences between DPP and LR 2.4 with 5D MkII images.I have uploaded two example JPEGs, one rendered and converted with DPP 3.5.2.0, the other one rendered and exported with LR 2.4 (without any export sharpening in LR):
1) Image rendered in DPP 3.5.2.0 (21MB)
Default settings
Picture Style "Standard"
Sharpening 3 (Default)
ALO switched off
2) Image rendered in LR 2.4 (18MB)
Camera Calibration "Camera Standard"
Sharpening 25/1.0/25 (Default for Camera Calibration)
No export sharpening
The underlying RAW image can also be downloaded from here (34MB).
There is a slight color shift between the images (due to different rendering parameters as discussed in several threads in this forum), but I cannot see any relevant difference in sharpness.
Beat Gossweiler
Switzerland
Message was edited by: b_gossweiler (added file sizes)

Workflow Question - Recently moved from PC to Mac

So, let me say that I'm a die hard Windows user -- in fact, in my "day job" I own a software development company and we're a "Microsoft shop". But, my side business is Photography and I'm making the switch to the Mac & Aperture. So, what I'm hoping to get from this post is a "yes, you can do that" or a "no, you can't do that" with Aperture. I'm happy to figure out how -- I just need someone to tell me if it's possible.
Here's my current workflow (coming from the PC - which required several applications to accomplish these steps):
1) Import images and rename "IMG_1234.CR2" to "1234.CR2" -- essentially dropping the "IMG_" from the name. Is this possible w/ Aperture?
2) Do all of the processing on the images (No questions here yet -- got that pretty well figured out in Aperture).
3) Create a black & white version of each image. Currently doing this by making a duplicate version in Aperture. But, I would like it to be named "1234-BW.CR2" rather than just have "version 2" tacked on the end. Is this possible in Aperture?
4) "Develop" the pics into jpg's. Again, the final image names should be "1234.jpg" and "1234-BW.jpg" respectively. Again, the question has to do with renaming the original & duplicate version of the image.
5) Choose all of the color versions of the photos and then selectively pick some of the b/w versions and export them to a "Web" size along w/ Thumbnail versions that will be posted on my web site. (Again, this should be easy if I can name things like I want them to be named in question 3 & 4.)
So, right now I'm the biggest thing that I'm having a problem with in naming the images -- how flexible is Aperture with this? I've tried to customize the naming but can't see to figure out how to simply remove the "IMG_" when importing and then how to tack on "-BW" when creating a duplicate version.
So far I really like Aperture -- it will ultimately save me from having to use 5 different applications on the PC and thus greatly improve the efficiency of my workflow. There are some things I've noticed that would be nice -- for example, on the PC I used a program called Bibble Pro to "develop" my Canon RAW files. Bibble is a little smoother (read faster) when making some adjustments. For example, when I'm in full screen mode and adjust the exposure, contrast or sharpening Aperture is not as smooth and "real-time" as Bibble. (And, the Mac I have is the top of the line iMac made today w/ 2GB of RAM. So, I would assume that processor speed is not an issue.)
Anyway, if you have any insight into this post please let me know. Thanks in advance for any help you can provide... If you want to see my web site to understand what I'm doing the URL is http://www.level3photography.com/proofs.aspx
Thanks again!
TK Herman
[email protected]
iMac Mac OS X (10.4.8)

...the Mac I have is the
top of the line iMac made today w/ 2GB of RAM. So, I
would assume that processor speed is not an issue...
Many folks from other disciplines think that applications should, well, just run on any computer. Not so with graphics apps. Photoshop, for instance, slows if not provided a second physical hard drive for scratch disk; Aperture craves GPU hardware; both gobble RAM; etc. Existing PSCS2 Photoshop performance improves up to 8 GB RAM, and we have not yet empirically determined the max amount of RAM Aperture will benefit from but it certainly is more than 2 GB.
iMacs are consumer machines, not pro graphics boxes, even though many folks successfully use them as such. And, "top of the line iMac made today" would include not the 7300 GT graphics but the 7600 GT graphics card and 3 GB of RAM rather than 2 GB.
All that said, your iMac should run Aperture well if you keep the box well maintained. Just don't be surprised if you do see some hardware imposed limitations.
-Allen Wicks

Unable to open Canon T4i camera raw files in PSE10

I have a new Canont41 and I can't sign on to elements org
Message title was edited by: Brett N

