this is only helpful to have a nice preview inside the Aperture, am I right?.
-> Yes mainly (also through the OS X, for finder, mail... or your iOS devices). I suppose however it is also used when printing from Aperture
Does Aperture exploits the fact that there are two versions when editing?
it allows you to edit whatever version you want, without touching the other: Which means if you have not the above artifacts, you can use the RAW. If you have, you can either use the jpeg or try to modify the raw to look like the jpeg. Or use another software.
Robert Altman3 wrote:
HELP-there has to be some way to process the image the way the camera does.
The way I found to produce a "initial" JPEG that had a higher quality than the one produced by the camera was using Canon's Digital Photo Professional to process the RAW image file.
Perhaps you could try to do that with whatever software Nikon provides, sorry I don't know anything about Nikon software.
Another option would be to try Raw Photo Processor. But then again, that is a third variant of RAW processing.
Then once you generate an image in whichever format you prefer, just store that in Aperture.
It is a pain to do that for all images, specially for the extra size and the loss of Aperture's internal RAW processing options, but it will take care of the problem.
I totally agree with you that Apple should fix it.
What I intended was to just point that there are options to batch process those files with DPP.
RAW files are interpreted and then filters are applied. DPP offers batch processing, so, after a session you can just download all those files into a folder, open them in DPP and convert them to whichever format you want, then import those into Aperture. It would be just a few minutes more for an entire shooting session, unless your computer takes an hour to process all that.
The important point is that the algorithm that is used to conver those files as well as the options it gives you do make a lot of difference. Now that I finally upgraded to a 70D, which produces 24MB RAW files, I'm going with JPEG, but back with the 20D, 8MB were fine and I still intend to keep shooting raw with it.
Whenever I really need that fine tuning, DPP is the way to go, as it offers more options, for example, a Canon 70D CR2 has these options in Aperture and DPP:
Using a RAW CR2 file from the 20D, here is an image comparing Camera Imbued JPEG Preview / DPP / RPP / Lightroom / Aperture results:
It is easy to notice that each different RAW processing algorithm produces a different result, with Aperture's being the worst of all by far.
Perhaps the level of control you need depends on what exactly you're doing, but DPP is the closest one to match the camera's preview, at least to me, not to mention the wider options to treat it.
Anyway, that is what I've been doing when I need to use RAW. Takes me just a few minutes, about 5 or so to do it. Granted, Fusion Drive and a newer Mac helps a LOT.
I don't think it's a D600 versus D800 issue-though I just got a D800 body so I will be able to test that myself. It seems to be an issue with the way RAW files are interpreted by Aperture when images are captured under monochromatic LED light-especially blue LED. If you don't shoot concerts/events that use these LED lights you might not notice the issue.
I have recently discovered this problem too. From my own analysis, by comparing a RAW file with an out-of-camera JPG, the problem lies in the red channel - it is overly dark, with severe black clipping, hence significant loss of detail - giving the appearance of oversaturated blues.
My tests are using Canon 40D raw CR2 files, and my monitor is calibrated using Eye-One display 2 and I have been using the sRGB colour space throughout the workflow. Aperture settings are all default for initial import, e.g.
Raw Fine Tuning - Boost: 1.0, hue-boost 1.0
I mention this because I know there have been suggestions to dial down the raw fine tuning boost and hue-boost, but they work with all my other raw files without deep blues. Furthermore, with the same test raw files, this blue problem does not occur with Canon DPP and Adobe's ACR.
I'm wondering if any of the previous post authors can confirm my finding? If you have the JPG, or can use the Camera Manufacturer's raw convertor, then please try comparing the red channels in Photoshop. In addition, feel free to post a link to some samples for me to test, which I am happy to do - I know there have been some samples posted already around the forums, so I will test them later this weekend.
From my findings, I exported the raw file into Photoshop, and copied the red channel from the JPG to the Aperture converted PSD file and the result was close to perfect colour and detail rendition.
