Does aperture do camera specific fixes?

Sony supply this software that does the fixing but does Aperture have this feature built in? Is it not working for me because my camera is too new?

No, Aperture does not do lens correction. You can use plug-ins (for example PTlens (ePaperPress)) to correct the lens distortion.

I pointed to the plug-in linked from Aperture's plug-in page http://www.apple.com/aperture/resources/plugins.html

Not all links there are up to date - just google for the name of the products you see there.

Have you checked to see if the lens you want corrected is in the PTLens database? Lenses are added without changing the version number. (See here.) The developer has always been willing to add profiles for lenses that are not already included.

Now that manufacturers are designing and producing lenses that need software correction, I suspect manufacturer-specified lens correction will slowly become an integral part of the processing workflow. (And, fwiw, that we will see a "RAW+correction instructions" file format.)

(It seems that it is now less expensive to reach acceptable IQ with a lens designed to be corrected, and lens correction software, that with a lens alone. My guess is that this will lead to a quite revolution in lens production, as photographers won't necessarily need very expensive "glass" in order to get state-of-the-art IQ.)

Do you have the SELP1650 lens? (Afaict, no one here in the US does.) If you have the lens, find and follow the instructions on the PT site for providing the shots the developer needs to create a new profile.

Note that camera and lens selection today may include workflow decisions involving lens correction. Lenses that are designed to be used with software lens correction are one of the "costs" of smaller, lighter systems and less expensive lenses like the Sony Nex system and (perhaps -- I don't have any experience with it) the SELP1650 in particular.

Fwiw, " ... quiet revolution ... ", not " ... quite revolution". Sorry 😊 .

I thought you had it right the first time it is quite the revolution! 😉

Perhaps we can do away with cameras altogether. Just have sensors placed all around and have the images just sort of ooze into the computer and out the other end.

Just have sensors placed all around and have the images just sort of ooze into the computer and out the other end.

You'll need inconspicious sensors that blend in with the surroundings - just like the omnipresent radar speed traps. 😝

It has dystopian tinges:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticism

aapl.crox wrote:

So I guess my best alternative right now is to use other software and export it as TIFF? I guess I will lose some data?

Use 16-bit TIFF and you'll be hard-pressed to _find_ anything missing. The disadvantages of 16-bit TIFF compared to RAW are:

- can be larger (many mfr's use a near-lossless RAW compression algorithm -- it removes data that the camera records but which the eye can't see)

- WB, white point, black point, and other parameters are "baked into" the file, resulting in a less "head-room" for adjustments.

I don't know the Sony software, but you might, as a starting workflow, go from camera to Sony's software, convert from RAW, set the above parameters, apply lens correction, export as 16-bit TIFF, and import into Aperture. You should keep your RAW files in case you want/need to go back to them, but in most cases having the corrected 16-bit TIFF as your Original in Aperture is likely to be more than usable.

I do something similar with a Sigma camera (DP2M). For me, the serpentine workaround adds enough encumbrance to outweigh whatever benefits the camera provides, so I end up dorking around in my full-frame truck when a sports car might win me more dates. Others feel otherwise 😉 .

You don't lose it -- you just don't have it available in Aperture. I do think this will change in the coming couple of years, but for the time being, the answer is (NB: afaik) yes -- for the camera and lens you are using. You might consider changing those if they are not providing the data you want in the format you want.

The designation "professional" is not one I've ever been comfortable using. When I worked in contracting (i.e.: building), we often heard the expression "Good enough for commercial work!", which meant "reliable, but probably a little sloppy, and _not_ something you would leave if you were working for a homeowner". It was a useful distinction. I have found that professionals in many fields use a similar measuring stick. Professionals get paid. IME, it is rare that they can stay in business doing their best. Everyone, however, benefits from a smooth workflow. Using lenses that require software correction drops rocks in that stream: ripples are sure to be produced, and possibly cascades. The question for you is "Is navigating those ripples worth the gains I get in using this tool?" Only you can decide.