Why it makes no sense to use ACR with Aperture
Some people here are asking why you can't directly use ACR (Adobe Camera Raw) to edit your raw files in Aperture. I don't think Apple designed it to work that way, and for good reason.
But let's pretend you can integrate ACR with Aperture. Let's say your workflow looked like this:
1. Use Aperture to import images from your camera.
2. Export your raw image to ACR.
3. Use ACR to produce a TIFF or PSD.
4. Import that TIFF or PSD into Aperture as a version of the original raw file (if that's even possible).
5. Now what?
* You wouldn't want to use any of Aperture's editing features (white balance, levels, etc.) because they'd be acting on the edited PSD or TIFF file, not the original raw file.
* Any time you want to edit the file, you'd have to use Photoshop to create another PSD or TIFF, negating Aperture's non-destructive editing benefits (with non-destructive editing, only a tiny bit of hard disk space is used for changes, since only the list of changes is saved, not a whole 6+ megapixel bitmap for each version).
* You lose the benefit of Aperture's lift & stamp, because your modifications are made in ACR and/or Photoshop.
* Aperture wouldn't keep track of ACR's settings, so it probably wouldn't replicate them to a vault or save them as versions.
I'm sure there are more things you'd be losing, but that just is what came off the top of my head.
So it seems like the question is:
Why would you want to use ACR with Aperture? What do you gain that's worth $500?
Power Mac G5, Dual 2GHz, 1.5GB ram Mac OS X (10.4.3) iBook G3 800 MHz, 640 MB, ComboDrive
But let's pretend you can integrate ACR with Aperture. Let's say your workflow looked like this:
1. Use Aperture to import images from your camera.
2. Export your raw image to ACR.
3. Use ACR to produce a TIFF or PSD.
4. Import that TIFF or PSD into Aperture as a version of the original raw file (if that's even possible).
5. Now what?
* You wouldn't want to use any of Aperture's editing features (white balance, levels, etc.) because they'd be acting on the edited PSD or TIFF file, not the original raw file.
* Any time you want to edit the file, you'd have to use Photoshop to create another PSD or TIFF, negating Aperture's non-destructive editing benefits (with non-destructive editing, only a tiny bit of hard disk space is used for changes, since only the list of changes is saved, not a whole 6+ megapixel bitmap for each version).
* You lose the benefit of Aperture's lift & stamp, because your modifications are made in ACR and/or Photoshop.
* Aperture wouldn't keep track of ACR's settings, so it probably wouldn't replicate them to a vault or save them as versions.
I'm sure there are more things you'd be losing, but that just is what came off the top of my head.
So it seems like the question is:
Why would you want to use ACR with Aperture? What do you gain that's worth $500?
Power Mac G5, Dual 2GHz, 1.5GB ram Mac OS X (10.4.3) iBook G3 800 MHz, 640 MB, ComboDrive