Keith,
what would be the destructive stuff? Could it be avoided with different camera defaults in the RAW fine tuning Boost, Hue Boost, and also the Black point compensation? Or is there more?
thanks,
Keith,
what would be the destructive stuff? Could it be avoided with different camera defaults in the RAW fine tuning Boost, Hue Boost, and also the Black point compensation? Or is there more?
thanks,
Arnt
btw I just noticed that Apple updated the raw engine with one of the past updates. I had a saved setting that says v3.0, a new saved setting says v4.0. The out-of-the-box defaults are now different at least for the Moire now being all the way to the left, I believe. Not sure if for the better, so far I cannot see a significant difference when I reprocess one of the older images
Arnt
I have taken those all the way down they don't really help. The problem I'm having with photos of LED lights with hot spots takes a bunch of contrast, black point, highlight and shadow manipulation.Originally Posted by ahab1372
The aggravating thing is, the images look normal while Aperture is 'processing" them and when it's done all the colors fill in in the hot spots. This is is really exaggerated with the color purple. Aperture really can't handle purple.
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.
I'm sure it's not a coincidence that I see the same sort of shift when toggling my Macs' display calibration between the properly calibrated (X-Rite i1) profile and Apple's default Color LCD profile.
Aperture is great for library management, but there's a reason I do my RAW conversions with DxO...
Bummer. Now you guys got me thinking, and there goes the blessing of ignorance.
I knew I can get better results if I move all the sliders to the left in the Raw Fine Tuning, especially with problematic shots, and I have yet to look for some examples that Keith described, and also re-process some of my images.
A quick comparison showed DPP < Aperture < GraphicConverter, but the latter was not as flat as Aperture, so with a little tweaking Aperture might be on par. I would hate to give up the convenience of using only one tool, but I will do some more comparisons with selected shots.
Arnt
My problem (I guess) is that I work on an Apple laptop, and the screen is excellent for viewing pictures. However, when I print pictures, I am usually disappointed by lack of contrast and definition. So I understand now that apple has made a good tool for processing pictures so they look great on their own screens.
Would you recommend that I do the raw-conversion in photoshop instead, and then transfer to Aperture?
Maybe I should just shoot black/white, then this would not be a problem.
Lars
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote