Why does sharpening suck so bad in Aperture?

[dmz]

This thread needs a little light.

Going back to the original question - yes, Aperture SUCKS for sharpening, that's why digital photographers use Photoshop or a companion product - Noise Ninja, or whatever tool you like. Aperture is NOT a digital darkroom, if you think of it like a digital light table and organisational tool, and just one part of your digital photography workflow, you'll find it operates exactly as claimed.

Reviewers have been pretty careful to point out to readers that neither Aperture or Lightroom replace Photoshop, and Apple is also clear on this point, so I'd say this is a case of caveat emptor.

Making the transition from film to digital is greatly aided by a serious film photographers' understanding of the underlying physics and chemistry of their craft. However, they must be willing to learn the new lexicon of digital imaging and integrate it with their existing knowledge - and their is a lot to learn even for seasoned film pros.

File formats are the film emulsions of the future. Understanding what different formats mean, how colour and print management works are the darkroom fundamentals of the future. RAW files, though wildly varying in exact specification, are meant to stay unchanged - the modern-day analog to a film original.

You must remember the first law of digital image processing - any change to the original data is destructive. Any image you produce from the RAW file will be a subjective product of the original data. Sharpening is an entirely arbitrary process - there is no such thing as a universal "properly" sharpened image - every unique usage will require unique processing. This principal should be familiar to film photographers who, after all, had to do the same thing with their old photochemical process.

Isn't that the first law of ALL photography - get it right in the camera?

Keep learning!

dmz

 

[pprior]

Why not use the Noise Ninja plugin for Aperture?

Because it creates an entirely new file for each picture, thereby hugely increasing the library size.

 

[Digital Skunk]

Because it creates an entirely new file for each picture, thereby hugely increasing the library size.

I agree. When I have to go to Photoshop it does this to, but at least I know I will end up with top notch results.

But as stated, Aperture and LR are seriously just for touch ups and quick fixes. I would never do extensive stuff with either app simply because they just can't cut it with certain techniques.

I would never trade either of them for archiving/cataloguing/backing up/etc though.

 

[wheelhot]

Reviewers have been pretty careful to point out to readers that neither Aperture or Lightroom replace Photoshop, and Apple is also clear on this point, so I'd say this is a case of caveat emptor.

Yup, you are right. Even Apple knows this and says that Aperture is not meant to compete with Photoshop.

 

[flinch13]

Hey man, you're out of line. Cool it. If you don't want to post proof of your arguments, you make yourself look weak. Pathetic.

I don't see the point in going through the trouble to resize and upload images when it is clear that you do not have the capacity to see the difference anyway. I'd probably have to apply a Gaussian blur to one of the photos before you'd notice a difference.

I use a 1Ds MkIII, various L lenses, heavy Gitzos, mirror lock, cable release, etc. I shot large format for about ten years before going digital, mostly chromes, some negs. I use WCI for the scans. I don't use Aperture with these files. I only use it with raws.

I used to be a pro and shot for the park service while I was a biologist there. I'm a doctor now and own two clinics, so I just do photography for fun.

 

[OreoCookie]

Just listing what big equipment you have and insulting others that they are incapable to gauge differences in IQ isn't going to help. Quite a few knowledgeable people have tried to weigh in and find out what exactly you find lacking here.

So how about you do post examples and try to explain what you mean.

 

[Digital Skunk]

Just listing what big equipment you have and insulting others that they are incapable to gauge differences in IQ isn't going to help. Quite a few knowledgeable people have tried to weigh in and find out what exactly you find lacking here.

So how about you do post examples and try to explain what you mean.

Very true, and I doubt he's coming back.

The sad part to me is that the OP state they are a doctor, and has this high end photo gear as a hobby, but doesn't have the wherewithal to determine if a piece of tech is good enough for their standards.

When I dump or adopt tech, I don't come to the forums to debate serious application of it in my workflow. Maybe to see if someone likes a certain photo bag, or to discuss some caveats I may have, but you will never see me asking how to use a piece of tech that is required for my job/hobby that I have spent $1000s on.

 

[Abstract]

Just listing what big equipment you have and insulting others that they are incapable to gauge differences in IQ isn't going to help.

To be fair, it's not like any of you actually tried answering his question.

It's got to be his shooting technique, after all. It just has to be....


And yes, if someone thinks Aperture's sharpening is OK, then ANY SOFTWARE that sharpens an image is ok for him/her. I really don't see how these people could help him.

 

[OreoCookie]

To be fair, it's not like any of you actually tried answering his question.

Well, that's because we don't know in what way he finds Aperture's possibilities to sharpen images unsatisfactory. I also don't see how this is such a biggie when you can edit your picks with Photoshop or a suitable plugin.

 

[ajpl]

1. Aperture does a small amount of pre-sharpening once it imports the file into Aperture. Scott Bourne from TWiP mentions this in a blog post.

That's not actually a good thing as some images may be from a 6M p+s and some may be from a 60M Phase Back and you may not want any sharpening. Medium format shots tend to be much sharper [no AA filter] and may not need any sharpening.

I use my housemates 28mm lens and my images are shaper than his, he uses Lightroom and has to do those adjustments himself. Of course you can do further adjustments.

