Raw Import Bug

Your camera is showing you, on a very small display, a small JPG conversion done by its internal computer. It is never going to look like the default converted-from-RAW-on-a-computer-and-displayed-on-a-good-monitor version of the photo.

The better comparison would be between default RAW conversions done by Aperture, by Nikon's own software, and by an Adobe product. In all cases, however, you should see more detail, including more subtle gradations across similar areas, and a broader (or more filled-in) luminance range.

Personally, I'd much much much prefer to have the image on the right to work with (of the two you supplied). I don't know why you aren't able to get it to look like the in-camera JPG. If you do, however, applying the same settings to 800 Images is very easy in Aperture (create and apply a Preset, or Lift & Stamp). Processing studio shots should be quick work because the conditions of the exposure are controlled and identical for multiple exposures.

As I see it, you have a few practical choices:

• Use the JPGs created in-camera. If they work, this eliminates several steps in your workflow.
• Use Nikon's (or other) RAW converter to create TIFF files, and import those into Aperture
• Learn how to set up the studio lighting so you get the RAW (and converted-from-RAW) results you want. Your goal isn't to light the subject so it looks right on the back of the camera -- your goal is to light the subject so your developed pictures look the way you want them to.
• Figure out an Adjustment Preset in Aperture that gives you what you want. Aperture has robust tools for changing the look of your photos. If you post a RAW, some of the forum members here (myself included) are likely to essay adjusting it to your specifications (which, of course, you should provide).
• Change the settings for RAW conversion in Aperture. This, imho, is least likely to help you in the long run.

I'm sure there are other ways 'round this RAW boulder -- those are just the ones that occur to me.

Good Luck.

Message was edited by: Kirby Krieger -- first graph clarified.

Kirby,

I am with you -- I would rather start with the condition of the photo on the right. With the exception of the hair, the rest of the one on the left looks over exposed. But I never saw a photo I didn't want to edit out of the camera.

Ernie

Leaving aside the artistic questions you could adjust the RAW fine tuning to try and mimic the way Aperture 2 did the convert. If you're able to come up with an acceptible setting you can save it as either a new preset that you could select when you are viewing these images or make it the camera default that it is used for this camera on all shots.

+1 🙂 . The information density (units per area) seems higher in the picture on the right. Information is pure potential: the more I have the more I can do.

My camera is a data recording device. I make pictures with my computer.

(How serious am I about that? -- I will buy the first full-frame camera that records all the data the lens collects. It's long past time to stop using the camera as a framing device (and instantly throw away 40% of the data our expensive lenses collect). The rectangularity of digital sensors was always thoughtless mimicry from an era when sensors were cut from rolls of material. Digital sensors and photograph files should be -- like lenses -- circular. Record with camera; make picture in studio.)