Sony a700 cRAW files - excessive noise at higher ISO settings

I have found an issue when using the cRAW file format of my Sony a700 in Aperture. If I use ISO 800 or higher, I see "red speckle" (i.e. red pixels) artifacts and higher than expected colour noise in dark or shadow areas of images. The level of noise is very noticeable and is difficult to remove completely without loosing detail. However, if I take an image of the same scene under the same conditions and exposure settings, except using the RAW format, then the red speckle artifacts are virtually non existent, and the colour noise is very much reduced. I tried the same "experiment" using Lightroom, and there is no discernible difference between cRAW and RAW files, so it definitely seems an issue with the way Aperture converts the cRAW files. Of course the short term solution is simply for me to use the RAW instead of cRAW, but IMO a longer term fix from Apple is needed. Has anybody else noticed this problem?

>[sorry, I don't know how to loadup images here]
Anna, you can't upload images directly to the Adobe forum, but must upload them to your own photo sharing site and then use a HTML link to the picture or the site.
If you don't have a photo sharing site, there are several free ones, such as
eSnips, and
Pixentral
If you need help with HTML, this site has a good :
tutorial
> Wait for Camera Raw 4.3...
Very interesting, Jeff. I'm sure you can't provide any further information at this time, but it would wonderful if ACR offered a full fledged noise reduction program such as Bibble does by incorporating the major functionality of Noise Ninja.

Similar Messages

Hi. I'm having trouble with noise at high ISO settings with 5D Mark III.

I've only recently starting using this camera and I don't know what I'm doing wrong. The high ISO NR is set on high but I'm still seeing noise above ISO 1000. Am I perhaps just not focusing correctly. I had a daytime shoot today, but we were in low light areas at times and I cranked up the ISO but when I processed I had to do NR in LR which only slightly remedied the problem. Please advise. I noticed on the forum that there was a firmware upgrade. I bought the camera in December do I have to do an upgrade as well?

Yeah, with older versions of LR and PS I would specially convert high ISO RAW files using DPP, instead of my usual process with Lightroom and Photoshop. But now I've seen a big improvement in NR with the later versions of Adobe products... Lightroom 3 and later Photoshop CS5 and later. Now using LR4 and CS6, I rarely see need to use Canon DPP.
But I also use Noiseware Pro at times, with particularly high ISO shots. It can be used as a stand-alone or as a Photoshop plug-in. (I do the latter.)
If shooting JPEGs, make sure your in-camera NR settings are correct. All digital images start out as RAW files.... when you set the camera to produce JPEGs instead, you are simply doing the RAW conversion in-camera and all the "extra" data is thrown away in the process.
The key thing in any case is to avoid underexposure at all costs.
In order to minimize noise at all levels, you do not want to be increasing (pushing) exposure at all during post-processing. In fact, it's often better to be pulling or reducing exposure a bit. I know folks who regularly over-expose +1/3 or even +2/3 stop at higher ISOs... sometimes even more depending upon the situation. They get really good results.
Canon's metering seems to still follow the old rule of slight underexposure that was useful with slide/transparency film. You had to be very careful to prevent over-exposure with slide film, because the highlights in transparencies are a lack any "data"... the final image on the film is nearly or completely clear in those areas.... while shadow areas have a wealth of "data".
With digital files, it's just the opposite. Shadows are an absence of data, while highlights are a preponderence of it. So you are a lot better off over-exposing slightly... In other words, with digital files highlights are more "recoverable" than shadows. Just don't do too much, as it's still possible to "blow out" highlights to the point that fine detail is unrecoverably lost.
I also agree that one of the mistakes people make is viewing their images too large on their computer monitor. If you are looking at an image "100%", that's the same as viewing a 5 foot wide print from 18" away (assuming that your computer monitor is a typical modern one and is set to it's native resolution). Unless you are planning on making a 40x60" print, and even then since you will likely be viewing it from a much greater distance, back off to 50% or less when evaluating your images (feel free to zoom in when retouching, just don't expect miracles).
The best way to evaluate your images is with a print, anyway. You'll be stunned at the dynamic range, additioanl fine detail and overall quality of an image, once it's printed. It is nearly always far and away better than what you see on your computer monitor. When printing use a high quality printer and smooth, matte paper, for the the most critical evaluation . If your printer isn't able to print large enough, crop out a section of the image. Glossy and lustre/semi-gloss papers actually hide a lot of fine detail.
Alan Myers
San Jose, Calif., USA
"Walk softly and carry a big lens."
GEAR: 5DII, 7D(x2), 50D(x3), some other cameras, various lenses & accessories
FLICKR & PRINTROOM

