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)

Similar Messages

Canon SX1 IS and RAW conversion

Hi
I have Aperture 3 and it does not support RAW for my Canon SX1 IS. Is there any probrams out there for converting to an acceptable format for A3

Aperture works with most DNG files generated from cameras that support this format and with DNG files generated by the Adobe DNG Converter with the “Convert to Linear Image” option turned off.
from:
http://www.apple.com/aperture/specs/raw.html

D300 and RAW color in Aperture 2

I just got my new D300, and ran it through its first shoot Saturday. When I went to import into Aperture 2, the processed files were nasty washed versions of their NEF parents. I opened Capture NX and all of the color was there in the NEF file. I opened Lightroom, and everything looked fine, rich saturated images. In Aperture the color was all washed out.
The only thing I can think of is that Aperture is running in a different color space than sRGB, and whatever the color space that the program is working in is washing the NEF files color away. But I couldn't find a menu setting for color space, so I don't know if that's true. Or the program imposes limits on crazy color saturation (no program should ever do this).
Any ideas? Anyone else experiencing this? I finished the job in Lightroom without a problem (great color tools, I was genuinely impressed), so I'm wondering if my Aperture days are numbered.

I am having exactly the opposite problem here and it is most confusing!
I normally shoot RAW and I had been planning to use Aperture as my RAW conversion tool of choice when I noticed that Aperture does not deal properly with Chromatic Aberration on files from my Nikon D300. (I posted on this on the forum and it was interesting that we did not hear back from Appple on this).
So today I shot JPEG's for a quick edit to file to the client tonight and all the images are over saturated! I pulled up the same file on the same screen in Photoshop, put them side by side and the image looks fine in PS and rubbish in Aperture! I checked the image in Capture NX and also in Preview - all the colour match apart from in Aperture. What is going on? Aperture seems to have no colour management option as part of its workflow. I have checked the "preferences" and there is nothing there - I have no control over my image! Its a shocker! What do I do?
Again, if Apple are really planning to pitch this software at the pro market, they need to do some serious work on their colour management and RAW conversion. These are the bedrock of pro shooting these days and with out them, Aperture is just another archiving software. I have not tried Lightroom, but I wonder if this will fare any better?
Andy

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

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

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

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

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

Aperture 3 and underexposed RAW conversion

I run Aperture 3.03 with CameraRAW 3.3 and OS 10.6.4. I use a Nikon D300 and download as referenced images into Aperture via a SanDisk card reader.
Somewhere around the time I upgraded to CameraRAW 3.3 and OS 10.6.4 (not exactly at the same time but within a short period of time) I have noticed in Aperture 3 that my newly imported images appear significantly underexposed. In fact, I can watch as a batch of properly exposed imported images darken one after the other as they are processed. This has never been a problem before. At present I have resorted to manually adjusting the images in Aperture, usually requiring anywhere from 1 to 2 full stops of exposure adjustment to make a correction. Even with lift and stamp this is a very tedious process with 200 to 300 images at a time.
I expose my images with care and always view the on-camera histogram to check against over/under exposure.
Am I missing something obvious that i should be doing differently? Could it be my camera?
Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
Bob

First thing to look at is the histogram, you say that it is correct in camera. It should look much the same in Aperture. You also say the images darken, this is normal behavior as they get processed. If they look ok on the histogram the are ok. Raw can record a little more of the light and dark areas of a scene, than is represented on the histogram and these areas can be pulled in with adjustments.
Any adjustments that you want to make as the images are imported is easy. Presets allow any adjustments to be applied during import. Make the adjustments to a typical image, go to Presets at the bottom of the drop down list is Save. Click and these adjustments can be selected on the Import Panel Presets and applied to every image as it is imported.
If using the Lift and Stamp, select the images to be adjusted, with the Shift and Apple (command) key, ensure the Primary only is not on, in the bottom right corner of the Viewer. Allthe images get processed one after another automatically.
The exposure is what it was at the time the image was captured. Aperture cannot change that.
If a preset has been darkening the images the last paragraph will solve that.
Allan

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?

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.

Nikon D3 Raw Conversion difference between ACR4.4 and CaptureNX

Digital Photography Review has just published an in depth review of the D3. In it they compare raw conversions by ACR 4.4, ViewNX 1.0.3 (Capture NX), and Capture One 4.0.1. The ViewNX conversion mirrors the camera's jpg standard; but there are significant differences - to my eye at least - between that and the colours in the GretagMacbeth chart of the ACR result.
Is this sort of thing common knowledge among the LR community?
I would have thought this a rather fundamental issue; but would welcome any thoughts from those more familiar with this level of colour expertise.
Anyone interested can see the dpr result on page 17 of the review at
www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD3/page17.asp

It's not unique to a D3. Check out http://www.damianharty.com/Purple.html for my take on it all - including a step-by-step guide to the calibration process Michael mentions.
Others get very uptight about the fact that this isn't a "proper" calibration and I'm sure that technically they're right, but life is short and this route works well for me. It also ends up as an LR preset and is super-fast to apply.
If "accuracy" was the only consideration, the camera wouldn't have "vivid" and "portrait" and all those other settings in it. We also wouldn't have had, in days gone by, the choice between Fuji Velvia and Kodak Portra - see http://www.damianharty.com/Film.html for my take on all that, too.
Both my articles are typically short-attention span things that appear on the net. Try "Real World Color Management" for a genuine guide through it all.
Or else don't worry about it.
Damian
PS I'm sure I used to be able to format links more nicely than that. Where did that go?

Lightroom 3 raw conversion and fuji xpro 1

have just bought a fuji xpro 1 and found that lightroom 3 doesnt support raw conversion. i realize that lightroom4 has, but i dont want to spend x amount of dollars when lightroom 3 meets most of mr requirements. does anyone know if or when lightroom will provide the raw conversion

platen wrote:
have just bought a fuji xpro 1 and found that lightroom 3 doesnt support raw conversion. i realize that lightroom4 has, but i dont want to spend x amount of dollars when lightroom 3 meets most of mr requirements. does anyone know if or when lightroom will provide the raw conversion
Perhaps never. The last version in series 3 was: 3.6 and if you have got it then it will be the last one. If it is just one off thing then you can use the trial version of LR 4.1 otherwise you will have to buy an upgrade.
I take it you have done the upgrade by going to:
Help >> check for updates
Good luck and let us hope you can do something about this.

Poor raw conversion from Fujifilm X100 .raf format in Lightroom 3 and 4

I'm seeing very poor results when doing raw conversion from Fujifilm X100 .raf format. Who can I contact about this? Is there anything I can do?
See below for what is supposed to be a white curtain, lit by stage lighting. It results in a blown out blue channel, serious loss of detail, and very ugly gradient.
(Lightroom 4.2, Camera Raw 7.2 on LEFT --- Fujifilm X100 in-camera jpg on RIGHT)
And for more detail:
(Lightroom 4.2, Camera Raw 7.2 on TOP --- Fujifilm X100 in-camera jpg on BOTTOM)
(Lightroom 4.2, Camera Raw 7.2 on LEFT --- Fujifilm X100 in-camera jpg on RIGHT)

The blue light is so intense that it is, or almost is, saturating the sensor.
The camera’s built-in raw conversion handles this by shifting the color to cyan—clipping the blue and allowing the green to contribute more. I doubt there was cyan lighting in the scene, only blue.
Adobe does not shift the hue, but this makes the blue seem over saturated. Adobe’s conversion may be more colorimetrically correct, but less pleasing in this case of intense lighting that the sensor cannot accurately record.
It is a difference in camera profile used between the camera and Adobe. Since Adobe does not supply camera-match profiles for much more than Nikon and Canon cameras, you’re not going to be able to fix things other than managing the over-saturation using HSL or WB or other things like lower-vibrance, higher saturation.
You could try making your own camera profile using an X-Rite Color-Checker Passport or the color-checker and the Adobe DNG Profile Editor:
http://xritephoto.com/ph_product_overview.aspx?id=1257

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

Have a 7D Mark II and can't find a updater for the Raw conversion for Photoshop 6?

Have a 7D Mark II and can't find a updater for the Raw conversion for Photoshop 6?

I assume you mean Photoshop CS6?
I don't think your camera is supported.
Anyway here you'll find the info
Camera Raw plug-in | Supported cameras
Camera Raw-compatible Adobe applications

Weird histogram and RAW conversion

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for