Workflow for Aperture plugins in series.

Hi there,
I have been looking for an answer to this for a few months, and can't figure it out.
I have a number of Aperture plugins, borderfx, and flickrexport being the two main.
When I have finished working on a photograph, I normally do one of three things:
1. export it to flickr.com with flickrexport, or
2. file it in the relevant project or
3. export it to a jpeg with borderfx for emailing/etc.
I have been trying, but can't see if it is possible to do the following:
1. use borderfx to put a border around the photograph then
2. export it to flickr using flickrexport
So, my question: is it possible to run a number of aperture plugins, in a series, to create a workflow, without having to export/import images?
If it requires Automator, I am proficient in creating simple workflows with it.
Any help is appreciate.
thanks
bernard
www.runningwithbulls.com/blog / www.flickr.com/photos/runningwithbulls/

As those are both export plugins, the only way you are going to be able to run them consecutively is to export using the border plugin, import the resulting images then then export the new files via flickrexport. Unless there's an image adjustment version of the border plugin?
Ian

Similar Messages

  • Considering workflow for Aperture-based library?

    Hi all, I'm an amateur photog, mostly sporting events, nature, and family stuff. I am using OSX 10.8.1, FCPX 10.0.5, and Aperture 3.3.2.
    Until recently, I have had totally separate storage between stills and video: Photos in an Aperture library, and FCPX events for video. This works, but means that for any given event, I have masters in two places.
    I recently learned that Aperture can now house ALL my source media, even my 60p video. I don't know exactly how recent this support is, but it was news to me. I like this potential to keep all originals/masters in one project location. It eases backups, helps my sense of security, and is nice for casual browsing of past events.
    So I'm experimenting with consolidation of my video masters into Aperture projects, and creating FCPX events that point to them.
    How I think the workflow looks:
    Import from camera to Aperture. I store all masters/originals as referenced files using a simple "Year/Month/Project" organization on the drive.It's worth noting that as part of this step I use ClipWrap to losslessly convert AVCHD files to MOVs, although I don't think this is relevent to the overall workflow.
    In FCPX, select Import Files...
    Use the media browser to open the aperture event and select the video clips.
    Uncheck "Copy files to FCP events folder"
    The event is created.
    Looking in finder, the event's Originals are links, as you would expect. However, interestingly, these links point not to the actual files, but to the Aperture library's "preview" files. These files are tiny MOVs that must only contain some sort of proxy or reference to the actual originals. I'm not familiar with this format or spec. I can play the files, they look like the originals, but they're tiny, under a megabyte in size.
    At this point, everything seems to work fine. Editing in FCPX works normally, exporting in Compressor works, and I can even move the referenced masters around in Aperture (to a diferent folder structure for example) and FCPX has no problems with it, because it's pointing to Aperture's proxy files rather than directly to the originals.
    So, my questions:
    1. Is this sane? In other words, am I missing a problem that I haven't discovered? Does anyone else do this?
    2. Because the "Originals" are links to these odd preview files, FCPXs date stamps are way off. I've always carefully kept my masters' datestamps accurate and used the organize by date view for events. I would give that view up if I had to, but it's nice. Any workaround?
    3. What the heck are these proxy/preview MOV files? Aside from a hex editor, how can I tell where they point?
    Thanks in advance.

    Regarding question #2 above, I've experimented a little more, and found a potential problem: Because the time stamp of the files is incorrect, FCPX is unable to reconnect an existing project (that used an event where the files were stamped correctly) to a newly created project sourced from Aperture's native preview sharing, because the timestamps don't match.
    This wouldn't be a problem if i were starting fresh, but even then I would be afraid that Aperture might touch those preview files at some point in the future thus breaking the timestamp that FCPX depends on to identify the clips.
    As a workaround, if I import the files directly from the drive, rather than through the native preview sharing functionality, it shows the clips with the proper timestamps. This is ok by me.

  • Best workflow for splitting up a long video into series of short videos

    I've got an hour worth of footage, a series of speakers, each who speak about 3 min. I want each speaker to be a separate video on youtube.
    What's the fastest workflow for doing this?
    Also, why does youtube export take so long in Final Cut Pro? It's excruciating.

    Make four separate sequences and edit each speaker into a separate sequence.
    Export to QuickTime Movie. Take that to Compressor and use the template there.