The t4i is supplied with Canon's DPP RAW editor. Use that to set up your tonality and other structure including adjustment of chromatic abberation under the tool palette lens tab tuning section. I recommend you do not use the unsharp masking in the sharpening section of DPP in the RAW or RGB tab. Do USM in PSE if desired after final sizing/cropping/resoluton modifications. Other settings in the RGB and other tabs will be applied when you Convert and save as a 16 bit or 8 bit non-lossy .tif file for editing in PSE 10. Many tools in PSE 10 only work with 8 bit files anyway so I recommend you choose that option.
From the product page for the 4ti select drivers and software, enter your operating system, then version, then expand the software section. DPP 3.11.31 is the latest version which includes the new lens features. You need to have your version of DPP that came with the camera installed first from the CD, then run the downloaded update file.
Adobe limits the functions of its ACR RAW module anyway in PSE so using DPP should get you more features plus it recognizes Canon's proprietary settings in the "recipe" data embedded in the Canon RAW file that ACR or the DNG converter can miss. ACR uses Adobe's profiles for initial editing while DPP uses the data from the camera for initial setup. You chose that data in the various camera setup menus such as picture style, color space, etc., which can be modified in its embedded "recipe" and should be picked up in PSE.
A reminder that in RAW editing is is the embedded recipe data that is modified in DPP so the RAW pixels are not modified for most functions and they are modified in the export file only.

Canon 60D Raw Processing Quality

I have recently upgraded the raw file definition for Aperture 3.1 to include the newly released Canon 60D. To my horror I noticed that raw files coming into Aperture has purple dots all over the place, making the photos purple. Some photos were taken in 3200 ISO setting, some at 1600. My first thought was a problem with my photos, but then I used Digital Photo Professional to convert and it made a night and day difference. Is anyone having the same problem? I have gone through hundreds of photos between Aperture and DPP and it is clear that Aperture is not converting these raw files correctly. I didn't have this issue with Aperture when I had the Canon 50D raw format.
Thoughts?

I am having the same exact problem with my 60D. All of my photos process with a dark magenta hue in the blacks. Upping the exposure or brightness on any of my RAW photos causes the pinks to come out of the blacks and the photo looks even more overly saturated with pink. If I shoot in both JPEG and RAW simultaneously, the JPEG looks as it should be. But once the RAW version reaches Aperture, or OS X in general, the pink hue is very apparent and has ruined all of the photos I've shot since I first got the camera.
It should also be noted that processing the RAW files with the factory software supplied by Canon with the camera processes the photo as expected without the dark magenta hues. Could there be an issue with the RAW compatibility that Apple delivered in the OS X 10.6.5 update? I doubt this is a problem with the camera as the RAW file looks fine when processed with any software that isn't Apple related such as Aperture, iPhoto, or Preview.
Attached is a screenshot of a normally processed RAW file (top) and an Apple/OS X processed RAW file (bottom), same exact photo:
http://imgur.com/K9jQs.jpg

CR2 Conversion Help

Recently shot out of town with a Canon 40D (emergency rental) and came home with the compact flash cards. I run OS 10.3.9, Photoshop CS and Camera Raw 4.0 for my Nikons. I just want to convert these CR2 files and am having no luck. Camera Raw 4.2 won't run on my OS. I don't have any of the Canon software. What's the fastest, easiest way to just get these RAW files converted?

Right now, I believe on the Mac, you can convert 40D RAW files with:
- Mac OSX 10.5 (iPhoto, Aperture)
- Canon DPP 3.1 (that comes with the camera) or 3.2 (download from Canon, but installation requires earlier version disc or installed)
- Bibble 4
- Capture One 4 (beta)
- Adobe RAW 4.2
Capture One 4 only runs on 10.4.10 or later.
So, with 10.3.9, your choices are finding a Canon DPP disc (doesn't have to be 3.1 or 3.2 - just download the update to 3.2 afterwards); or try Bibble.
Message was edited by: rkkwan

7D RAW Color off?

