.X3F ( Foveon ) is not supported in 1.5. LightRoom is going to get my money

The choice is yours. But balance the lack of support for the RAW process with all the other library functions, adjustments and management capabilities within the proven workflow and highly productive GUI. Lightroom offers the RAW support, but you need to score all the other components and come to an overall judgement for yourself. If that is Lightroom, go forth and prosper.

G

You may find this site of interest: http://www.juvalamu.com/qmarks/

Mac OS X (10.4.7)

Just out of curiosity, which Foveon-based camera are you using?

You may find this site of interest:
http://www.juvalamu.com/qmarks/

Mac OS X (10.4.7)

LOL thanks that "made" my day (-:

is popularity or sales stats of " Digital Cameras "
the determining factor for being supported (
included ) in Apples Aperture ?

Yes, and that is as it should be. After all Apples goal would be to try and support as many users as possible, as soon as possible.

Adobe's LightRoom is supporting " X3F " even at beta
level. And no i refuse to bring " 16 bit " Tifs to
Aperture as it's been suggested in previous posts.

Why? I believe the phrase here is "cutting off your nose to spite your face".

I have a SD-10 too (and soon an SD-14, and possibly a DP1). Would I love to see X3F as a supported format? Absolutley, but I realize the reality that Apple has to work thier way into supporting it. In the meantime I am not willing to go without a tool as powerful as Aperture is and is becoming.

Look at it this way, if they already supported X3F then you'd probably have to wait a long, long time before they got around to SD-14 support. Now as they grow closer to a time when they may include X3F support it will probably also include the SD-14 (and DP1) as it should be released by the time Apple gets around to supporting X3F. Come to think of it, are you sure Lightroom supports SD-14 X3F files? Lightroom just got lucky because Adobe started a lot longer ago down the same path Apple is taking, and so ACR already had X3F support when Lightroom picked it up as an engine.

In the meantime, for ANY camera (not just Foveon) that is not supported by Aperture importing 16-bit TIFF files is a great way to use the application. You get access to every tool in the application except RAW Fine Tune, and if you already have a good converter you don't need that.

With the new offline support in 1.5 this workflow gets even better, because you can more wantonly dispose of the "heavy" 16-bit TIFF files after you are done editing, and bring them back on demand if further editing or you have an advanced use where the high-quality JPG preview will not do. And a side benefit to importing TIFFs into Aperture that people often overlook is that you can edit these "master" files for complex photoshop work and have all the versions based on that master change automatically.

I know you really want support, I do as well and have been lobbying for it - but don't look on it as a slight when it is not one. Instead just realize that Apple only has so much time to add support for things.

iPhoto is for everyone. Aperture is advertised as a pro application. In my opinion emphasis should be placed on providing functionality to cameras the pros would use as this is their intended market. I don't expect to see working pro's using mass marketed digicam for their work. People trying to make a living work very hard to deliver a unique style of image, and often go to lengths to find unusual lenses or camera gear to get a differentiated look. You can expect them to be using very unpopular gear in terms of sales volume. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong in assuming that Aperture is a pro application designed for working pros.

One of Apertures shortcomings is that it is tied to the OS. Since the OS is created for 'everyone' and the pro apps are designed for niche markets this puts the two at odds and Aperture looses. Basically it appears that the group working on RAW support is supporting iPhoto and the OS and Aperture is left hanging in the breeze.

This repeated objection to the support for RAW formats existing in OS is peculiar. By doing things this way Apple provides the ability to utilize RAW image data throughout the OS, as well as to any developer who wishes to make use of the simple API. As one of those, I think it's fantastic. To me, this is a much better approach than going through all the work of building these image import capabilities and then restricting them to just Aperture.

So I don't think this is a shortcoming in any way.

I can understand your frustrations here. If I had a digital camera that was not supported I too would want it in. However I have a Canon 1DS, so I'm quite content, but I do worry about what will happen when I get a replacement that may not be supported immediately.

The problem is not that the Sigma SD series are unusual cameras; the problem is that they take up such a small market share that it is difficult for Apple to justify spending the time to a) write the raw decoding into OSX b) write the enhanced support into Aperture. All those consumer digicams may not be pro cameras, but there are many people who own them (for example a professional with a Nikon D2X may also have a Canon G6 and wants to be able to use the same tool).

There's no doubt in my mind that the Sigma cameras offer something different to the Canons and Nikons out there and full credit to them for pushing the boundaries.

The best thing for anyone who wants their camera's RAW format included directly in OSX / Aperture is for them to submit their feedback at:

http://www.apple.com/feedback/aperture.html

Try to be polite and say please 🙂

The more the merrier. If only 100 people who have an SD-10 say they want in and 100000 people with a 400D say they want in, who do you think Apple will target first?

Provide feedback and try to stir up as much support as possible through that same channel. I've learnt that griping on this forum gets you nowhere with Apple.

Whilst it may seem strange that Apple have added RAW support for point-and-shoots rather then other 'Pro' D-SLRS, it is possible that RAW files from these cameras vary only slightly from their 'Professional' bretheren, so including RAW support for them was a trivial task.

I'm not saying that this is the case, but it is a possibility.

Does anyone know if there is consistancy with supported Canon cameras by DIGIC / DIGIC II etc (i.e. are all DIGIC & DIGIC II cameras supported)? PErhaps all cameras sharing a image processing engine share a RAW format?

Steve