Problems sharpening high ISO-files from Sony A700 in ACR 4.2

According to the reported problems with sharpening/noise-reduction high ISO-RAWs from Canon-cameras, the same issue seams to appear on ARW-Files of the Sony alpha 700.
Many of A700-users claim, that the pictures show a sort of watercolour effect. These effect will be the more recognizable, the higher the ISO-setting at the camera was. To explain what I mean, heres a 100%-crop of an shot at ISO 1600:
[sorry, I don't know how to loadup images here]
The writing seems somehow rough; there are a lot oft artifacts at the edges. Settings were:
Basic: Dynamic/Vibrance 0
Detail: Amount 33%, Radius 0.6, Detail 0 (!), Masking 20, Luminance 14, Color 10.
(The edges would have been much rougher, if I had set Detail to 25 (default) ore more.)
And here is what the Sony Image Data Converter did:
[sorry, I don't know how to loadup images here]
The edges are clear, I cant see any artifacts.
Now my questions:
Is this problem typical for the Sony A700 or does it appear to other cameras too?
How can I avoid this problem using ACR 4.2? I really dont want to use the Sony-Converter, because its slow and complex to handle.
Which are the best settings for sharpening and NR files from the A700 in ACR 4.2?
Please excuse my English Im German.
Anna

>[sorry, I don't know how to loadup images here]
Anna, you can't upload images directly to the Adobe forum, but must upload them to your own photo sharing site and then use a HTML link to the picture or the site.
If you don't have a photo sharing site, there are several free ones, such as
eSnips, and
Pixentral
If you need help with HTML, this site has a good :
tutorial
> Wait for Camera Raw 4.3...
Very interesting, Jeff. I'm sure you can't provide any further information at this time, but it would wonderful if ACR offered a full fledged noise reduction program such as Bibble does by incorporating the major functionality of Noise Ninja.

Noise reduction applied to high ISO .tif files in ACR 4.1?

Evidently ACR 4.1 applies noise reduction to high ISO raw files from Canon cameras, even when noise reduction is turned "off" in the plug-in (and this results in smeared detail). I have a 5D that I bought specifically for its lack of noise in high ISO files, and I don't want a software program forcing me into using noise reduction and ruining all those marvelous details in my high ISO raw files. Can someone tell me if there is a similar problem with ACR 4.1 if you open a .tif file with it? If not, I'm thinking I'm going to use Canon DPP 3.02 to convert my raw files to .tif, and then use ACR 4.1 to quickly adjust exposure, black point, etc., all of which is awkward and slow in DPP 3.02.
Rob

No, although ACR v4.1 does apply some baseline noise reduction to many raw files, I do not think that it applies any default NR to TIF files. Lightroom v1.1 does not apply any noise-reduction to TIF or JPG files by default, at least as far as I've noticed, so I believe this will likely carry over to ACR v4.1 as well. Of course you *can* turn the NR sliders up from zero and then it will! In any case, you'd be advised to test that theory yourself just to make sure, before designing a workflow around that assumption...

Sony A900 cRAW cardreader import oddness

I am trying to get to the bottom of what is going wrong with importing directly from a USB 2 card reader with Sony A900 cRAW files.
If I copy the cRAW files to a folder on the Desktop using the Finder, then I can import the files into Aperture easily.
However if I try to import from the cardreader directly then I have problems.
Today I found that the problem appears to be related to what information that Aperture is able to see about the files on the card when in the reader.
The first thing that is noticed is that the preview thumbnails of the files on the card when in the reader are much lower resolution than those that have been copied via the finder to the hard drive first.
Also, the files on the card in the reader do do show their File Date, nor correct Dimensions (shown as 0 x 0)
As a consequence of this, strange things happen when trying to import and change the version name (does not import) or put the files into a subfolder based on the date of the file (goes into wrong folder for 2001/01 rather than current Year/month for example)
This is all with Aperture 2.1.2 and Camera RAW 2.3 which I need for the Sony A900 support.

