Workflow involving DxO Optics Pro 9

Question

This is only moderately related to Aperture, for it's plugin capability. Apologies for raising it here, but I figured I'd find like-minded people here who may have an opinion they are willing to share or maybe even a solution to the no-plugin challenge.
Until now, I've always ...
Imported raw files from my camera into Aperture
Deleted failed frames
Review all remaining frames and rated them, stacked similar frames and picked the best one of each stack, etc.
Review all remaining frames again and flagged the ones I would use for sending out, publishing, etc.
Make the appropriate adjustments to the flagged images
Do other stuff to it through whatever plugins, such as HDR or fusion, through 16-bit TIFF
Finishing touches through the final editor, I've switched to Pixelmator 3.0 FX recently
Export to the final format
I just noticed DxO has a 42% discount on Optics Pro 9 at the moment. It's a piece of software I've had my eye on for a while now because of the optical correction ability. But I'm struggling to figure out how it would fit into my existing workflow as described above. Although I believe previous versions worked as a plugin to Aperture, and that would be fine as I'd pull the images through it from inside Aperture. But the current version 9 seems to not have that capability, which means I'm now wondering where to insert this into my workflow if I were to purchase the software. All I can think of is either at the start or the end of the workflow.
Does anybody have any thoughts on the above?

Answer 1

Rob de Jonge wrote:
Thanks, appreciate you taking time to write such an extensive response. Yet another alternative is to use Lightroom, which does have optical correction built in. Not something I should be mentioning in this forum though!
Mention away.  We're just users.  Lr and Aperture are very nearly matched.  Each is a superb program.  For me, the advantages of Aperture where overwhelming: I preferred the non-modal interface; I found (and find) it more amenable to my style; I loved (and use) the additional layer of Image organization; I have both an iPad and an iPhone; I use the integration with other OS X programs; and my wife uses iPhoto and has an iPhone.
I use Sony FF cameras and Sony lenses.  For the most part, these don't _need_ lens correction.  I don't sell architectural pictures.
The sad part is that, as with hardware for recording light data (I mean camera bodies and lenses), software is part of an ecosystem, and once you commit to one you are likely to stick with it.  Aperture is far behind in providing lens correction.  If you need it, you have to look elsewhere, and in looking elsewhere may decide -- wisely -- to change ecosystems.
The _small_ thing to keep in mind is that lens-correction should be done right after RAW conversion.  The large thing to keep in mind is that each time to move an image file from one ecosystem to another, you double your storage requirements and kink the "non-destructive" workflow.  Unfortunately, there is no single ecosystem that currently meets your needs.
It is worth noting that more and more cameras _depend_ on lens-correction.  At first, this appears as a kind of cheap alternative to well-engineered cameras and lenses.  My sense is that, now that it is available, the _combination_ of hardware and software results in a _more efficient_ use of resources.  (Why spend 4X on lenses when you do it with 1X and a bit of software?)  The downside is that the user becomes dependent on particular software.
As camera engineers rely more and more on software as a necessary pipe in the imaging workflow, "RAW" sensor data will have to re-imagined.  I'm not a scientist, so I can't see around that corner.  For sensor-site discrete things, "corrected" RAW makes sense.  For other things -- e.g.: chromatic fringing -- it doesn't.
HTH,
--Kirby.