Is it just me or does Aperture take away the camera picture settings when you import. I have a D90 and when I import in pictures the colors look live for the pictures that I set to Vivid in the preview picture in Aperture. Then once I double click on the picture to view it the vivid colors go away. I wish I took a screen shot of it to show you what I mean. It's like the pictures look like the vivid setting until you open them, then they look like the Normal setting again. Anyone else noticing this behavior?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Aperture question
- Thread starter nando2323
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Using raw, when you make those settings changes in-camera Nikon adds it as a meta-data.
The only program that actually reads that meta data is CaptureNX (Nikon's own program). Everything else throws it away (Aperture, ACR, dcraw, etc)
I have a feeling the data is in a proprietary format so it can't be read by anything else.
The only program that actually reads that meta data is CaptureNX (Nikon's own program). Everything else throws it away (Aperture, ACR, dcraw, etc)
I have a feeling the data is in a proprietary format so it can't be read by anything else.
Lightroom does the same... I never noticed because I just shoot with my Canon set to standard. One day I was messing around and put the camera on Monochrome. When I imported the RAW file into LR the file was in color.
I recently learned this too -- that the vivid, etc settings in my camera never make it to Aperture. I'm starting to wonder about shooting in RAW. I'm just a very casual photographer, and I don't do all that much to my photos -- just slight adjustments here and there. I know RAW is better for manipulation, but since the camera settings don't make it into Aperture I wind up doing a lot more work than if I just set it to fine JPG in the camera. It also adds to my workflow whenever I want to share images with someone on the spot, first having to get them into a RAW-capable program rather than just popping the memory card into their computer and giving them some JPGs.
Because of all the additional work/file space/etc involved, I'm really considering going back to shooting in JPG. Am I nuts? Does anyone else (who *is* aware of the benefits of RAW, not out of ignorance) choose to shoot in JPG?
Because of all the additional work/file space/etc involved, I'm really considering going back to shooting in JPG. Am I nuts? Does anyone else (who *is* aware of the benefits of RAW, not out of ignorance) choose to shoot in JPG?
I would be VERY interested in hearing anyone's response to this. I am trying to develop my workflow in the first place, and all I have heard is RAW RAW RAW. So looking forward to a response.
I'm not a super-brain on the subject of 'Why RAW', but I am a firm believer in it.
A. JPG files are 8 bit. Period. (or so I think, cause I can never save out a 16 bit JPG in Photoshop). RAW files are 12 bit, 14bit and probably 16 on some? RAW will allow you to have much truer colors, and many more colors. Losing the in-camera picture settings isn't much of a loss; in Aperture it's very easy to apply adjustments to one photo, and then 'Lift and Stamp Adjustments' to all the rest in the scene.
B. You can always degrade the quality later, you can't upgrade once it's set. RAW is as the camera sees it, no compression applied. With each edit and save you make on a JPG, the compression gets worse and worse. Why start out down 1 compression from the get go?
C. RAW files capture better detail in low-light situations, and post processing programs do a much better job of bringing out those details from a RAW file than from a JPG.
I'm sure there are more reasons, but those are some main ones for me. And I have no idea how accurate I am on the details, but it's what I've noticed over the last 4 years I've been shooting in RAW. If it's an important enough event then I'd not hesitate to go RAW. If it's just fun, casual shooting then shoot JPG. You can always shoot RAW+JPG and trash the RAW upon import if you didn't capture an image you'd really like to work up.
That's my midnight 2cents for ya. Cheers!
A. JPG files are 8 bit. Period. (or so I think, cause I can never save out a 16 bit JPG in Photoshop). RAW files are 12 bit, 14bit and probably 16 on some? RAW will allow you to have much truer colors, and many more colors. Losing the in-camera picture settings isn't much of a loss; in Aperture it's very easy to apply adjustments to one photo, and then 'Lift and Stamp Adjustments' to all the rest in the scene.
B. You can always degrade the quality later, you can't upgrade once it's set. RAW is as the camera sees it, no compression applied. With each edit and save you make on a JPG, the compression gets worse and worse. Why start out down 1 compression from the get go?
C. RAW files capture better detail in low-light situations, and post processing programs do a much better job of bringing out those details from a RAW file than from a JPG.
I'm sure there are more reasons, but those are some main ones for me. And I have no idea how accurate I am on the details, but it's what I've noticed over the last 4 years I've been shooting in RAW. If it's an important enough event then I'd not hesitate to go RAW. If it's just fun, casual shooting then shoot JPG. You can always shoot RAW+JPG and trash the RAW upon import if you didn't capture an image you'd really like to work up.
That's my midnight 2cents for ya. Cheers!
Can't speak for others, but this has helped me. Especially C. I appreciate the time in reponse, my big thing is getting the right workflow down. When I figure that out, I will have no problem settling down with RAW, its just now, I have so many pictures with no hope of dealing with them, because I have NO process.
Printing larger than 8x10? If so, use Capture NX2 for the NEF conversions of your "hero" shots. I can't recommend it enough. Use ProPhoto color space...not Adobe RGB. 16bit TIFF if you need to export out to some other editor. Results will look awesome.
I found this thread just as I was having the same problem with my D80. Is there anyway to replicate the settings my camera is applying to RAW images (optimizing them with a Vivid setting in my camera) with Aperture's adjustment tools? I really like how the pictures look on my camera, and don't want to have to go through all this work to get them to match up!
The setting one the camera only control the RAW ==> JPG converson process that occures inside the camera. If you import RAW images into Aprture Then the setting are not applied because there is no in-camera conversion to JPG.
If you are importing RAW with JPG previews then this explains it
This needs to be taken into concideration when you shoot RAW. The purpose of RAW is that you get the un-processed data off the sensor that is not yet an image, just data. But the camera can also produce image files in the form of JPG format files. These will be "sharpened" and color corected and so on.
Many camera allow you to store both forms
You sound like you should be shooting RAW+JPG.
I think the postprocessing benefits of RAW are unbeatable, but if you're not doing a lot of that, I think RAW does slow your workflow without giving you a lot of benefits. There are a lot of professional photographers that shoot JPG only because of that reason.
For me, I'm far too afraid that I'll be there for the perfect shot but only get it on JPG and not have enough data to manipulate it without RAW.
I think the postprocessing benefits of RAW are unbeatable, but if you're not doing a lot of that, I think RAW does slow your workflow without giving you a lot of benefits. There are a lot of professional photographers that shoot JPG only because of that reason.
For me, I'm far too afraid that I'll be there for the perfect shot but only get it on JPG and not have enough data to manipulate it without RAW.