The log shows this, if it helps.
14/11/2008 13:18:25 Aperture[503] Exception raised during posting of notification. Ignored. exception: 'Exception in Aperture: * -[NSCFString appendString:]: nil argument
No backtrace available.
' invoked observer method: '* -[RKImportWindowController _selectionChanged:]' observer: 0x2d164570 notification name: 'WorkspaceSelectionChanged'
14/11/2008 13:18:35 Aperture[503] Exception raised during posting of notification. Ignored. exception: 'Exception in Aperture: Cannot remove an observer <NSKeyValueObservance 0x2d129bf0> for the key path "imageFormat" from <RKImportVersionRef 0x37ce4b50> because it is not registered as an observer.
No backtrace available.
' invoked observer method: '* -[RKImportWindowController _selectionChanged:]' observer: 0x2d164570 notification name: 'WorkspaceSelectionChanged'

High ISO noise

Anybody else getting nasty noise in high ISO images, especially in the dark areas? I know ISO 1600 is going to be noisy, but when I process such an image in Aperture, it's ugly.

Running the image through Noise Ninja (which is excelent, of course) either a Photoshop plug-in or directly through the stand-alone NN, is clunky and obviates one of the claimed advantages of Aperture: it saves the master and some (small) parameterization of the changes that have been made. If you run an image through an external editor, it must save the whole result (I think as a new master).
The conclusions are not only that Aperture should support plug-ins - but the plug-in interface needs to be pretty sophisticated to retain the Aperture advantages. It must return a succinct parameterization of the changes made.
The Aperture noise reduction is essentially dysfunctional. It is not nearly as good as Adobe, which is not nearly as good as NN. Even if NN was licensed to Apple and built into Aperture, I think there would be a problem: one pays for the quality of NN in computation - if Aperture had to redo the NN modifications to the master every time the was displayed, one would probably want at least an eight processor G5! (Or whatever the Intel equivalent would be.)
PowerMac G5 2 x 2.3 GHz Mac OS X (10.4.3) Canon 20D

Disappointed in the quality of the 1.1 raw converter at high isos

I've been using Lightroom since the first Windows beta, and the very first thing that jumped out at me was the wonderful way it handled digital noise at high isos. It seemed to convert it to a unique kind of grain -- I thought of it as digital grain.
I started shooting at ISO 1600 intentionally just to get that look. ISO 1600, jam the color noise reduction up to 100 percent, and leave the luminance slider at 0. Ah, heaven!
I upgraded to 1.1, and since I've been doing some high-key work at lower isos recently, I didn't notice a change. Then, a few weeks ago I was editing some old stuff, and I zoomed in, and thought "That's odd. It looks like there is some luminance smoothing going on." I checked the luminance slider, and it was still at 0.
I was absolutely positive I found a bug, so I googled, and that lead me here, where I read numerous threads on the subject. OK, I get it, the new de-mosiacing algorithms can reduce the level of noise for a certain level of perceived detail. I've checked it out, and in some of my images I can see what that means. I'd have to say I like the new look in 3 out of the 250 or so ISO 1600 images I've looked at so far. I tried just living with it -- maybe I was being too afraid of change, and maybe I would get used to it over time. Sadly, that wasn't the case.
The fact is, even if the overall level of noise has gone down since v. 1.0, the
type of noise changed, and it's something that I can clearly see in my larger prints. Do I see it in my smaller prints? Not really. But every time I zoom in to 100 percent on an image, I grate my teeth, and become just a little bit more resentful.
For me the whole point of Lightroom is that I'm able to process my images, come back in six months, and have them be exactly the same as they were before. If my older images start shifting around and changing themselves behind my back every time I upgrade, what's the point?
I butt my head against this every time I process stuff at high isos, and I get extremely frustrated when working with some of the 1.5k+ shots I intentionally shot at 1600 just to get the wonderful luminance noise look.
So I'm going to plead with the development team here:
please give me my old noise profile back! Don't make me downgrade my entire library to 1.0 and live with version 1.0 on Windows forever. Give me some hope!

I knew about this issue with the version 1.1 but, sincerely, I was quite happy with the new improved sharpen and noise reduction tools, and also with the clarity tools and all the improvements... until now.
I just have printed a more or less big print (20x25cm), I looked at the print and... "what's that?". My print seems a paint. It just seems this kind of pics you get after applying some "oil paint" filter in your favorite image editing software. HORRIBLE. I don't know if the print interpolation (I just added some resolution in the print module) also accentuated this effect.
Definitively I don't like this "look". It's too different from any other raw converter. It doesn't seems a photograph, digital or not. Version 1.0 had some issues, maybe it was too noisy and the sharpening wasn't good but you could use your favorite noise reduction sw or your editing sw and improve noise/sharpen. What can I do with this "paint"?.

