turn off automatic processing on import

What kind of processing do you want to turn off? On import Aperture may do four things: Face detection, generation of previews, scanning for places, raw processing (if you are importing raw). If you have added an Apple Script as import action, this will be performed to.

In the Aperture preferences > Import panel you can set Aperture to use camera generated previews, if available, and the general preview settings are in the Preview preferences panel.

Face detection can be disabled in the "general" tab of the preferences panel, and "Places" in the "Advanced" panel.

So, which processing do you want to disable, and why?

Regards

Léonie

Aperture (and all Apple programs that render RAW data to an image) use the 'Camera RAW compatibility' function of OS X.

When you import your RAW data files into Aperture, the process simply copies the file into the Aperture library by default (or leaves in current location if you specify that option). Aperture simply renders the data into a viewable image file in the form of a JPEG preview. You can change some parameters in the RAW Fine Tuning brick in Aperture to change the render if you wish, but the Camera RAW compatibility function is designed by Apple to read that specific data from that camera in a specific way as determined by Apple engineers.

Note - Aperture does not actually alter the RAW file data on import or anytime after (other than one specific situation where you tell Aperture to write metadata to the Master - which is not a default setting). Your RAW data file is treated as 'Read-Only' by default.

Basically, you can't have Aperture show you a viewable image without the processing function of OS X.

Alternatively, you can use a Referenced library to allow other programs access to the RAW data and render in their own way (e.g., Adobe Camera RAW / Lightroom, Capture One or vendor proprietary software). This does come with some higher maintenance requirements on file management though. 😉

RAW describes a family of proprietary sensor-data file formats. It is not an image format. You cannot see a RAW file. RAW files must be converted to image-format files in order to be displayed. That's what RAW Converters do.

If you don't apply any adjustments (either at import or after), the "Revert to Original" button at the bottom of the Adjustment tab of the Inspector should be grayed out. What adjustments have been applied? (They show at Bricks with a checked box.)

Not even one of these posts is answering the question. not one...

Yes, they are.

Here's the thing: A raw image is not a picture. It doesn't have RGB values for pixels. It MUST be interpreted by the raw converter to be displayed as a picture. And that's what Aperture (well, OS X actually) does.

Presumably the request to have Aperture not do any "auto processing" means that the OP wants Aperture to render the raw files EXACTLY as the camera does in its JPEG previews, so that after images are imported they do not appear to change. This isn't possible either, because the algorithms that the cameras use to generate these JPEGs are proprietary, and are not available to Apple (or to Adobe, or anyone else).

So that's the truth. Because you don't understand the situation doesn't mean the question isn't answered.

Here is the thing:

What prevents me from believing that this is the whole truth, is that the pictures get rendered correctly(or better as i expect them to look correct) in first place and than the colors(and appearantly brightness) change.

Color Space on my DSLR is set to sRGB.

When i set Aperture to also use sRGB, i normally would not expect such behaviour.

So still no answer...

It is indeed a fact that one should expect people to know what a RAW file is, when they deal with a dedicated RAW converter application...

Meanwhile i thought a little about it and i guess it could have to do with some colorspace setting in Aperture.

That is also no answer, but better than an explanation on what a raw converter does.

The color space means nothing when shooting RAW files. RAW files do not have a color space. The sRGB color space is used by the camera for generating the JPEG preview, which is embedded in the RAW file so it can be displayed on the back of the camera. Also you can't set Aperture to sRGB; Aperture uses its own internal color space. The sRGB setting only applies when you are rendering files out that MUST have a color space to make sense: Either a TIFF to open in an external editor (i.e. Photoshop) or you're outputting a file like a JPEG that you'll be putting on a web site.

Again, what Aperture is doing is displaying the JPEG preview (which is small... nowhere near the pixel dimensions of the RAW file) when it initially imports it. If you set "quick preview" mode on in Aperture, then you will continue to see this image for a long time. You could even set the color space to black & white in camera if you want an extreme case.

But when Aperture has to render the RAW file itself, it will do its own rendering, based on the OS X RAW converter. And that's what you'll see. The JPEG preview will get a color shift, and if you shot black & white, the image will suddenly be in color.

There is no "correct" rendering of a RAW file. You are comparing Aperture's default rendering to the camera's default rendering, which is based on what you've set on the camera (you could choose camera portrait, faithful, landscape, black & white, etc.). All of these will give vastly different results, and all will vary from what Aperture gives you (which is likely based on what Apple's engineers have come up with as a "best effort" from extensive testing). Again... different, not right or wrong.

To disagree here just shows you don't understand how things work, not that the question is not answered.

Thank you for explaining the whole thing again. Still i think that people who get to see this thread, just want to know, how to get near the picture they expect from what they see on their camera.

So maybe i do not know every step a raw processor takes and if it cares about color space settings.

But i do know that the question in its meaning itself, is still not answered.

Every average joe (like me) would only want to know how to get as closest as can be on what they see on their cameras.

And even if it is a fact that the average joe (just like me) does not know how all this works..., they expect an answer to a question. Not an explanation on how things work.

It is not my duty to know everything as an end user.

Again, the question is asking for what steps to take, to get results very close to what a user sees on his camera.

This would help out.