Or you have a steadier hand.
It's far better for the programme to do no sharpening other than what the user wants doing. Also your satement is not quite accurate, LR has a default capture sharpening, which you can set to your own parameters and you can have different captures sharpening settings for different cameras, ISOs etc and when you imort them you can apply the sharpen preset you desire. Though as you can save any parameter to make your presets, so you could import your shots and choose them to all be Contrasty B+W images automatically. Very handy.

And the sharpening in LR is now very good indeed. I tested it the other day and I think I can get better results now in LR than even by my complex PS sharpening tricks. Some more testing will be required before I decide how to proceed further.

 

[ajpl]

But as stated, Aperture and LR are seriously just for touch ups and quick fixes. I would never do extensive stuff with either app simply because they just can't cut it with certain techniques.

I can do 90% of my image developing in LR/ACR now - I only use PS for textural editing, blending stuff and compositing now as ACR is much better than PS for the main adjustments. Plus as ACR/LR can now also do localised editing, even less need for PS.

 

[ajpl]

Any digital camera with an AA filter requires some sharpening in post (i.e. all cameras).

No offense, but I don't think any of you guys have seen a properly sharpened photograph, if you think the crap coming out of Aperture is acceptable.

I have spent a lot of time in the company of doctors/medics as they were/are friends, housemates, girlfriends etc and this sort of foolish arrogance and refusal to debate, or listen to an alternative opinion makes me very wary of going anywhere near a hospital.

Besides just to show how little you actually know, many cameras do not have an AA filter - Digital medium format backs for example and IIRC neither do Leicas. As does this...

I don't see the point in going through the trouble to resize and upload images when it is clear that you do not have the capacity to see the difference anyway. I'd probably have to apply a Gaussian blur to one of the photos before you'd notice a difference.

If comparing sharpness you have to do it at 100%, because if resizing you will get a reduction in sharpness that will then need correcting, which would introduce another unnecessary variable into the equation. Basic science - alter only one variable when experimenting. So not only arrogant but ignorant.

 

[Digital Skunk]

I can do 90% of my image developing in LR/ACR now - I only use PS for textural editing, blending stuff and compositing now as ACR is much better than PS for the main adjustments. Plus as ACR/LR can now also do localised editing, even less need for PS.

Great, for me I have always based my workflow around Photoshop. When I shoot for the paper I have to edit for their color profile so I have to do that in PS anyhow. For my own personal work I just stick with LR or Aperture for the touch ups, but when I need something like the History Brush I have to go into PS since i am just used to it.

One day I may give ACR/LR another try.

 

[OreoCookie]

That's not actually a good thing as some images may be from a 6M p+s and some may be from a 60M Phase Back and you may not want any sharpening. Medium format shots tend to be much sharper [no AA filter] and may not need any sharpening.

That's not quite the way it works: by default, Aperture's RAW module applies some sharpening which you can set to zero by a simple slider or using a certain preset.

 

[ajpl]

Great, for me I have always based my workflow around Photoshop. When I shoot for the paper I have to edit for their color profile so I have to do that in PS anyhow. For my own personal work I just stick with LR or Aperture for the touch ups, but when I need something like the History Brush I have to go into PS since i am just used to it.

One day I may give ACR/LR another try.

I used to live in PS and I love the programme, but RAW processing can now do a much better job of the basic part of making an image look good, so PS is only needed for the finishing touches, batch processsing image looks not possible in LR or fancy work.
Plus LR has genuine localised non-destructive adjustment [unlike aperture], plus targeted adjustments which can be faster than selecting in PS.

You can export images from LR with specific colour profiles too.

 

[dmz]

To be fair, it's not like any of you actually tried answering his question.

Well, is that your answer then?

His question " Why does sharpening suck so bad in Aperture", has been answered - it sucks because he thinks it does.

Keep Learning!

dmz

 

[ajpl]

That's not quite the way it works: by default, Aperture's RAW module applies some sharpening which you can set to zero by a simple slider or using a certain preset.

So just the same as LR.
Unlike what the poster claimed in the post I responding to.

 

[OreoCookie]

So just the same as LR.
Unlike what the poster claimed in the post I responding to.

CrackedButter wrote that Aperture `does a small amount of pre-sharpening once it imports the file into Aperture.' I don't see any contradiction to what I've written.

 

[Edge100]

I can do 90% of my image developing in LR/ACR now - I only use PS for textural editing, blending stuff and compositing now as ACR is much better than PS for the main adjustments. Plus as ACR/LR can now also do localised editing, even less need for PS.

I agree. I'm in LR for 90% of my work. I go to PS CS3 for Noiseware, perspective adjustments, and layers (and less for that since adjustment brushes were introduced in LR 2). I will use Smart Sharpen once in a while, but not often.

Obviously, the tools in CS3 go far beyond what LR can do, and it's great to know I have access to them if necessary. I just don't find it all that necessary anymore.

EDIT: I used to also use CS3 for watermarking (which LR is VERY bad at) and borders...now I just use the brilliant 'Mogrify' on export from LR.

 

[ajpl]

CrackedButter wrote that Aperture `does a small amount of pre-sharpening once it imports the file into Aperture.' I don't see any contradiction to what I've written.

That's because you didn't also claim LR was different in that respect. Read the whole post not part of it.