Lightroom and Sony A700 Raw (ARW) Files

I shot all pictures in ARW format. A number of the shots are at mid to high level ISO numbers. The shots above 400ISO are extremely noisy(both cloro and luminance)When I use the SOny supplied software
the same pictures noise level is significantly reduced. I have read on several other forums that ACR in lightroom is "messing up" the ARW files. This appears to be true. I use lightroom then CS3 to process my shots. The use of the Sony softweare complicates my workflow but at this point I am forced to do this. Is there any relief in site for this concern. Really want to combine everything into one system. By the way CS3 Bridge is not much better.
Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.
Bob

I have your lighting right here, JM.
It's quite clear you know nothing about shooting African Cichlids, the most colorful freshwater fish in the world.
These fish are "mbuna", they live in rocks, caves, and along rock faces and ledges. They are used to living many meters deep so the best fish always take up territory towards the bottom of the tank where the best structures are, where the light is most dim.
In this 120 gallon tank is well over 500 pounds of structure which consumes most of the space in the tank.
In many of the photos you will notice rock structures around the fish as the tank consists of a hundred or so ledges and caves.
African Cichlids are the smartest fish in the world and they even learn who is who...they are not ordinary fish.
No matter how much light you throw on African Cichlids it usually does not cure the problem since they spend most of there time peeking from, and hanging under structures. Shadows and dark areas are cast throughout the tanks due to the structures.
Not to mention you must use the lighting already available in every public tank in the business, not to mention fish vendors usually cannot add lighting to their tanks either.
That leads us to use high ISO when we must.
Here are a few Sony A700 test shots made with 3 custom temp 4 ft 40 watt tubes in a deep 120 gallon tank.
http://www.sonolta.com/sony-photos/v/sony+a700+test+photos/_DSC1158-ISO3200+Test+Photo.htm l
http://www.sonolta.com/sony-photos/v/sony+a700+test+photos/Sony+DSLR+ISO+640+A700.html
http://www.sonolta.com/sony-photos/v/sony+a700+test+photos/_DSC1191-Sigma+24+EX+DG.html
http://www.sonolta.com/sony-photos/v/sony+a700+test+photos/_DSC1209+Konica+Minolta+28-75D. html
http://www.sonolta.com/sony-photos/d/398-1/_DSC1290-Sony+ISO+1250+JPG
http://www.sonolta.com/sony-photos/d/380-4/_DSC1216-Minolta+28-75D
Here are a few old shots of mine when I used my custom built and designed setup w/6 custom temp 40 watt tubes made to fit a standard 55. Notice structure galore...it's like an urban housing complex in the mbuna tanks. I can shoot fish with a good pNs setup fairly well with this amount of light. Not many people anywhere get this amount of light on their tank, trust me.
http://www.illinoisphoto.com/pictures/d/60783-3/OB+Peacock
http://www.illinoisphoto.com/pictures/d/158391-2/25650281_002.jpg
http://www.illinoisphoto.com/pictures/d/158367-2/25713754.jpg
http://www.illinoisphoto.com/pictures/d/61099-3/23429774_001.jpg
http://www.illinoisphoto.com/pictures/d/60803-3/23538903.jpg
http://www.illinoisphoto.com/pictures/d/158377-2/25744617.jpg
http://www.illinoisphoto.com/pictures/d/158822-2/red+finned+borleyi
http://www.illinoisphoto.com/pictures/d/60815-3/Male+Red+Finned+Borleyi
http://www.illinoisphoto.com/pictures/d/158832-2/Rusty+Cichlid
http://www.illinoisphoto.com/pictures/d/158827-2/red+zebra
http://www.illinoisphoto.com/pictures/d/158865-2/25797261_001.jpg
http://www.illinoisphoto.com/pictures/d/158464-2/8838t-ob-peacock.jpg
I shot Minolta, and then Konica Minolta, and now Sony has bought KM, so Sony is the one making the bodies for our glass now.
Many of us will not give up image stabilized primes (body SSS) so we stay here. All lenses gain 2-3 stops on the Sony...A700 has top notch DR and great high ISO so most of us are not interested in Canon at the moment.
This thread is here to help the Adobe team make ACR better, please stop interfering with your brand bashing speaks.
Thank you.
-Sonolta
http://www.sonolta.com

Sony A700 compressed RAW lossless or lossy?

Considering that ACR now supports compressed RAW files from the new Sony A700, can anyone at Adobe clarify if the cRAW (compressed RAW) files are lossy or lossless. I would ask Sony directly if I knew how.

I did not promise to tell you if the compression is lossless based on that file. I asked for a copy as a favour, for I'd like to take a closer look at such a file.
Perhaps I can determine the kind of compression.

Please fix Lightroom for Sony A700

The splotchy color noise of the Sony A700 processed in Lightroom (or ACR) needs to be fixed. It has come to the point where nearly any A700 user that participates on a photo forum knows that Lightroom is not a good Raw converter for the A700 at ISO 1600 or higher. Maybe I'm overstating? Is there anyone here that doesn't agree with this sentiment?

I don't own A700, but I discovered this: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=26834090
Which points to this:
http://www.adobeforums.com/webx?128@@.3c0620e5
I have no real idea do those threads offer any real information but quick browsing succested that they might contain some. Sorry I don't check them properly but I have a flu (and a fever) and I'm very tired.

AP 2 and Sony A700 embedded JPG Quick Previews?

The Sony A700 RAW and cRAW images contain an embedded high quality JPG image designed for viewing on HDTV. If the camera is set to 3:2 aspect ratio it is 1616 x 1080 pixels (and if set to 16:9 then it is 1920 x 1080).
Aperture 2.0 does not appear to make any use of these large embedded JPGs in Quick Preview even though I have selected " Use embedded JPG from camera if possible".
It is not clear if this could be forced by limiting the size of previews to either slightly smaller than or larger than the size of the embedded JPGs from the camera?

Does anyone know an answer to this question? I'm using the Aperture 2 trial and I like the software for cataloging but since I'll use Capture NX for most of my editing it would be great if I could get Aperture to display the embedded jpg in preview mode. But it doesn't. I've checked that box in the Preferences. I've deleted the previews for the project. I've made sure that Maintain Previews isn't checked. But I still don't get the embedded jpg in preview.
By the way, I know what the embedded jpg should look like since it does display properly when importing into Aperture.
Any help appreciated.
David

Thomas Knoll - Lightroom - ACR 4.3.1 Sony A700 Major Bug Needs Fixed

Please see this thread where all of the ACR4.3.1 problems are documented.
http://www.adobeforums.com/webx?128@@.3c060c59
Basically, ACR4.3.1 is useless to Sony A700 users on files approaching ISO1600 and beyond.
Many other raw converters render the files properly, but ACR4.3.1 can not.
ACR4.3.1 creates watercolor looking blotches that can not be removed, while every other converter on the market produces fine grained "regular" usable ouput.
The D300 and the A700 have the same sensor but ACR4.3.1 is completely trashing high ISO files from the A700. Other converters do not trash the A700 file.
All of the Sony A700 user base is affected, and many pros have been reporting and writing on this for months. This problem is camera specific to the Sony A700.
Reviewers and pro photographers around the world have writing about this ACR 4.3.1 issue and I had assumed you already were aware of the issue.
If not, please get ACR4.3.1 fixed for us in the next release. If you need any high ISO files to use I have maybe 10,000 A700 ISO1600-6400 files, so feel free to let me know.
Thank you very much and please make us aware that you have acknowledged the problems and are going to make a fix.
Have a good day.
-Sonolta
http://www.sonolta.com
http://www.illinoisphoto.com
http://www.rockriverfootball.com
and 97 others...

Yes, and in that thread I posted is also a comparison against ACDPro 2 KH did against a "ps expert", and two other links are posted that links to articles that compared another half dozen converters by one one of the most respected A-Mount pros on the planet.
The head to head conversions have been done in forums since September showing the ACR flaws against numerous converters by dozens of photographers.
That is the problem...it is just ACR mangling the A700 files. With the other converters the grain stays tight and small...with ACR as ISO rises to about 1600, smearing and blotches start taking over the image.
C1V4, Bibble, RT, ACDSeePro 2, etc, etc, all give a nice tight grained A700 high ISO file while ACR4.3.1 is the only one giving us the splotched watercolor blotches and detail smearing.
I think ACR is not recognizing something properly in the A700 files that the others are. Tone curve reproduction seems off at times, and some sort of NR/Blotches seem to be in the image before you even get started with ACR. Those two things don't happen when you use any of the other converters.
I don't know why it's happening, I just know it is happening. And since I have 200K files from a half dozen cameras it really sucks to have to use another processor on the A700 files...really throws a hitch in your giddy-up.
-Sonolta
http://www.sonolta.com
PS...Here is a link toy one of a couple articles by DK, quite possibly the most respected A-Mount guy on the planet. His test is not perfect, but it clearly show the splotches and artifacts (confetti, he calls it) that no other processors in the land gives us.
http://photoclubalpha.com/2008/02/08/capture-one-v4-cures-a700-high-iso-confetti/
These "watercolors" absolutely ruin shadow areas and backgrounds, and as I mentioned before everyone else (third party) in the business gives a fine grain pattern that can be easily dealt with after the fact.
Those ACR splotches are horrendous to deal with and that is the main reason we need the converter tweaked for A700 files...nobody wcan deal with those "watercolor" effects at high ISO!
I prefer IDC, most all other shooters are using RT, ACDPro2, C1V4 and others...