I'll preface this with "unless I'm doing something wrong here"---
Same image, imported into aperture and DPP. No corrections made to either. Original was taken using the in camera custom white balance. Anyone else seeing flesh-tones looking extra rosey?
https://www.dropbox.com/gallery/506024/1/Temp?h=4b65b9

You guys are all 6 months late to the party. This has been a issue way back when the 5d Mark II came out. The raw engine in Aperture for the canon 5dII & 7d is just plain horrible.
In fact, I just got done doing another comparison with the 7d and apertures raw engine, and it hasnt changed one bit from the 5d Mark II.
My testing?
Using windows 7 with a mac cinema 30" display, calibrated with xrite idisplay2, I imported a .cr2 (raw) file and imported it in the follwing programs:
1) Digital Pro
2) Lightroom 3 beta1
3) Capture One 5 (latest version)
4) Canon's Digital Photo Professional (DPP)
I then divided the screen up into 4 squares so each picture was using 25% of the screen. I then looked at each without knowing which was which and graded them to what I thought was the best looking. they ranked as follows:
1) Lightroom 3
2) DigitalPro
3) canon's DPP
4) Capture One 5
I then brought my wife (she works in graphics so shes very familiar with colors, etc, and she said #1 and #2 were the best, with number 3 a bit off, and number 4 was horrible.
I then exported each file into a 16 bit tiff. I looked at them again, and came to the same conclusion, and then brought my wife in and she again picked the same 1, 2, 3, and 4 as before.
I then copied the same 7d .cr2 (raw) file to my macbook pro 17" (calibrated with xrite's Idisplay2) and did the same test, except I couldnt use DigitalPro since its a windows only application. The test was repeated with the following:
1)Lightroom 3 beta (mac)
2) canon Digital Photo Pro (mac)
3) Aperture (latest build)
4) Capture one 5 (mac)
Again, Lightroom came out the best, then canons DPP, then Capture one pro and lastly Aperture. Again, my wife agreed that 1 was the best, closely followed by 2, then she said 4 was next best, but a bit off from 1 or 2, then 3 just plain sucked. (aperture) I then exported each file to 16 bitt tiff and ran the test again, with the exact same results.
I really wanted Aperture to kick adobes ***, or at least Capture ones, and I was hoping it could at least try to match DPP. Pretty bummed, and I guess Im going to put my hopes in Aperture 3, but I have this bad feeling they will use the same raw engine for aperture 3 as is in 2 (yes, I know there is no "official" aperture 3 release.)
When I went through all this 6 months ago, Canon's DPP was better (IMO) than ACR (adobe capture raw) but Aperture was way behind DPP. this test showed that things havent changed much, and at this point your only option is (if you want to stay with aperture) is to create a global settings to color correct the pics after they are imported to aperture.
To me, this is a very hard decision, as I try to use photoshop and any color correction as a LAST resort. I perfer to get it right taking the picture, with as little retouching as possible. Like I stated earlier, I really like aperture, but its hard right now to use something when there is a alternative that is clearly better in raw support.
Message was edited by: What2be1
Message was edited by: What2be1
Message was edited by: What2be1
Message was edited by: What2be1

Sharpening in Aperture 1.5.6

I'm using Aperture 1.5.6 on OSX 10.4.11
My camera is a canon 40d.
When I import RAW images from the memory card I've noticed that if i open the adjustments HUD and look at the Edge sharpening intensity slider, it's already at around 0.8
I'm used to opening my files, after any adjustments in Aperture, in Photoshop CS3 via the "open with external editor" command and performing Unsharp Mask on them. Should I slide the Edge Sharpen Intensity slider to 0 if I'm intending to sharpen with an external editor?
I'm not as familiar with the sharpening in Aperture as I am with the unsharp mask filter in PS.
It would be nice if I could get the same quality of sharpening in Aperture as I achieve in PS as that's all I'm using PS for in most cases.
Can anyone advise on how I can get similar results in Aperture or whether I should continue to sharpen in PS.
Thanks.

gah hey im having this problem too
and it all worked last week <?>
formatted flash drive on camera.
downloaded photos from a file reader via flash drive.
camera = canon mk3ds eos
can see previews in apeture (2.1.2) but large image on browser is unsupported.
error message "unsupported image format".
have tried downloading them again and importing them again etc.
both straight into apeture and via hard drive folder.
but it worked last week?
bit upset i love aperture and my new camera now nothing is working well
for info i loaded up canon photo professional which is canons own brand image processor (which is a bit rubbish imho) and the images worked on that.
they will not import to photoshop (an old version)

Sharpener Pro 3 has problems in Aperture as the Pre sharpener continually asks one to buy or activate and the Output Sharpener causes Aperture to hang. Have removed all duplicate fonts and tried using a new user account. Any ideas?

I am experiencing problems with Sharpener Pro 3 as an Aperture 3 plug-in. These are: the Pre sharpener continually asks one to buy or activate and the Output Sharpener causes Aperture to hang. Following discussions with Nik Software I have removed all duplicate fonts and tried using a new user account. Neither of the courses of action worked. Have other users experienced these difficulties? Can you suggest an alternative remedy?

