Quote Originally Posted by Lars View Post
Just one question from one that spends little time on "pixel-peeking". How does bad raw-conversion manifest itself? What should I look for? I usually use DPP, but use Aperture for selected nature shots, like birds, landscape and macro (I like the work-flow, and the album and labelling / tagging of pictures).

Lars
I wouldn't even say pixel peeping is necessary. Import a bunch of RAWs into Aperture. Click on one and you will see it up come up on the main edit window. You will see it one way, fairly flat and higher dynamic range, then it drastically change to a higher contrast and saturated version. That is Apples interpretation of what they think the starting point should be. Unfortunately Steve Jobs wanted to simplify photography for everyone and he must have thought RAWs were a ridiculous thought that complicated things. So they essentially are giving you a processed RAW so that you have a good looking photo to start with.

Also, I think, since they aren't gearing this to pros anymore, they think that if the photo looks better upon import in Aperture consumers will think Aperture does a better job processing RAWs.

Sadly, the behind the scenes work Aperture does is very difficult to undo. I can come close but the images get noisier than I think is acceptable. On top that it is very time consuming and it is variable so it is difficult to make a preset.