An explanation about RAW-Processing just does not do the trick.

It maybe shows that one knows this and that about RAW-Processing, but it does not solve the problem the user has, who proposed the question.

Maybe he did not ask right. But when one knows how all things work, some other would expect him to take a good guess what is the actual problem of the user who proposed the question in first place and hope that he who knows all that will help him out.

Good night.

Well, the problem is that there is no easy recipe to make the Aperture default renders look like the JPEG you get from the camera. There are many possible settings on camera (as I stated above) and so you'd have to try and guess at the settings and define an import preset that gave a closest approximation to what you want.

Now Lightroom does have some camera preset settings that attempt to approximate the camera generated JPEGs, based on some work that Adobe has done. I don't know how good these defaults are, but they exist. No such analogues exist in Aperture (there may be some third party presets that attempt to do it, but I just work from whatever Aperture starts with as it's pretty good; better than the camera JPEGs by a longshot). But I think I have the camera JPEGs set to neutral because that way I get the most accurate histogram information as it's closest to what the RAW file captured.

The original question:

How do I turn off automatic processing when files are imported?

The answer, implied and explained, but not clearly specified:

The "automatic processing" to which you refer is the conversion of the RAW file. There is no way to turn this off: RAW files much be converted.

You can import either RAW or JPEG files, or both, from your digicam. If you import both, you can set either as the file that Aperture will use as the base file on which adjustments are applied. If you import RAW only, the file will be converted by the OS X RAW converter. If you import JPG, that file will be used.

Clear now?

Then you say:

What prevents me from believing that this is the whole truth, is that the pictures get rendered correctly(or better as i expect them to look correct) in first place and than the colors(and appearantly brightness) change.

Of course it is truthful, and wholly so. We are not bullshitters here. That's how Aperture works. This is covered in the User Manual (here, the first link on a search of the User Manual for "Preview"), and has been covered dozens and perhaps hundreds of times in this forum.

Then you say:

Still i think that people who get to see this thread, just want to know, how to get near the picture they expect from what they see on their camera.

and

Every average joe (like me) would only want to know how to get as closest as can be on what they see on their cameras.

and

they expect an answer to a question. Not an explanation on how things work.

Use the JPG file made by your camera. This is easy, simple, not confusing, and widely-understood. There is no reason to use RAW if you are satisfied with the JPG the camera creates, less than no reason if you don't want to know how RAW works.

And a suggestion: when asking for advice, tell us what _you_ want. Don't cloak your desire in blanket generalities that start with "people want to know" (tell us what _you_ want to know), "They expect", and the like.

As someone who uses RAW, understands RAW, and records RAW files in order to take advantage of what RAW offers that JPG doesn't, the last thing I want is for the converted RAW file to mimic in-camera JPGs. You find it hard to understand why your converted RAW file is different from the camera-created JPG; for me it would be a suspicious and fatal flaw if it did.

HTH,

--Kirby.

Again:

Even if people think they are the only ones in the world who know what RAW conversion is. It will not become a truth.

Again:

Still i think that people who get to see this thread, just want to know, how to get near the picture they expect from what they see on their camera. (Or in import preview...)

Again:

Every average joe (like me) would only want to know how to get as closest as can be on what they see on their cameras.

Again:

When one uses a a RAW-Converter you can expect him to know what a RAW is, because most of the people who deal with computers are indeed capable of reading.(sorry for the sarcasm)

That is the reason why:

they expect an answer to a question. Not an explanation on how things work.

Again:

But when one knows how all things work, some other would expect him to take a good guess what is the actual problem of the user who proposed the question in first place and hope that "he who knows all that" will help him out.

So why again another explanation on what a RAW file is and does?

Does this reply help in any way ? Ask yourself...

You said:

There is no reason to use RAW if you are satisfied with the JPG the camera creates, less than no reason if you don't want to know how RAW works.

To make it clear: I (for myself) use RAW since i shoot with DSLR's.

Just because i am able to take a shot that completely satisfies me, i wont accept the disadvantage of jpg.

(Because not every shot will be perfect.)

If you think about it, a photographer will only take the detour of RAW-Editing if he has to. If...

About cloaking:

I dont know what you are talking about here. A blanket is something people have in their beds. (to me)

(Sorry, english is not my native language)

Since all the replies here look the same to me and lead to nothing and the last post reminds me at something that screams very loud and knocks on his chest with his fists... I will give up on this.

So, enjoy yourself...

patar0k wrote:

Since all the replies here look the same to me and lead to nothing

I think you are drawing the wrong conculusion from your observation. IME, when smart, sophisticated, knowledgeable, and caring people all tell me the same thing, it has always been my understanding that was inadequate.

Hi kirby

Hope I will get a resolve on this too. I been happy But have gad to re go through many imported Raw images .

reason I sort this information to day, is that last night , i photographed a Rose that was Under low light. When importing them as normal. I noticed as each one showed up on the screen. I wash shocked to see the none reducing and the reds burning out.

The rose looks terrible even after playing with the tools to bring it back..

What i had to do was delete them all. Re down load them and speedily Holt the processing by going into the wherly thing at the bottom of the window that shows down loading and then goes into processing.

This is what need to be stopped. How ?

All the best