  • Advice needed about lens correction plugin's for Aperture 2.1

    Please can I have some advice about lens correction plugin's for Aperture 2.1?
    I see that the Apple Aperture Downloads site promotes two:
    1)LensFix 4.3
    An external editor. The Aperture Downloads site calls it Lens Fix 4.3 but when you go the developers site (Kekus Digital) it only shows LensFix CI is this the same thing? Am I supposed to download the PTLens database from epaperpress.com and install manually before it is any good?
    OR
    2)Edit FixLens 1.6
    Their site looks very poorly designed and the link from the Apple page does not go to the Aperture plugin, you have to drill down until you find it! Does it use the exif data about your lens and the zoom setting it was on automatically or do you need to configure it each time?
    Which one did you buy? Was it worth it?
    Thanks for your time!

    LensFix CI is the same thing. It has the standalone version, the PS plug-in and the Aperture plug-in.
    I've used LensFix via PS for a long time. It's great but... it can be a bit buggy if the image in use is 16-bit. Often it will work on the first image or two and then crash on the next.
    I am told it's not compatible with PS CS4.
    Another option is PTLens. It's also a PS plug-in and an Aperture plug-in. It's supposed to be CS4 compatible.
    http://epaperpress.com/ptlens/index.html
    It uses the same database of lens corrections as LensFix.
    FWIW, I've tended to do this kind of work in Photoshop, either round tripping an image in Aperture or exporting an image from Aperture. Since Aperture plug-ins are going to 16-bit Tiff files anyway and since most images (if they are final files for clients) need some more PS work, I just go that route.
    Jon Roemer
    site: http://www.jonroemer.com/
    blog: http://jonroemer.typepad.com/jon_roemer/

  • Noise Ninja 64-bit Plugin for Aperture 3

    For those of you who rely on Noise Ninja, I figured the community would be interested in the news that they have finished their 64 plug-in for Aperture 3 and are in the final testing phase before release.
    I wrote them yesterday, and got the following response:
    Hi Kevin,
    We will make a 64 bit Aperture 3 plug-in available once we've had time to test the plug-in and installation process. The plug-in is already running. We just have to finish testing and update the web site. I do not anticipate this taking more than a week.
    We will provide this release as soon as we can.
    I will send you an email as soon as we have our release ready.
    Kind regards,
    Bill
    PictureCode
    I have been using their application since 2004, and in Aperture since Apple introduced the plugin structure wit Version 2. IMHO, Noise Ninja is best-in-class, and great folks to deal with.
    http://www.picturecode.com/index.htm
    Sincerely,
    K. J. Doyle

    Yes! Got my email notice this afternoon -- it works!
    Ernie

  • Workflow/implementation suggestions for stipple plugin.

    I'm writing a photoshop plugin for doing stipple effects, and other related effects such as these ones:
    http://methodart.blogspot.com/2006/11/see-larger-version-here.html
    http://methodart.blogspot.com/2006/11/from-method-artist.html
    http://methodart.blogspot.com/2006/11/while-trying-to-figure-out-ways-to.html
    http://methodart.blogspot.com/2010/05/nuther-twist-on-idea-of-novel-means-of.html
    I started out writing a simple image filter, but I think a better workflow would be to generate the paths and stipple positions, and then be able to stroke them with different brushes.
    Ideally, I would like to do all the crunching in a plugin, which would simply serve up paths and dot positions, and then do the rest in script.  This is the architecture I use in Maya and similar apps.  Is this possible?
    Apologies for the n00b-ish questions, under a crushing deadline to get these in showable beta form.
    Any and all help greatly appreciated,
    Kevin

    The above is basically the approach ive been forced to take, I added some more specific inheritance into the plugins.. now I have types of plugins, with general and specific interfaces... methods in the general interface are generally common to most of the plugins, specifics are not. Thus I have
    public interface GeneralPlugin extends Cloneable, Runnable {
      // General plugin methods go here
    public interface TypeAPlugin extends GeneralPlugin {
      // TypeA specific methods
    public abstract class AbstractPlugin implements GeneralPlugin {
      // Generic implementation
    public class MyPlugin extends AbstractPlugin implements TypeAPlugin {
      // The specifics, and the actual plugin.
    }This way, if someone is writing a plugin, and chooses NOT to use the generic implementation for basic plugin functions, they may just have "public class AnotherPlugin implements TypeAPlugin" and they will need to implement all the methods -- this while being a slight trade off, by forcing the extension operation, ultimately gets what I want done.

  • I have installed hydra express plugin for Aperture many time with no success

    I have installed hydra express plugin for Aperture many time with no success. When I select edit with plugin hydra, the make an HDR image with hydra appears. When I hit the process button a message states that hydra is not found. I have checked in my application support folder. There is no plugin folder for aperture or a hydra plugin.
    Any help would be appreciated.

