How to set up "RAW Fine Tuning"?

Here are my defaults. As I understand it, the hard working elves in the hollow tree at Apple have tested different camera models and have fine tuned the RAW defaults for each model.

Camera: Canon EOS 7D
Boost: 1.00
Hue Boost: 1.00
Sharpening: .70
Edges: .71
Moire: .50
Radius: 4.00
De-noise: .50

There is an entire section of the User Manual:
http://documentation.apple.com/en/aperture/usermanual/index.html#chapter=16%26se ction=13%26tasks=true

From the first paragraph:
+The Mac OS characterizes the RAW file format for each digital camera supported by Aperture. This calibration data usually results in the optimal decoding of the RAW image files for a particular camera. However, certain types of images may require adjustments to how the Mac OS decodes the RAW image file.+

OS X includes a raw converter. (A raw converter turns the sensor data recorded by a camera -- saved in proprietary formats -- into a display-able image format.) These controls allow you some adjustments to the raw converter default settings for your camera(s).

I believe it's the opposite of a zeroed out version. It's Aperture's best guess at an optimized RAW conversion tuned to your camera. Zeroed out should look somewhere between awful and dreadful.

That (robert251's post) is my understanding as well. I have not confirmed it, but it stands to reason.

It's like any other "automatic" setting - a guess at best. Each image is different and requires different degrees of sharpening depending on what the subject is, likewise with noise reduction. The best thing to do is to save your own camera pre-set and use that unless you want to just run off a set of images quickly for proofing purposes, I have a Canon 1Ds Mk3 and the pre-set has everything at zero.

Ed State wrote:
In general, do these Apple-developed presets essentially "zero out" the image? ... Or do they enhance in any way?

The answer is "Yes," they do both. 😉

In the olden daze Aperture, Lightroom, et al, tended to do very flat RAW development and everyone howled that they “had” to use Capture NX or whatever as "it was clear that only Nikon/Canon could successfully decode their own RAW files." Of course, all that was happening is that Nikon et al were processing their RAW files the same way that they processed their JPEGS in camera, to produce “pleasing” results. (Think contrast/saturation/sharpening.

Since that time both Adobe and Apple have changed their approach and have been making a conscious effort to get their RAW developers to emulate the in camera processing of the various manufacturers, including the various picture styles/modes or whatever. (Adobe is ahead of Apple on this, but you can create your own presets in Aperture very quickly.) Scholars differ on whether is this is better or not but once you understand what is going on, you can do things your way, including setting up a preset that tries to get a standard color chart correct.

DiploStrat wrote:

Ed State wrote:
In general, do these Apple-developed presets essentially "zero out" the image? ... Or do they enhance in any way?

The answer is "Yes," they do both. 😉
(Snippage)
... Scholars differ on whether is this is better or not but once you understand what is going on, you can do things your way, including setting up a preset that tries to get a standard color chart correct.

Links, tutorials, primers? I would like to:
. understand what is going on, and
. set up a preset that tries to get a standard color chart correct.

I use XRite's ColorMunki for monitor and paper/printer proofing.

Thanks DiploStrat.

Glutton for punishment, are we? 😉

All of this assumes a calibrated monitor, etc.

First, get thyself a chart, like this: http://www.ae5d.com/macbeth.html

Then read/watch all of these by our own Rob Boyer, starting with the screen cast: http://photo.rwboyer.com/series/aperture-3-nikon-presets/

Scholars differ on how to proceed next, but you might try this:

-- On a sunny 16 day, early morning, cloudy day, and late afternoon, shoot the chart, perhaps being held by yourself or someone who will be around. (Acid test of skin tone.)

-- Shoot RAW+JPEG This lets you do two things at once; see how YOUR camera changes color in all of its modes (so you can copy if you wish) and gives you the RAW files to adjust to make your preset(s).

Now start playing: Put up the RAW and JPEG and compare hue, saturation, etc., etc. Compare you RAW image of the color chart with your screen. Whoops! Is your light the same temperature as the day you shot the image? Nope. Sorry. Still, it can be a most useful tool.

Or give up, swith to Lightroom and use an X-Rite Colorchecker Passport: http://www.amazon.com/X-Rite-MSCCPP-ColorChecker-Passport/dp/B002NU5UW8

Rob and others can contribute to a more serious workflow. I simply use the Mark One Eyeball.

All the best!

--

DiploStrat wrote:
Glutton for punishment, are we? 😉

{Snippage}
Or give up, swith to Lightroom and use an X-Rite Colorchecker Passport: http://www.amazon.com/X-Rite-MSCCPP-ColorChecker-Passport/dp/B002NU5UW8

Rob and others can contribute to a more serious workflow. I simply use the Mark One Eyeball.

All the best!

Thanks! I use the X-Rite ColorChecker Passport -- it's one reason I haven't created my own Ap3 raw camera import default set.

• Why "switch to Lightroom"? In what way is Aperture limiting?
• Are you recommending using the ColorChecker Passport to create raw import defaults (i.e.: for all shots from a given camera), or to create test shots to be used for each shoot?

Hmmm. Can the x-Rite create profiles for Aperture? I was under the impression that it could only do so for ACR.

Thought i would comment as the thread seems to have drifted a little.
Folk seem to want to make comparisons between various other software when the get Aperture and import raw files. A jpeg is best considered an end product and raw the beginning of a process that can have multiple end products as required.
Really you can only have things like raw fine tuning and white balance set up very roughly to meet your needs unless you shoot in a very controlled environment. One reason you are able to set up multiple presets to aid this for various conditions but never an end result for every import of differing subjects and lighting.

Colour is subjective. It is a querk of the human brain and how IT'S RAW CONVERTER processes light.

The Moire and Radius are to reduce the type interference pattern most people are familiar with from old TVs and the patterned jackets. It can sometimes be seen as patterns on an image not in the original scene in areas of fine detail.

So no right or wrong settings.

Allan

DiploStrat,

You are correct. The software that comes with the ColorChecker Passport can use a '.dng' file created by converting the RAW file and then uses that to create a camera profile for the lighting conditions of that image.

The profile is automatically passed on to ACR or the included Lightroom plug-in for use in those specific applications.

For use in Aperture, I have to use the RAW image taken of the ColorChecker Passport to make a sample to 'Lift-n-Stamp' for other shots taken in those lighting conditions.

I use the 'Bridge CS5 > ACR 6 > PS CS5' workflow as well as the Aperture workflow (although I really like Aperture better for my general image organization and processing).

I do know (as you mentioned) that the Adobe engineers use profiles for the Nikon cameras (I shoot a D80) which are designed to emulate the different setting offered in the Capture NX2 software (which they do a pretty good job on). This gets me to a starting point that closely matches the results I saw in the NX2 software during the most recent trial version.

It would be wonderful if the Apple engineers would do the heavy lifting to test and create some of the same settings to make life easier. As RB points out in your linked screencast, my Nikon images are also off in the green and blue channels necessitating a change to the Apple provided profile for my D80.

For the OP and the rest of us, I think we have to wait to see if this will be direction Apple takes.

Hi...
Thought I would throw in my few dollars worth here too, hope thats ok....

I agree with Allans comment, colour, white balance, RAW conversion its all entirely subjective to an individual's personal choice.... like the old saying.. 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'.... I might think she looks pot ugly 🙂 but if you like her look and she does it for you.... Hey.. How often has your 'best edited photograph' been highly appraised by some, but only ok'd by others.... ?

RAW conversion is a matter of personal taste... I quite like Apple's new RAW conversion in Aperture3, for me its got a 'bite' to it that I like... so much so I have converted my entire library... and i'm happy with it... But that's just me....

I use Canon camera's, and I might add that I never use Canon's DPP software that came with my EOS camera.... for me it doesn't even come close to Apple's RAW converter, I have not even got it installed on my imac....!

I also agree with Allans comment that there is no right or wrong settings... in a controlled environment ie a studio, you could go to great lengths getting a "perfect" controlled workflow. As for using software to create a RAW conversion as close to the manufacturer's as possible... Why not just use the manufacturer's software in the first instance.... If you want to get that close...?

And in no way will the Otter I am photographing hold that pose with the Rainbow Trout he just caught while I check my white balance with the appropriate card..

Photography is a creative experience.... go be creative.... whether you use software or not to get the 'perfect' RAW conversion... it's only perfect to you the individual... Mr Client cant tell what you used, I have never seen anybody I have ever shown a photograph to comment that they would like to know my RAW conversion technique's.....

However... because I like Aperture's RAW converter settings doesn't mean that I wont change them, I frequently set all the sliders to zero, and then make it up as I go along.... i strongly urge you to have a go... the results are/ can be surprising...!! Save your preferred presets for the different effects you like and apply them freely....

I think it's wrong to say, "I like the converter in Photoshop better than Aperture"... I bet I could do an edit in both... & I bet you my camera 😉 ( kidding of course ) you couldn't tell the difference, or which picture was edited with which RAW converter.... guaranteed...

So dont get bogged down with the 'his RAW converter must be better than mine' syndrome.... It's all in the eye of the beholder....

Best Regards to all...... Gerry........