I am experiencing problems with Sharpener Pro 3 as an Aperture 3 plug-in. These are: the Pre sharpener continually asks one to buy or activate and the Output Sharpener causes Aperture to hang. Following discussions with Nik Software I have removed all duplicate fonts and tried using a new user account. Neither of the courses of action worked. Have other users experienced these difficulties? Can you suggest an alternative remedy?

Moving from DPP/iPhoto to Aperture

With the price cut I succumbed and bought Aperture and am pretty pleased with it. I love the workflow - miles better than before. Now though I have to decide how I am going to deal with all my old images. I've had my Canon 350D for about a year now and have taken 2500 images, all of which I have stored in RAW format in date named folders as imported by the Canon software. I then used Canon DPP to modify the images as necessary, generate JPEGs and then put the JPEGs into iPhoto for cataloguing, making into books etc etc. Also in the iPhoto library I have lots of pictures from my own and my friends compact cameras, totalling 4280 images.
So my question is how to use iPhoto and Aperture going forward, and what to do with my old EOS350D files. Is there any way I can somehow import these JPEGs with their organisational structure into Aperture but also associate the RAW files with it? Or should I maybe just take my best images, put them into Aperture as RAWs and ignore the others? Or take the RAWs and reorganise them? Or should I just take the whole iPhoto Library and use Aperture for RAWs, JPEGs, compact digicam pics etc etc.
BEar in mind that the way I tend to work is to just take lots of shots and keep them as a history of stuff I've done or events I've been at. I like to have a collection of shots from, say, a wedding to remind me of it. It doesn't have to be a great photo if it means something to me or people close to me. Occassionally I'll get a goodie that I might do something with and enlarge for showing to a broader audience (more through luck than judgement probably!), but really I tend to use the DSLR the way a lot of people use a compact, but get better pictures.
Any thoughts/suggestions?
Powermac G5 1.6MHz Mac OS X (10.4)

Do you intend to do further work on those old RAW
files?
Of course. At any rate, I want to have them at hand.
If so, you should have no trouble importing
them into Aperture if they were taken by a camera
supported by Aperture. They should be in your
Pictures folder in their original form.
I use my own organizational system that spans (at the moment) 7 300 GB disks. The Picutes folder is too limiting. I don't use iPhoto to import, therefore all of my RAW files exist together in a folder for each project.
If you
worked on them in DPP, then DPP will have an extra
file of instructions on what to do to the RAW in
order to produce the final image. But the RAW files
themselves will be in their original form and
Aperture will import them. ORIGINAL RAW FILES ARE
NEVER MODIFIED! There is no such thing as a "DPP
modified CR2 file".
With all due respect, yes there is such a thing, sort of. DPP will append the recipe data to the end of the RAW file (embedded within the file, but not within the raw data itself). Therefore, you could say that the raw file has been changed, in that it's been added to.
Aperture will not import the DPP
recipe, nor will Aperture import the RAW file as
modified by the DPP recipe.
Do you mean to look as modified by the recipe? That is understood and expected. Fortunately Aperture seems to have a similar look compared to DPP.
My concern however, is whether Aperture will recognize/import CR2 files that have been handled by another raw converter "modified" i.e., had recipe data embedded within them. I'm not concerned that Aperture will not interpret the recipe files and give a similar look (I should have clarified that in the first post).
Maybe I should post this as a new question to avoid hijacking the original questions raised by Phil (but I would be interested in hearing from you Phil - or anyone who uses DPP).
Ron
G5 2.3DP 4GB RAM & iBook G4 12" Mac OS X (10.4.6) Canon EOS-1D II N cameras, DPP & Photo Mechanic 4.4.2

Nikon D1x - raw file size and sharpening in Aperture

Good day all:
I have looked for several hours but can't find the answer to two questions:
1) How to set Aperture to use the full file size for the D1x, approx. 10.7 MB, vs the smaller Raw file size of 7.7 MB. The Nikon software all allows this function. Can aperture do it?
2)Aperture greys out the shrapening buttons for my D1x files, but allows it for my D100. I have tried every permutation I can think of, no luck. I wonder if it might be related to question #1? Thanks so much. I really need to do some sharpening!
Randy

