Aperture RAW conversion sucks at low light

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Prodo123, Jul 10, 2012.

  1. Prodo123 macrumors 68020

    Prodo123

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    #1
    So I was editing photos on Aperture after a recent import.
    Then I noticed that the dark areas looked as if it was a GIF file, not a TIF.
    Whatever I tried to improve the lowlight areas, it wouldn't work.

    Then I reimported in Photoshop CS6. Boom, no problems, no artifacts, almost no noise. But cumbersome as heck.

    Does anyone else have this problem? Or have I been spoiled by CS6's amazing RAW conversion?
     
  2. noteple macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2011
    #2
    Is the camera supported?
    You didn't mention what it was
     
  3. Prodo123 thread starter macrumors 68020

    Prodo123

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    #3
    550D
    If it wasn't supported it would not be able to read the RAW file in the first place...
     
  4. noteple macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2011
    #4
    I know it may sound to you like the equivalent of " is it plugged it?"
    But it's a fair question for those who might be sucking in embedded jpegs.

    Having said that love low light on my 5d mkII though Aperture isn't my first choice.

    Best wishes with your rebel
     
  5. Prodo123 thread starter macrumors 68020

    Prodo123

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    #5
    Embedded JPEGs are deleted with any edits; they are only used for Master previews.
    Which I have disabled.
     
  6. jabbott macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2009
    #6
    I've noticed a similar effect as well when comparing Aperture 3 to Lightroom 4. LR4's RAW conversion for the T2i/550D seems much better than Aperture overall. I would have switched already if it weren't for the tedious migration process.
     
  7. cupcakes2000 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    #7
    Is this a problem then? I have only ever used Aperture to convert my raw files, and I must admit, I have always being slightly dissapointed with the low light abilities of my 7D.
    I have photoshop CS6, I think I'll do a comparison... but it would be a right pain to migrate to Lightroom. Although, I guess I could just start using Lightroom as of now, and keep the old stuff in Aperture... Hmmmmmmmm!
     
  8. Prodo123 thread starter macrumors 68020

    Prodo123

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    #8
    I really love how Aperture organizes my library. I can't deal with LR4's date-based system. Switching would really, REALLY suck...
    It didn't do this before. Maybe Apple has been tweaking the RAW converter with each update and it's gotten worse?
     
  9. cupcakes2000 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    #9

    Whoops! I have just kind of made the switch! Haaaaa! Trial for now, but I will be buying it!

    I think I am going to just do new work in LR instead of moving things over. I still like and will use Aperture, especially whilst I'm learning Lightroom.
    But my first impressions are that it does convert the raw better, and you have much more control I feel over the conversion.
    I think the way it stores Photos isn't as intuitive as Aperture, and the layout is a bit more confusing, but really its about the image quality and the tools set available. Unfortunately for Apple, Adobe's photo developing software is a little better at the moment.

    I have just shot a wedding, and it was miserable flat grey rainy British lunchtime light. I have been able to pull a much better picture from LR than Aperture from some less than ideal exposures. I'm pretty impressed to be honest.
     
  10. snberk103 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Location:
    An Island in the Salish Sea
    #10
    Just a quick hint to the Aperture to Lr switchers above - you have a couple of options. 1) Use Collections and Collection Sets to duplicate the library organization you have in Aperture. This lets Lr use it's preferred date format library structure, and you get the folders you already know. 2) Use Keywords and Smart Collections (nested in Collections Sets if necessary) to sort images into a structure you are used to using.

    The 1st option takes a bit more work since you have to sort after the import process (but most images from a single import I would think would be sorted into at most 3 or four Collections, so about 30 seconds of work). This option allows you sequence images within the Collection however you want. The second option sorts your images into the Smart Collections during the import process - no extra work. However, you can't change the sequence order within the Smart Collection.

    Luck.
     

Share This Page