How can I process a Sony A7 RAW file into Photoshop CS5.

How can I process a Sony A7 RAW file into Photoshop CS5. I tried the file DNG converter 8.3, but it did not work. I was able to download it, but upon reading the memory chip from Photoshop CS5, it reads the jpg files fine, but not the RAW files. I thought the DNG converter 8.3 was the right file, but apparently it is not. Perhaps I need to do something in Photoshop CS5 to initiate it, or place it in a particular directory.. Please help.

First of all, you should have used the Adobe DNG Converter 8.6, not an old, obsolete version. Always use the very latest version. 8.3 was simply the first ACR version to support your camera model, that's all.
Note that the DNG Converter works only on folders, not on individual raw files. Put all your Sony raw files in a folder and run the Converter on that folder containing the raw files.
I have absolutely no clue as to what on Earth you mean by : "upon reading the memory chip from Photoshop CS5".
You also need to make sure that CS5 is fully updated. You cannot rely on the highly and notoriously unreliable Adobe auto updater to tell whether you have the latest update installed or not.
I still have no idea what platform you are on, Mac or Windows. Please read the following for next time:
BOILERPLATE TEXT:
If you give complete and detailed information about your setup and the issue at hand,
such as your platform (Mac or Win),
exact versions of your OS, of Photoshop (not just "CS6", but something like CS6v.13.0.6) and of Bridge,
machine specs, such as total installed RAM, scratch file HDs, total available HD space, video card specs, including total VRAM installed,
what troubleshooting steps you have taken so far,
what error message(s) you receive,
if having issues opening raw files also the exact camera make and model that generated them, etc.,
someone may be able to help you (not necessarily this poster).
A screen shot could be very helpful too.
Please read this FAQ for advice on how to ask your questions correctly for quicker and better answers:
http://forums.adobe.com/thread/419981?tstart=0
Thanks!

Vista: 1.3 Downloader Doesn't See Sony a700 .ARW's; Odd Mouse Behavior

On my Vista system,the LR 1.3 downloader (now "Adobe Photodownloader 3.0 Component") doesn't see Sony a700 .ARW's when I choose Camera Or Card Reader as the source. I don't know about a100 .ARW's. The downloader for 1.2 didn't recognize either. I can still import them in place once I have them downloaded using the Vista Photo Gallery.
A new problem is that when I scroll through a group of images using the mouse scroll wheel the library loupe preview updates as before but the thumbnail doesn't shift until the histogram appears. The left and right arrows work properly.
The device manager shows the mouse (a Gateway branded optical mouse) as a "HID-compliant mouse". No updates to the mouse appear to be available.

If I use the "Choose Files" and "Copy To A New Location" options I can import directly into LR. I prefer to just keep using the Photo Gallery downloader and then import in place until the LR downloader is fully compatible. The annoyance for me is that there is now a lag in changing the active photo on the film strip in Library Loupe view when using the scroll wheel.

Sony a700 dSLR, iPhoto RAW support

I recently purchased a Sony a700 dSLR. jpeg files import into iPhoto without trouble. I want to try to use RAW files but they can not be imported. The camera supported list has the Sony a100 but not the a700. Is there a plan to support the a700 in the future on iPhoto or Aperture.

Patrick
Welcome to the Apple Discussions.
No one on this board has any idea what Apple's plans for the future are. It's a user-to-user forum.
RAW support is a function of the OS, not either application.
Let them know you want it though:
iPhoto menu -> Provide iPhoto Feedback
Regards
TD

Sony a700 cRAW files - excessive noise at higher ISO settings

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for