    Plug-ins get installed in one of two locations.
    ~/Library/Application Support/Aperture/Plug-Ins/Edit
    or
    /Library/Application Support/Aperture/Plug-Ins/Edit
    The second is for all users of the machine and is located in the root folder of your system drive (often "Macintosh HD").
    The first is your private library (note the ~ symbol which a shortcut to your user folder) and means the plugin is just for you. ~/Library is hidden by default so finder wont see it. To see it in Finder, use the menu "Go->Go to folder" and type in ~/Library as the folder name. Then you can natigate to /Application Support/ etc....
    That should help you determine if it's installed. Note, you may only find an alias in the plug-in folder and the programs may actually be stored elsewhere. Also, if the Plugin can be used for export as well as edit, it might be located in /Plug-Ins rather than /Plug-Ins/Edit
    In terms of why it isn't working, I think I may have a clue to what's going on. Sometimes plugins use utilitly shell commands that get distributed with the plugin. These can get quarantined by Macs Gatekeep security because they are not signed by a 'valid' developer.
    I've recently taken on the task of making the old Enfuse plugin compatible with the latest version of Aperture, and ran into this gatekeep quarantine issue. I got around it by de-quarantine the required commands and got the plugin working.
    For distribution, I've put an AppleScript together which installs the plugin and takes care of the quarantine issue, but I am just (literally today) tesing that on a different machine to make sure it works the same as it does on mine.
    If you can first confirm that hydra is installed in one of the above locations, I'll then talk you through how to check if there is a quarantine issue with it.
    -Andy

  • Pixelpost export plugin for Aperture

    I found an export plugin for Aperture to send photos to Pixelpost blogs. I'm posting this here in case someone searches the discussion forums looking for one. The link is:
    http://www.pixelpost.org/extend/addons/aperture-pixelpost-plugin/
    or from the developer's site:
    http://www.macroni.be/index.php?x=plugin
    His comments:
    "APP (Aperture Pixelpost Plugin) uploads the selected picture from your Aperture library to you pixelpost blog without having to export the picture first, and then uploading it manually."
    I've tested it with APP v 1.3, Aperture v 2.1.4, OS X 10.6.1, Pixelpost v 1.7.3. The plugin does work, but when you export more than one photo, they all have identical metadata information. You'll have to rename and retag in the Pixelpost control panel. The plugin also does not remember your Pixelpost login information between sessions. In spite of these problems, it is a useful plugin for us Pixelpost users.

    Hey - I downloaded it and sent $ the day he put up the note EXCELLENT implementation, flawless installation and FAST uploading. Do yourself a favor if you're a Smugger. As said above, a marriage of two great products!!
    david
    MP, PB12   Mac OS X (10.4.8)  

  • Masking plugin for Aperture?

    I'm about to buy some kind of masking software.
    I've been thinking about Fluid Mask but also Corel KnockOut as plug ins for PhotoShop.
    Is there any masking solution for Aperture - like a plugin?

    At this point in time there is no way to add new tools to Aperture via plugins. The SDK is for exporting only. Hopefully Apple will address this in a future release...

  • NOISE NINJA 64-BIT Plugin for Aperture 3 RELEASED!!!

    Hi all,
    Picturecode has just released their best-in-class Noise solution in 64-bit for Aperture 3!!!
    I have been a NN fan for a long time, and I am going to go play with it now.
    Available as a download for registered users at http://www.picturecode.com/nn_aperture.htm.
    Sincerely,
    K.J. Doyle

    Yes! Got my email notice this afternoon -- it works!
    Ernie

  • Workflow for creating files for online printing

    I recently asked a question about making a copy of a file in Aperture 2 but am still unsure as to the best method to use. The original is cropped for posting to the web, and the duplicate is to be cropped for standard print sizes. I didn't quite get a clear answer, so I wanted to ask what other users' workflow is for preparing images for printing at an online site (I use adorama, which has an aperture plugin). In my case, my "ideal" crop, posted to a mobile me gallery, is not a standard size, but I do want the print to be a standard size. How do you keep the preferred crop for viewing online but change to a standard crop for printing?
    Thanks,
    John

    size is mort important than format. I prefer PSD files, but png, tiff, tga, even jpeg if you do not need transparency. Just make them big enough that at some point in your composition they are scaled to 100%. IOW, if you are drawing full frame animation cells for HD they do not need to be any bigger than 1920 X 1080 pixels. If you are going to scale them up or move in on some details then the area you are going to be pushing in on needs to be 1980 X 1920.