Good day all:
I have looked for several hours but can't find the answer to two questions:
1) How to set Aperture to use the full file size for the D1x, approx. 10.7 MB, vs the smaller Raw file size of 7.7 MB. The Nikon software all allows this function. Can aperture do it?
2)Aperture greys out the shrapening buttons for my D1x files, but allows it for my D100. I have tried every permutation I can think of, no luck. I wonder if it might be related to question #1? Thanks so much. I really need to do some sharpening!
Randy

Sharpening - DPP vs ACR

I just started this thread over on fredmiranda.com regarding a comparison I have done of sharpening in Canon's Digital Photo Professional and Adobe's Capture Raw. I thought some of you, particularly Canonites, might find it helpful. I would also appreciate any comments or corrections from the experts out there. Here is the link (by the way, I have no monetary interest in Fred's site - I just usually hang out there and I'm too lazy to copy/paste everything over here):
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/595717
In addition to the thread, I would also just like to say that I appreciate the efforts of Thomas Knoll and his team as well as to whatever influence Jeff Schewe and the Pixel Genius guys have had. ACR continues to show important improvements and it can't be an easy job keeping up with the advances in digital photography.
With every complement has to come a request :) so I will also throw in some future feature requests that occurred to me while writing up the post above:
- Please enable sharpen-enabled views at less than 100% (and make them carry over to the high-quality preview in Bridge, too. I know that those views, as in PS, are not perfect but they are helpful in giving you a hint of overall sharpness. I think it would also make it a little easier to use the Alt-Masking function, too.
- I think it may be time to consider a radius of less than 0.5. Bruce Fraser recommended 0.4 for cameras over 11 mega-pixels and new cameras like the Canon 1ds3 are way over that.
- This may create more complexity than it's worth but you might consider adding a "highlight/shadow protection" slider that would optionally remove the halo dampening. It would violate 3-pass sharpening doctrine but it would probably make some DPP-sharpening aficionados happy.
Anyway, thanks again.
Dennis

> I have no particular interest in posting to a thread elsewhere...
No problem. I didn't expect anybody here to have to go to the other thread to post a response. Here is fine.
> I suggest reading ABOUT CAMERA RAW 4.1
Actually, I read your article right after you published it but I hadn't checked it recently. Regarding gaps in my ACR sharpening knowledge, I admitted to some of those in the post - particularly exactly HOW ACR does some of the things it does and also the behavior of the Detail slider. I notice that at the time you wrote the article you linked, you admitted not understanding all of the internals of it either :). I find the "halo dampening" of the Detail Slider to really be secondary to the way it emphasizes or de-emphasizes soft edges and fine detail. It also appears to me that ACR is always doing some level of "blend-if"-like protection of highlights and shadows, regardless of how the detail slider is set. I plan on picking up your book while I am back in the States over Christmas so maybe I will find some additional info there.
> Why, enabling sharpening previews for under 100% will be inaccurate. Why would you want inaccurate?
I am sure my reasons won't be convincing for you but here they are:
* So I have a constant visible reminder that I have sharpening engaged (instead of waiting until I have it imported into PS)
* So ACR's behavior is consistent with PS, which does provide the sharpening views at less than 100%
* So I have an inaccurate but better than nothing way of judging overall sharpness of the image. In my mind, I would equate it to something like Soft Proofing. I wouldn't call Soft Proofing "accurate" either but I can understand how some people, with a little effort and practice, can take it to the point where if they see "Y" in soft proofing, they are fairly confident that they will get something close to "X" in the final print. It may be innacurate but maybe it can be innaccurate in a sufficiently consistent way that it is still useful.
> Testing showed it wasn't needed...so if you want it, you'll have to show why it's needed.
I'll take your word for it. It just seemed that based on Mr. Fraser's observations that more mega-pixels = smaller radius that 0.5 might start being a little large and might limit detail extraction for cameras like the 5D, 1ds3, etc.. There is a lot of debate right now around the strength of the AA filter on the 1Ds3 and that is what got me thinking about it.
> Again, why? You can already ruin images easily enough . . .
Yep. I basically agree with you. That is why I had the lukewarm qualifier there. Mainly I was thinking that it could provide "training wheels" for people coming from DPP. It also might help reduce the jaggies on straight line diagonals that I thought might be at least partly due to the dampening of sharpening in the highlights and shadows (like Mr. Fraser's blend-if technique). Not really compelling reasons to add additional complexity but that was what was going through my mind.
Anyway, thanks for responding Jeff.

Sharpening: Aperture vs. DPP

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for