Workflow with XP1 RAW files Aperture

[jonasv]

Apparently the process described below does not work with the XP1. It was worth a try.


First off: I don't have an XP1, I have an X100, and Aperture happily supports my RAW (RAF) files.

That said, I do not open them directly in Aperture, but first have Adobe DNG Convertor turn them into DNGs. Then I import them in Aperture. For me, there are many advantages to this approach...

1) All my RAW files (Nikons, X100; NEF, RAF) are turned into ONE very common open source format (without quality loss). This puts my mind at ease about future compatibility.

2) I don't like Aperture hiding all my files in it's Library... I like to put them in a place that I can choose, using a folder structure that I can choose, etc. If I want to switch to LR tomorrow, I can do so straight away and import my folders, images etc easily.

3) I import in Aperture using 'referenced files'... meaning I can store the master files on a separate HD which is an asset for my backup and storage strategy.

4) When importing images, Aperture does not slow down, I can keep working on my other photos. Adobe is doing the work in the background. "Importing" the referenced files afterwards only takes a second.


This workflow is also described here: http://xposurepro.com/aperture/apert...lt-dng-capture

SO MY POINT IS...
(you've been waiting for this haven't you )

This would be a pretty good solution for XP1+Aperture users?

This is a very good and efficient workflow, which I choose even though Aperture supports my X100 files...

Sorry if everyone knew this already. Just wanted to share.

[tom.w.bn]

Originally Posted by jonasv

1) All my RAW files (Nikons, X100; NEF, RAF) are turned into ONE very common open source format (without quality loss). This puts my mind at ease about future compatibility.

When you open a RAW File in different RAW converters then the result looks a bit different because of the different recipes the converters are using.

If you opened an M8 DNG file with a generic DNG recipe instead of an M8 recipe then it does not look really good. So for good quality it's important, that your RAW converter knows something about the camera.

So is there really an advantage for converting everything to DNG? What compatibility advantage do you see? If Adobe drops X100 RAW support in 5 years then with your DNG files your are able to open them but the result will not be the same as today.

[jonasv]

Originally Posted by tom.w.bn

When you open a RAW File in different RAW converters then the result looks a bit different because of the different recipes the converters are using.

If you opened an M8 DNG file with a generic DNG recipe instead of an M8 recipe then it does not look really good. So for good quality it's important, that your RAW converter knows something about the camera.

I'm not too sure about that - I think there is something to be said for consistency as well. My Tri-X didn't look different coming from a Leica or a Nikon, just depended on lens, exposure, ... Okay, the sensors are different. But seriously, an X100 RAF vs an X100 DNG is not different, and the DNG certainly doesn't discard any information.

I understand you might like this better, though. But I was suggesting it for XP1 owners who want to use Aperture anyway, which doesn't support XP1 RAW.

Originally Posted by tom.w.bn

So is there really an advantage for converting everything to DNG? What compatibility advantage do you see? If Adobe drops X100 RAW support in 5 years then with your DNG files your are able to open them but the result will not be the same as today.

I'm not too sure what you are saying? I'd rather have an image which looks "different" (in your words - in my words that would be "more consistent" and thus better) than no image at all?

On the advantages of DNG:

http://www.photoshop.com/tutorials/7224
http://mansurovs.com/dng-vs-raw
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/benefits.htm

[tom.w.bn]

"Different" and "Consistent" are absolutely two different pair of shoes. It seems you don't know what I'm talking about and I'm sorry that I don't know what you're talking about.

If you want absolutely consistent looking files now and in the future then you should save your processed files in TIF or JPG Format. Then there is no interpretation necessary.

[jonasv]

Originally Posted by tom.w.bn

"Different" and "Consistent" are absolutely two different pair of shoes. It seems you don't know what I'm talking about and I'm sorry that I don't know what you're talking about.

If you want absolutely consistent looking files now and in the future then you should save your processed files in TIF or JPG Format. Then there is no interpretation necessary.

You say it's better not to convert but to stick to the original RAW format. Or to "use the original recipe", in your words.
Simple answer: the XP1 RAW format is not supported by Aperture, so there is no such recipe.

I posted about a method which does allow you to streamline working with the XP1, RAW and Aperture, for those who want to, which is why I posted this in the XP1 forum and not in digital processing as I understand that a lot of people will find it easier not doing this conversion. There have been a lot of XP1 users saying they wanted to use XP1+RAW+Aperture.

That was all I wanted to saying. Well, before starting to muddy the issue by adding a lot of personal opinions about the various advantages of dng


PS. Forget about the consistent vs different - I was talking about the conversion from RAW to DNG (which is a one-time thing, so the DNG stays 'consistent'), you were talking about the RAW to jpg/tiff/... conversion. Which will indeed be different depending on the program used. So that explains the misunderstanding.

[nickw]

Neat idea. Thank for sharing. I never knew you could do this.

Question:
What settings do you use for converting?
I've successfully converted my RAF to DNG (tried 7.1, 6.6 & 2.4) and can open it in PS/Camera-raw, but neither is readable by Aperture (3.3.2).

Cheers,
Nick.

[jonasv]

Originally Posted by nickw

Neat idea. Thank for sharing. I never knew you could do this.

Question:
What settings do you use for converting?
I've successfully converted my RAF to DNG (tried 7.1, 6.6 & 2.4) and can open it in PS/Camera-raw, but neither is readable by Aperture (3.3.2).

Cheers,
Nick.

I have the DNG convertor set to 7.1 and later.
My Aperture is version 3.2.3.

Hope that helps?

[nickw]

Seems odd that Aperture 3.2.3 would read them and 3.3.2 wont?

[nickw]

Ahh, I just saw that you're shooting an X100. I have a XP1.
So aperture still can't read it as it doesn't support the camera.

[jonasv]

Originally Posted by nickw

Ahh, I just saw that you're shooting an X100. I have a XP1.
So aperture still can't read it as it doesn't support the camera.

Ah, it was worth a try. I guessed it would work because it's first converted to DNG, but apparently not.

I added a warning in the first post...

Sorry for getting your hopes up!

[anthony_semone]

Nope, I can confirm that indeed it doesn't work