  • Genuine Fractals 6.0 Pro aperture plugin

    Just noticed that the new GF 6.0 pro edition includes support for Aperture. Not sure how useful this is since you could just use the standalone version. But I guess it saves a step or two.
    http://www.ononesoftware.com/detail.php?prodLine_id=7

    FlatE,
    I had a number of photos taken in candlelight in a project in Aperture, some of which resulted from panning from side to side. I chose two that were taken seconds apart, and sent them to Photoshop to be merged into a panorama. Since Photomerge in PS does not make either of the original images the resultant, I had to save the panorama as a new image (TIFF in this case), and Import it back into Aperture for further editing. The primary retouching I wanted to then do in Aperture was to use Noise Ninja, which I have only set up as a plugin in Aperture, even though I have the license to set it up as stand alone or as a plugin to PS. I simply chose to not do much editing to the original images, but rather to wait for the merged panorama.
    I then chose Pages because I trusted both its resizing ability and ease to add text below the photo as a title when printed. I felt more confident to take a PDF to the outside printing service, than a pure photo format. Obviously I could have stayed in Photoshop if I had set Noise Ninja up to use there after the merge but I like the editing of shading in Aperture better than in Photoshop, these days. Btw, I exported the retouched panorama from Aperture before dragging it into Pages. This was not a workflow for a mass of images, but one special one.
    Ernie

  • Icc profiles for aperture book printing...

    Do the Aperture Book Printing folks provide icc profiles so I can soft-proof the images beforehand?

    Please note that monitors provide fairly accurate color when the images are saved in an sRGB color space, however, presses are not as reliable...
    Well, Mike, thanks for sharing the info here.
    At one point, in Mark's email to you, as mentioned above in his email from Apple, I have to say I am a little surprised about his statement re: monitors provide fairly accurate... when the images saved in an sRGB colour space...
    It is very tricky statement where it depends on how we define the term "fairly accurate" in monitors. What we don't know if Mark meant by when monitor has been "properly" set up as profiled and calibrated with high-grade calibration hardware. Unless IF the monitor has been proper profiled and calibrated, then his statement would be correct. But IF not profiled or calibrated at all, I am afraid that his statement is incorrect.
    Now these days with newer monitors and newer Apple laptops with better monitor technology, it is still need to be properly profiled and calibrated. It just depends on individual's preference, desire and the purpose of such project whatever someone is working on. While majority of Aperture users' are probably mostly professional photographers or those who are into photography savvy, then colour-managed workflow is a norm. For me, it IS absolute A MUST colour-managed workflow.
    Although, I do a heavy post-production workflow on MacPro where I always have my monitors calibrated. I don't typically calibrate my laptop, though. Because sometimes I forgot to turn off the automatic ambient light in System Preference in Display section. It is a little inconvenience in that case. Unless if I am being away on photographic trips far from Canada abroad, then it is a different story. But not always bring my calibration device with me. Too inconvenience to haul it around at the airports etc. So colour-managed workflow is a must with MacPro in my studio.
    However, other individuals have their own preference, comfort zone and the purpose of such project. Perhaps their workflow set up differently than yours or mine, that is ok.
    But in that email you received from someone at Apple didn't make it clear about that statement about 'fairly accuracy'.
    Then something else is something else actually--when Apple guy said presses are not always.... Again, that is why it is important that you get monitor properly profiled and calibrated. Once it is done properly, then it is all good. But remember, you need to re-calibrate monitor once a week or every two weeks or once month. In order to get pretty close to printed output, always a good idea to soft proof. If needed to make slightly conservative adjustments to your satisfaction or level of expectation, the output would be fairly close to what it is appeared in monitor. When I mean "fairly close" in comparing the output to what you are seeing in monitor with these post-production images used in that output, in fairness, I would estimate fairly close in terms of anywhere in range between 92 to 95 percent - that is very fair conservative perspective on how close in the output vs monitor. It is truly, really, truly rare to get the output 100% as obvious and precise as you are seeing in monitor. If that is the case, and if that is true FOR that person achieved this, this probably means takes that person many years to perfect his/her colour-managed workflow for that matter. Never has been that pretty close, but I'd be shocked if I see mine aced right on spot. I'd be lying to you if I get all output perfect as appeared in my monitors. If I did, that would be incorrect statement.
    It seems a lot of factors and things to do and things need to require in a thoroughly colour-managed workflow production, it is how it is done. But this can also means save money, effort and time if done properly right from the beginning.
    In fairness, I would really wish that guy from Apple should have said a little more obvious and precise with his definition of fairly accuracy with monitors. It doesn't says what kind of monitors he refers to. Low quality, cheap monitors deliver good results? Lot of factors need to be looked at for consideration for yourself.
    Of course, as you can tell that colour management topic is pretty heavy, highly technical and everything in deep thinking with world of colours. It takes years for an individual (both pros and non-pro individuals) finally understand what it is all about. Again, technologies evolve rapid for the better in many cases for new monitors, commercial print equips, advanced ink technology, advanced paper production technology... That goes on effortless endless, actually.
    Hope some of thoughtfu perspective and experience be of some interest, and it is obvious that this discussion probably will attract some more excitement discussion, the more the better. So that every other Aperture users who have the similar issues, they'll definitely want to come to here... And learn and share.
    I also use Blurb too. They are getting better than it was once a couple years ago when Blurb first started. As they add more variety of book sizes, types of paper stock and things like that. This also give someone some flexibility in choosing workflow production using Blurb software or online bookmaking or using PDF to Book service for those who are advanced users that use InDesign layout design app. In that case of PDF to Book, the advanced users would need to download Blurb's preset plug-in to put in InDesign in order to export the PDF output to meet and integrate into Blurb's Preflight Checklist at the time of upload. I use PDF to Book service with InDesign, etc. It is fairly self explanatory and easy to follow steps. Also slightly off topic, but when making Blurb book, to get most out of their product and service with Blurb, in that case, they came up with brilliant resource called Colour Resource Centre designed for making more beautiful books. In that resource centre, it is easy to read and follow.
    I would think this probably shed some insights and understanding the basics of colour management, the whole thing all about this, that and the other all together.
    I would also want other high-powered hard-core Aperture users share their experience with Aperture Book printing service. I'd be happy to share my experience about making Aperture Book vs. Blurb Book through PDF to Book service. However, I would think the export to PDF from Aperture probably has it's own different setting or slightly different configuration inside the PDF engine on Mac for Blurb book. There has been some discussion about wanting a Aperture Plug In for Blurb Book. blurb has been quiet on it, I take that they probably will not develop a special plug-in for Aperture Users. Sorry if it is a little off topic. But somehow someone in the discussion mention Blurb. so...
    Anyhow, hope that helps.

  • Aperture plugins

    Hello,
    where is the Aperture 'plugin' folder?
    I want to install a lens correction plugin for my wide angle lenses.
    Thanks

    Thank you for that.
    Only problem is that Aperture has nothing following it.
    I removed Aperture and reinstalled it but my file tree reads.
    /Library/Application Support/Aperture/    here appears a p list document
    Any ideas?

  • Workflow for moving photos/videos from iPhoto to LR

    I used to use iPhoto, but have switched to LR. I'd like to move all the images/videos I have in iPhoto to LightRoom.
    What is the workflow for making this move?
    thanks
    Greg

    You can't run an iPhoto Library from a NAS. iPhoto needs to have the Library sitting on disk formatted Mac OS Extended (Journaled). Users with the Library sitting on disks otherwise formatted regularly report issues including, but not limited to, importing, saving edits and sharing the photos.
    You can't convert a Managed Library to a Referenced Library (see below for definitions of managed and referenced) with iPhoto - and you probably shouldn't anyway, especially when the masters are on one volume and the library on another. See
    https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3062728?tstart=0
    for more on why.
    With Aperture, you can easily have the Masters on one volume and the Library on another, and you can convert the Library from Managed to Referenced easily.
    However, if you di any editing your planned set up will not work. Both iPhoto and Aperture will never edit your original file. All processing in these apps is virtual. So, if you fix red-eye for instance, the image in iPhoto/Aperture will have the red-eye fixed. But the image on the NAS will be your original file, with the red-eye. So any device that accesses the images directly from the NAS will have he original image, not the processed one.
    Is that what you want?
    Regards
    TD
    Definitions:
    A Managed Library, is the default setting, and iPhoto copies files into the iPhoto Library when Importing. The files are then stored in the Library package
    A Referenced Library is when iPhoto is NOT copying the files into the iPhoto Library when importing because you made a change at iPhoto -> Preferences -> Advanced. (You unchecked the option to copy files into the Library on import) The files are then stored where ever you put them and not in the Library package. In this scenario you are responsible for the File Management. 

Maybe you are looking for