Finder, PictureProject, ShoeBox, Photoshop ... Aperture?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Seventy5, Sep 11, 2006.

  1. Seventy5 macrumors newbie

    Sep 7, 2006
    Dundee, Scotland
    Hi there,

    If you have experience with how the Finder, PictureProject, ShoeBox, Photoshop and Aperture handle raw images, please read on.

    I'll cut straight to the chase here. I shoot raw only but with the camera set to 'Vivd/More Vivid' just in case I make a quick to change to JPEG during shooting. Recently I started importing images using Nikon PictureProject Transfer into a back up folder, then importing into Aperture for processing. Normally my workflow involves dismissing PictureProject without even looking at the images, as I found it unbearably slow with my D70, then going straight to Aperture for processing.

    That out the way I can now get to the point of this post. I happened to leave PictureProject open the other day after importing some images and was stunned by what I saw. PictureProject applies whatever in camera processing I have selected, 'more vivid' as it turns out, meaning that I could apply a small amount of sharpening then export the image with rich vibrant colours without any further processing.

    This has led me to check out the images in several applications with the following result:
    Finder previews the NEF file with in camera processing applied.
    Shoe Box shows (thumbs and large) the image with in camera processing applied.
    Photoshop (whether image opened from the Finder, or within Photoshop) shows the image with in camera processing applied.
    Nikon PictureProject recognises the in camera processing.
    Aperture disregards the in camera processing altogether. Why would Aperture ignore this information when the Finder uses it?

    Has anyone else come across this? I am currently experimenting with using Shoe Box to browse and then open files in Photoshop (Photoshop USM kicks the arse of any other sharpening I'd use anyway). I still like Aperture, but with my camera set up correctly I can get near Fuji Velvia (as far as I can tell) saturation with cracking image quality, which would start to increase noise and artifacts using Aperture.

    Any comments? Anyone got a workflow that uses this fact? Anyone think I'm mad for getting a little excited about this!?

    And before anyone says it, I am NOT slating Aperture or questioning whether I should have bought it or anything else you may like to start whining about, I am just in a state of amazement because I didn't realise ANY applications would apply the camera processing to a raw file. I am also curious if anyone has found a way to make Aperture respect the in camera processing.



    The 2 images below are just an example of the difference I am talking about. Bear in mind the 'More Vivid' setting used was not fine tuned, so the image is far from perfect, but it serves to show what a big difference is made when an application applies the processing straight from the camera.

    Dull and boring - straight from Aperture
    DSC_179520060727-133023 copy.jpg

    Rich and saturated - straight from PictureProject, Shoe Box, Photoshop and even the Finder!
    DSC_179520060727-133023_1 copy.jpg
  2. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Jan 5, 2006
    Redondo Beach, California
    You need to post one more example picture... The JPG stright off the camera. You will likley find it that it uses the camera seting exatly like the nikon software does. There is no reson to shoot raw if you are going to let the camera or the software use the camera settings.
  3. Seventy5 thread starter macrumors newbie

    Sep 7, 2006
    Dundee, Scotland

    Thanks ChrisA, but I am just looking at the majority of images being usable straight off the camera, not them all. If I only have to process my picks rather than every single image then I have scored well. And I'll always keep the raw file just as you would always keep negatives. Who knows when I might want to drag something out of the archive and try something different with it?


Share This Page