It would be preferable to have a universal solution that works entirely in Aperture. I find I can use the colour adjustment brick to correct for mid-dark blues, but the settings do not work if there are light blues or cyan in the same image. Not great for any large amounts of image processing.
This issue has been annoying me for the past week, but it seems that not too many people have identified this issue. It leads me to think that either people do not care, or the people who would (namely advanced photographers) do not use Aperture. I think this is a shame, as I find Aperture has the best highlight recovery and exposure handling out of all the raw convertors. I really do not want to switch because of this - I will file an Aperture bug report, in the small hope that someone reads it...
Hello to all
Aperture has two severe problems in the handling of extreme colours, especially harsh blue tones:
1) The "extreme blue gets dark Problem" that is descriped here in this thread. Extreme saturated blue tones from modern blue LED-Lights are out of gamut of the OS X colour rendering method itself. You can see this not only in Aperture but in iPhoto and OS X Preview too. See these threads:
It has nothing to do with Nikon or Canon, and as I see nothing with Aperture itself. It is a OS X RAW converting problem, you have in OS X Preview and in iPhoto too.
2) The "Small Internal Gamut Problem". Aperture uses a somehow smaller internal Color space for the transitions between colour profiles and editing than AdobeRGB.icc or ProPhoto.icm. You find this here:
Check this test image with a Wide Gamut Display (showing near 100% of the AdobeRGB colour space):
It should show vertical stripes in the blue background. Open this image directly in Photoshop and you will see the stripes. Import it in Aperture and the stripes are gone. It is clipped internally in Aperture. This seems to exist only in Aperture and in OS X Preview. IPhoto shows the stripes.
I believe that both problems are somehow stacked together. Probably there are not many professional photographers left, using Aperture. I am one of them with libraries with > 500.000 images in. Aperture is much faster in RAW editing and I am glad with most results. But these two problems are a real problem in some shooting surroundings.
For me, I found the solution in Brushed Pixel Catapult:
If I have the blue or the other problem or if I want to get the very best out of my RAWs I do a roundtrip to DxO Optics Pro 9 using Catapult. This is easy and convenient. Open the master with plugin "Catapult", Export to DxO or any other RAW Converter like Capture One, Photoshops Adobe camera RAW, Lightroom, Edit there and export the result as a 16bit TIF with large colour space to Catapults Pickup folder and stack the Master and the TIFF in Aperture with Catapults batch import. Only some clicks and all other RAW converters are integrated in Aperture.
Not a perfect solution, but it helps and it has the nice option to use always the best tool for different tasks. DxO for exaple has a the best noise reduction and the best lens correction of all RAW convertres, I believe.
Many thanks for your post, pulling together all the issues! I will include a link to this in my feedback report to Apple.
Since I have been testing with an sRGB workflow from camera to monitor, attempting to eliminate gamut issues, I find it a severe error how the Apple OS handles intense blues, totally compressing and removing all tonal transitions and hence detail. Incorrect colours I do not mind, since that is easily corrected, but loss of detail is a severe problem.
Thank you for posting your solution with the Brushed Pixel Catapult. It looks very interesting. I am going to continue to play around a while longer before admitting defeat. Since I do a lot of batch processing, I would like to see if I can find a generic and repeatable solution for any type of image, i.e. how Aperture should work.
My tests today have found that decreasing the 'vibrancy', in Aperture, rather than 'saturation' seems the best way to bring back the details lost in blues. Of course, this also affects the other colours too, and not in linear way, but it seems a more universal solution compared to playing around with curves and the colour brick. My current thinking is to do my processing in raw, and then, as a last step, export the final images to Photoshop. Here I can create a generic action/droplet to correct for the loss in 'vibrancy' in the other colours. I think using alpha masks will provide more control with this task, hence Photoshop. I will be happy to post the action if I am successful.
Can I ask a favour please, wolframs? I tried to download your Nef and Jpg sample files from your dropbox, in the 'Strange blue colour' thread, but they are no longer available. Could you re-upload them please? I have created my test images in a controlled environment, and I think it would be good to have real world images to test.